Lords Sitting of 26 June 1996

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

Lord Bingham of Cornhill
The Right Honourable Sir Thomas Henry Bingham, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of England, having been created Baron Bingham of Cornhill, of Boughrood in the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the Lord Woolf.

Company Directors: Remuneration
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they are taking to restrain the remuneration paid to senior directors in private companies.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government do not intend to intervene in what is essentially a matter for companies and their shareholders.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the expressed aims of this Government is to bring about a classless society? Does he agree that two of the essential ingredients of such a society are fairness and justice? How can the Government reconcile the vast salary increases and other payments that have been and are being made with the increases that some people receive which normally barely cover the rate of inflation, to say nothing of the great poverty which exists in some parts of the country? In those circumstances, is it not essential, in spite of what the Minister said, that radical changes should be made?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes what the Prime Minister said on taking up office; he also said that remuneration should be justified by company performance and affordability. If the noble Lord believes that a classless society is indeed desirable, I am sure that he must view with concern the severance packages that members of the AEEU have settled for themselves which allow a number of people to receive up to £500,000. I would guess that they would attract the same strictures from him.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that most private companies are family businesses and the shareholding is
916
very narrow? It would be intolerable if the government of the day intervened to set the remuneration of directors in a family business.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. I am sure he agrees with our proposal to amend the provisions of the Companies Act in relation to the disclosure requirements concerning directors' pay and pensions to bring them into line with the recommendations that Greenbury made and which have already been implemented or are about to be implemented under the Stock Exchange listing rules. Requiring greater disclosure and transparency is one thing; an attempt to limit what people should be paid is quite another.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, should not the Government be congratulated upon their loyalty to the first principle of capitalism? I refer to the prosperity of the few at the cost of the many.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought that that was a policy now adopted on the Benches opposite. We are looking at companies that have been and are continuing to be successful. How the directors are remunerated should be justified by the company's performance and affordability. It would certainly not do anything for the companies' or the country's economy if governments sought to intervene.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a lot has changed in recent years? Nowadays shareholders, commonly called "owners", and particularly institutional shareholders, take a considerable interest in the remuneration of directors, to the point of removing them from office from time to time. Does not the Minister further agree that attempts by both parties to introduce incomes policies have had one thing in common—they have been disastrous failures?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with greater experience of these matters than I can. I agree with him. On a more serious basis, we welcome the action of the Stock Exchange in introducing new listing rules to require compliance with the Greenbury recommendations. It is right that shareholders should know what is being paid to a director and that there should be new rules brought forward for disclosure of incentive schemes in the longer term for directors. I understand that that is to take place from mid-September, and it is to be welcomed.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend clear up a possible misunderstanding? The expression "private companies" as used in the original Question has a definite and restricted meaning in company law. Does his Answer apply to all companies, the shares of which may be privately owned and which are commonly called "public companies", or is it restricted to the narrow and proper meaning of the term "private companies"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as always my noble and learned friend reads the Question. My Answer was directed to the broader proposition and applies to all companies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if anybody really earns such huge sums of money, he cannot possibly have time to spend the money?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I could make a very good shot at it!
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, my noble friend is obviously right in saying that the remuneration of directors and senior managers is entirely a matter for the shareholders. Does he agree that the real problem is the very large sums of money paid to those who are dismissed for not having done their job properly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, those are the matters that I referred to when I made mention of what some members of the AEEU intend to offer themselves as regards severance pay. What is probably more startling is that the Daily Mirror has been whipping up public opinion to a frenzy over the issue of "fat cats". My noble friend may be interested to know that the managing director of Mirror Group Newspapers—and that newspaper is not always an accurate source of information—struggles by on a mere £693,000 per annum.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government should have concern for circumstances where directors are paid at a high level and that, in the absence of minimum pay rates, the Government are paying public money in the form of family credit out of the public purse because companies are paying below poverty level wages? How many times do the Government check the high levels of pay given to those at the top while they use taxpayers' money to subsidise family credit?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is some considerable way wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I was asked whether we would intervene in the remuneration paid to senior directors. It is wholly inappropriate that such a course should be followed.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the greatest public disquiet has been generated by the enormous increases in salaries paid to the directors of privatised but previously public utilities? To do him credit, the increases have been condemned by the Prime Minister. Now that it has become clear that the privatisation of British Energy will cost the taxpayer £7 billion, how much of that sum in taxpayers' money will end up as higher salaries for the directors of the company? Does the Minister consider that to be an appropriate use of taxpayers' money?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's appreciation of the stance that the Prime Minister has taken on this matter. As regards
918
British Energy, it has made it clear publicly already that it intends to abide by the Greenbury rules. That is to be welcomed.
I waited for the noble Lord's intervention with keen anticipation. He may recall that Mr. Ian McCartney, his colleague in another place, thought that it was a case of breathtaking double standards for executives to be able to cash in a six-figure golden handshake and share options. Double standards are being practised as regards redundancy, and that is a national disgrace. Given his reputation for integrity, I hope that the noble Lord will extend that criticism to the AEEU as well.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Government have said on more than one occasion that their policy is to try to persuade companies not to pay such vast increases, but that has manifestly failed. Why cannot the Government do something about that now? I did not raise the question of the trade unions; they are not private companies. But I do not dodge it. I disagree with what the unions propose as much as I disagree with what is happening in the private sector.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is a regrettable absence of agreement on that matter in another place. I have made it absolutely clear where the Government stand on the issue. We propose to amend the Companies Act disclosure requirements to bring them into line with the Greenbury rules. But it is a matter for shareholders to determine, and we are giving them the opportunity to be better informed in order to make the right decision.

Royal Navy: Support Vessels
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there is available an adequate number of British registered merchant ships, manned by British crews, to support the Royal Navy in overseas operations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government believe that there are sufficient British-registered and owned merchant ships and British crews to support the Royal Navy in overseas operations, if required. However, it is the Government's policy to charter on the international market. This approach ensures the greatest choice of ships and the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the time of the Falklands War in 1982 there were about 2,800 ships on the British register and that there are now about 400? Is he further aware that for ships of over 500 tonnes gross registered tonnage the comparable figures are 1,200 in 1982 and 259 now? Does he agree that the chartering of foreign ships is not always satisfactory because the crews are often reluctant, and may even be forbidden, to enter a war

919
zone? Does my noble friend further agree that these are matters of grave concern which warrant the setting up of an inquiry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not believe that that is the case. I agree with my noble friend that there has been a considerable reduction in the size of the British-registered fleet in the timescale that he described. However, the Government's policy of chartering has shown itself to be a flexible and workable approach, as demonstrated by our operations during the Gulf War.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount telling the House that at present the Government are capable of mobilising sufficient tonnage, whether British or otherwise, to fulfil our commitments in the Falklands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, our commitments to the Falklands and our way of going about things have now changed. In the intervening period since the Falklands War there has been a considerable change in the terms of maintaining a base there, including the arrangements for the runway and so forth. The fact is that we run exercises between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport, the Baltic Exchange and the Chamber of Shipping and other interested parties to make sure that we can mobilise shipping, be it British registered or chartered on the international market.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the Minister remember a recent exercise in which a large part of the British Navy crossed the Atlantic to the United States, for which it was necessary to charter some merchantmen in support? Can the noble Viscount tell the House how many British-flagged ships were able to be chartered and the nationalities of the others?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, subject to correction I understand that no British ships were chartered on that exercise and that although one was put up for charter it was not of the correct type. We must choose vessels that are of the right type, that are available and that meet our specifications. The British merchant fleet is efficient. Its vessels are largely fully dedicated. In such an exercise we cannot expect to see too much slack. The fact that the chartering arrangements worked bears testimony to our policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend really believe that the shipping resources available to this country at the moment are even remotely adequate, or does he think that that is stretching credulity a great deal too far?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. I have described our policy of chartering on the international market and of using the core British fleet where appropriate. The successful combination of those two sources of merchant shipping (which have shown themselves to be
920
available and able to be used) was demonstrated by the substantial operation in which we engaged for the Gulf conflict.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there has probably never been a period when the Royal Navy has been more hard pressed and more hard worked than it is now when it has inadequate resources? Is he aware that those of us who follow these matters are much more inclined to agree with the Question from the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, than with the Minister's rather complacent answers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I hope that my answers have not shown complacency. We follow these issues closely and study the situation with our partners at the Chamber of Shipping, also using organisations such as the Baltic Exchange. The Question revolved around the assets available to the Royal Navy, presumably in terms of fighting vessels. However, we are now more concerned with the ability of the merchant fleet to provide back-up. We are satisfied that that can be done. It will involve chartering on the open market.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the problem outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, is to a certain extent exacerbated by the changes in modern shipping? Many new ships are cellular container ships which need sophisticated off-loading cranes in ports and are therefore not really suitable for battlefield purposes. Does the Minister agree that manning is very much part of the problem? Is he aware that, although many young people in this country want to pursue careers at sea, because of the reduced size of our merchant fleet there are simply not enough places available to enable them to do that and we are therefore losing a body of talent which would be of use not only in any potential conflict, but also for all our seagoing purposes and in all our marine-related industries ashore?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the issue of the type and specification of such vessels. It is misleading to quote outright numbers or dead-weight tonnage. We need suitable vessels, such as heavily reinforced ro-ro ferries which can take armaments on board.
In terms of the number of British officers available, I can advise the noble Lord that we have been working with the industry to produce carefully targeted measures, such as the Government's assistance with the training and development of the certificated seafarers' scheme of which the noble Lord is well aware. Such schemes have been successful and we shall be pursuing them further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 12th June he referred to the state of British merchant shipping as "lean and efficient"? Would it not be more correct to regard it as anorexic rather than lean? Is the Minister aware that, contrary to what he said on that occasion and to what he has implied today, the

921
Chamber of Shipping is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of British shipping and about the failure to attract a sufficient intake of seafarers? According to the Chamber of Shipping, that will leave us ill-equipped to participate in the future potential for international shipping. At present we are 800 new entrants short of what is required. To echo the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is the Minister prepared to be much less "complacent" on this occasion and in future about the Government's actions to resuscitate the British merchant fleet?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords. I stand by what I said. I believe that the British merchant shipping industry is lean and efficient. To suggest otherwise, as did the noble Lord, is grossly to insult an industry which has shown itself to be highly competitive in competing with highly subsidised, inefficient overseas shipping companies. We have an industry which is a world leader in terms of cruising, the ro-ro industry and the high-tech and container industries. We have also seen considerable developments in our ports. We cannot turn back the clock. The world shipping industry has changed. It is up to our industry in the United Kingdom to become as efficient as possible and to compete on those terms. We have some carefully targeted measures which we believe are appropriate.

Treasury Outlook: Leaked Document
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of the recommendations of the internal report referred to in the Financial Times on 5th June they will take steps to change the outlook of the Treasury.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Financial Times article was based on selective quotations from a leaked draft document by a junior official. The Treasury is right to assess its outlook. It is an essential part of the change management programme which it is undertaking.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over the years many have thought the Treasury to be unduly arbitrary and secretive and not particularly good at figures? Is it not of some interest that the leaked document, whatever its source, seems to admit those shortcomings? Is the Minister further aware that this is not a new problem? With his considerable erudition, does he recall that in 1692 Samuel Pepys, who was not only a remarkable diarist but also a good administrator, complained as follows:
"the life of a virtuous administrator is a continual defensive war against Ministers of State and in particular against the Lords Treasurers and all other prejudiced inquisitors and malcontents"?
After 300 years is it not about time that the inquisitors and malcontents changed their spots?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not recall the incident and I congratulate the noble Lord if he does. My brief tells me that I should now say that the reputation of Treasury officials is not borne out by my personal experience (if true). I believe that it is true. I am always impressed by the officials that I meet at the Treasury in my capacity as their spokesman in your Lordships' House. They have a very difficult job, as some of your Lordships on both sides of the House who have served at the Treasury know—and that is to prevent spending departments, pressure groups and everybody else taking more and more of the taxpayers' money. I am afraid that it is not often the most popular job in government.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the most well-known sources of error in Treasury calculations is its failure to take into account the secondary effects of policies? Calculations are often hundreds of millions of pounds out. That has happened when the Treasury has failed to take into account the secondary effects of employment policies on tax and revenue. As any second-year undergraduate can make a reasonable stab at such calculations, why does the Treasury fail to take into account the secondary effects of policies and as a result gives erroneous advice which costs the taxpayer very large sums of money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Lord refer to second-year undergraduates. I sometimes wonder if the reason that the Treasury sometimes makes mistakes, as we all do, is that there are too many Cambridge graduates in the Treasury—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That may not be a universally popular view, but the fact is that the Treasury and other departments of government try to forecast and to foresee the behavioural and other consequences of policy and to judge what those policies may cost and what benefits they may bring. However, as the noble Lord well knows, economics is not an exact science—nor is prediction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone who tries to change the outlook of the Treasury is guilty of crazy optimism?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Treasury has a major responsibility for looking after the taxpayers' money, which is not always easy. It also has to do it against the background of a very changing world. One of the interesting matters to emerge from the report on the leaked document is that it draws attention to the considerable changes in world trade over the next 20 years as a result of the emergence of major players in the Far East. I should have thought that that was certainly something that all of us should take into account.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I draw to the attention of the noble Lord the necessity for him to point out to the Treasury that at present the taxpayer is paying £2·5 billion net to the European Union without any ascertainable return?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wondered how the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would introduce the European Union into this debate. There are other ways of doing it, but he has rather surprised me. I should have thought that our membership of the European Union was not something that could be decided on the simple question of the taxpayers' balance sheet. The other aspect is the importance of the European Union to us as a trading partner and the clout that it gives us around the world when it comes to trading matters, for example the World Trade Organisation and the like.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whatever criticism can be made of the Treasury, over a long period its policy has resulted in this country having an economy which is the envy of the rest of Europe?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Thanks to sensible government policy led by the Treasury, the United Kingdom is almost unique in Europe. It has a fast-growing economy, with unemployment falling and employment rising, which must be the envy of a few of the other major players in the European Union.

Set-aside Land: EU Rules
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether European Union rules prohibit the holding of charitable events on set-aside land where the landowner receives no payment for its use.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, European Union rules currently prohibit any lucrative use of set-aside land incompatible with the growing of an arable crop. The European Commission has ruled that this prohibition applies even when the proceeds go to charity rather than to the farmer. The Government consider this a totally unnecessary interference in rural life which contributes nothing to the control of agricultural production in the EU.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his encouragingly robust and sympathetic reply. In the short-term can the Minister suggest a solution to the problem faced by the Bicester and Finmere Horse Show, which over the past 35 years has raised many thousands of pounds mainly for the paraplegic sports movement? Owing to this absurd ruling, to date it has found no definite site for its show which is due to be held on 11th August.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the noble Baroness writes to me I shall see what the Ministry can do to help.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Minister says that the Government disagree with the decision of the EU. If they disagree, what will they do about it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have continued to press our case with the Commission very strongly. One of the difficulties is that all bureaucracies make daft decisions like this but in this country Parliament, the press and Ministers for the most part put the matter back on the straight and narrow. In the European Union the Council of Ministers is too part-time to have time to deal with it. With good reason, the European Union pays little attention to the British press. All I can say about the European Parliament is that I hope it can be encouraged to take up this aspect of European Union policy. It would be a useful thing to do.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that the countries which benefit under the common agricultural policy possess between them a large majority of the qualified majority votes which are necessary to change it, can my noble friend look forward to the happy day when the common agricultural policy itself may be set aside?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, generally I look ahead only in terms of tens of years rather than the time-scale to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it not ridiculous that a farmer can grow a non-food crop and graze cattle on set-aside land with the intention of making a profit but he cannot allow that land to be used to raise funds for charity? Does the Minister agree that this example of ridiculous regulation is a suitable candidate for a policy of non-co-operation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. It is a truly daft policy. To add to the noble Lord's list, one is allowed to grow opium poppies on the land.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say what happens if charities use set aside? Who will penalise them? Is not Britain a special case because it has more charities than most other European Union members?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware of any plan to introduce a horde of Belgian inspectors, all disguised as Hercule Poirot, to go round the hedges and byways of England to see whether or not the rules are being transgressed. Nonetheless, if the European Union caught out the United Kingdom on this matter it could reduce the amount of money that it receives from the European Union, and that could be extremely expensive for us.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords,—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are running out of time. The longer we dispute who should take part the less time there will be for both noble Lords to contribute. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, can put his question fairly quickly and then my noble friend will be able to contribute.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this is yet another instance of Europe interfering in the nooks and crannies of British life? Does he also agree that all he has to do to deal with the matter is to ensure that no prosecutions are brought before the British courts? It is before the British courts that such prosecutions will have to be brought. Will that not solve the problem?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not aware that any prosecutions or investigations are proposed. As to the first comment of the noble Lord, I entirely agree with him.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is illogical that the landowner who makes land available out of the goodness of his heart without remuneration suffers if the European Union catches up with what is going on? He loses the set-aside payment. That does not apply exclusively to charitable organisations. Other social organisations, such as motorcycle clubs, or even pony clubs, wishing to use the land, equally fall within the ban. Does my noble friend agree that this kind of illogicality does nothing to enhance the good standing of public administration in general?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. It does nothing to increase the public standing of the European Union, and I would have thought that that was something it cared about.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is it not the case that all of these rules and regulations are effected by Ministers, not bureaucrats? Ministers take these decisions. Why have the British Government agreed to this ludicrous proposal?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is a Commission decision and has nothing to do with the British Government. We have argued strongly against it, but under European Union rules we have no option but to go along with it.

Prisoners' Earnings Bill
3.18 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Treasure Bill
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Treasure Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I shall be brief.
First, I want once again to thank Sir Anthony Grant for his role in taking this Bill so skilfully through the other place. Without him, we should not be discussing the Bill here today. To most of the other supporters of the Bill, I gave thanks in Committee. There are two additions which I should like to make. One is that I give thanks for the continuous support of the British Museum and its officials, and, secondly, I thank the officials of the Department of National Heritage. They have all been of great assistance from early on in the Bill's introduction.
I recall that when I first met the Secretary of State for National Heritage, which was soon after she had assumed office, I said, "We want to get this Treasure Bill through, can we hope that you will support us?". The answer was that she was all for it and she has done her part.
It is now over 100 years since we first tried in this House, and perhaps in the other place, to reform treasure law. We are now close to success. No longer will the fate of treasure depend on whether, say, 1,000 years ago or more it was buried for the purpose of later retrieval, or buried as a votive offering, or just lost. Even more important is that under the Bill the finder must report his find to the authorities or suffer a penalty. Much of history will now be recorded, so that it can be built up piece by piece by the historians and archaeologists, rather like fitting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
But the Bill on its own is not the complete answer to building the jigsaw puzzle. Recently, as many noble Lords will know, a document on portable antiquities was published. The consultation process on that document is now nearly at an end. Indeed, it closes on Friday. I understand that the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities suggests that there should be a pilot scheme of voluntary reporting in several parts of the country for two years. I only hope that that will happen, because that is at least as significant for our history as is the Treasure Bill and the reporting of finds.
In Committee, I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whom I again have to thank for all her help from the very start of this venture, said that Ministers supported the Bill. I hope that we will have confirmation of that this afternoon.
I come now to the metal detectorists. They, in a sense, come into their own at this moment, because—I am now talking about portable antiquities—until now when they have made finds they are shown on their mantelpieces or they have special cases built to show them off and their skills and their luck. We are now asking them to

927
go further: that they should, under a code of practice, and on a voluntary basis, be asked to report where and when they made their finds. With that they can be prouder than heretofore, because they will be contributing to the whole history of this country. In fact they will help complete the jigsaw puzzle.
That will cost a little money, but that is for two years only, and after that my hope is that the people concerned will find it so worth while that they will go forward for longer. There is no question but that while it may cost a little money, its historical value will be incalculable. Many noble Lords who are involved in the whole subject of treasure will watch progress and, if necessary—I was going to say stick pins into Ministers to get it further on.
This Treasure Bill and the portable antiquities scheme together will complete reforms for our heritage which are long, long overdue.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Perth.)
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his kind remarks. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to him for his tireless efforts, without which we would not have a Bill today. I should also like to thank those members of the opposition parties who have supported the Bill all along. It is a rare and good occasion.
I must say a word about the Church of England. Noble Lords will recall that in the Second Reading debate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol signalled that the Church of England had a number of concerns as to how the Bill might affect the Church's own legal systems of control over its portable antiquities, notably the faculty jurisdiction and the Care of Cathedrals Measure. I can inform the House that we have had further discussions with the General Synod and have agreed that, in the event of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we shall bring forward an order under Clause 2(2) of the Bill. Although the precise drafting of the order will be the subject of further discussion, we anticipate that it will exempt, first, objects found in association with human burials on consecrated ground; and, secondly, objects (except for treasure trove) covered by the Church of England's own legal system of controls. It is intended that all the items will be dealt with under the ecclesiastical law in a manner which is analogous to that proposed under the Biil. It is important to note that we have agreed to do that solely on the basis that the Church of England is in a unique position in having its own legal regime applying to movable articles that belong to it, and the purpose of the order is essentially to provide a clarification of the law in so far as it applies to such objects.
The successful passage of this Bill is indeed an historic occasion, representing as it will the first piece of legislation on portable antiquities ever to have been introduced in England and Wales. It is, we believe, a
928
thoroughly pragmatic Bill—as I said before, it is a classic example of the art of the possible. I should like to repeat that the Government see co-operation between all parties—metal detectorists, archaeologists and landowners—as the way forward.
I should just like to finish by noting that the department's discussion document on portable antiquities has received a wide welcome. Byron said of his mother-in-law that she had lost the art of conversation, but not, alas, the power of speech. Your Lordships may be thinking the same of me now.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I compliment the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on his successful efforts in piloting this measure through your Lordships' House. I wonder whether I might draw the attention of the usual channels to a significant English event that will be taking place this evening, and point out that initial perusal of today's Order Paper suggested that business might be complete before the start of that event. But it seems that now business will not be complete. It may be useful for the usual channels to consider adjourning the House during pleasure so that all Members of your Lordships' House and the staff of your Lordships' House would be in a position to watch the England match tonight.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow the passing of this Bill to take place. It is up to every person to be master of his own fate in his evening's activities.
On Question, Bill passed.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Tunisia) Order 1996
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 17th July 1995, Tunisia became the first Mediterranean country to sign a new Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with the European Union as part of the EU's overall aim to develop relations with the region.
The agreement aims to intensify political and economic links between the European Union and Tunisia. That is to be achieved in a number of ways: through regular political contacts, including annual ministerial meetings; through increased reciprocal trade in agricultural products; through the progressive establishment of a free trade area in accordance with WTO rules; and through expanded economic, cultural and social ties.
The gradual opening of the Tunisian market will make Tunisia an even more attractive place for inward investment. It will provide new opportunities for European Union business. British companies can and, I hope, will play a full part in that process. But it will also make a substantial and practical contribution to the greater economic prosperity of Tunisia. That will lead in time to greater political stability and security, not only in Tunisia but in the rest of the Mediterranean region as a whole. That is in everyone's interest.
The Tunisian agreement is the first step towards a full Euro-Med partnership. I ask the House to support that important objective by giving its approval to the principles behind the agreement. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [23rd report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey).
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we welcome this agreement. As the Minister said, it will help to foster trade between the European Union and Tunisia and will promote co-operation between Europe and the Mediterranean countries of North Africa more generally.
Good relationships need to be forged between those countries which line the Mediterranean on both sides. That is obviously of particular importance to our southern European partners in the EU. Clearly in the case of Tunisia there are considerable disparities between its level of economic development and that of the European Union average. However, that is not a reason for rejecting an association of this kind as set out in the agreement and I note that the European Union will support economic reform, structural adjustment and social development in Tunisia through the agreement.
While I wholeheartedly welcome the agreement, perhaps I may put three or four questions to the Minister. The transitional period allowed before a free trade area is finally established is to be a maximum of 12 years. I wonder whether the Minister will say what is the Government's present estimate as to how long that transitional period will actually take.
Secondly, will the Minister tell the House the current level of trade between the UK and Tunisia and how that compares with German/Tunisian trade and French/Tunisian trade? Will she also tell the House what plans there are for similar agreements with other Maghreb countries?
The Maghreb is an important area and one where closer ties and greater integration are needed between its countries. Finally, will the Minister say what steps are being taken by the European Union to encourage that integration and to avoid a situation in which each of the countries making up the Maghreb region simply indulge in a competition to get closer the EU rather than closer to each other?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from these Benches, we welcome this agreement.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, the EU-Tunisia agreement is the first important building block in the Euro-Med partnership. I could not say for certain which other countries will immediately follow but a number are making preparations. However, there is no doubt that Tunisia is the most advanced. I believe that this progress is in the interests of the UK as well as the EU. Therefore, we should give our firm support to it.
The noble Baroness asked me about the possible length of the transitional period. The answer is not entirely in our hands. Twelve years is the maximum time but given that the long-term goal of the Euro-Med free trade area is that that should be in place by the year 2010, I imagine that the first and standard bearer for the other Mediterranean countries will take about that time. But it will depend to some degree on the access to agricultural products, which is something with which some of the southern European countries have the greatest difficulty.
The noble Baroness asked me about trade between Britain and Tunisia. I do not have the figures here and I certainly cannot give her the figures in relation to Germany and France. For many years France has had a very close trading relationship with Tunisia. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness with all the comparative figures and leave a copy of that letter in your Lordships' Library.
It is true that we are very keen to see greater integration by the Maghreb countries. They already meet on—I think it is—a twice annual basis. Certainly Morocco is extremely interested in this procedure. Morocco and Tunisia have a very special interest because everyone wishes to see moderation in North African politics. One way of bringing that about is by enhancing the level of trade. There is no distance between us there. We believe that there should be greater integration. Tunisia is already enjoying almost unrestricted access to the European Union under the 1976 co-operation agreement for industrial goods. But this new agreement will start the process of a free trade agreement according to WTO rules and that is why it may take up to 12 years because there are quite a number of differences to be bridged.
Tunisia will gradually remove tariff and non-tariff barriers on non-EU goods. The other Maghreb countries will be watching very carefully to see how that is done and how successful it is. I have no doubt that their work will be based on the work of Tunisia.
Certainly the operation of the free trade area will be much enhanced by the competition provisions and the harmonisation of laws in other areas. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for his welcome of the order. There is much to be done. This is a starting process. We shall supply further information to your Lordships as we proceed down this very important path.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensing conditions for certain events]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("or renewing").
The noble Earl said: In November 1973, or thereabouts, I was a parliamentary commissioner on an opposed order, promoted by the City of Glasgow, which we approved. That order became the Glasgow Corporation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order Confirmation Act 1974. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office and the Private Bill Office for giving me a photocopy of that Act of so many years ago.
The order covered persons of any age and applied to any place of public entertainment—that is to say, dancing, music or suchlike—but excluded licensed premises, dwelling houses, premises used mainly for religious worship and clubs for instruction or training. It also covered both the licensing "and the renewal" of a licence of any premises covered by subsection (3) of the new Section 18A to the 1976 Act, which appears at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill. Hence the first of the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour both for the explanation of the amendment that he has moved and, indeed, for the historical perspective that he brings to this part of the proceedings. It is clear that my noble friend is, as ever, driven by a spirit of constructiveness and helpfulness.
On the face of it, what is proposed is eminently sensible. Licensing boards should, of course, consider whether they need to exercise their duty in respect of imposing appropriate conditions not only when they are considering an application for an entirely new licence or permission but also where these come up for renewal. Indeed, that was always the intention. In fact, we have gone further by also providing that boards can vary existing licences to enable conditions to be attached as appropriate. The insertion of a reference to renewing the licence or permission is, however, unnecessary.
The definition of grant to be found in Section 139 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 provides that a grant in relation to a licence includes a grant by way of renewal and that references to "granting" and "application" are to be construed accordingly. The provision of the 1976 Act will of course extend, as appropriate, to the new measures once they are enacted. Consequently, the matter is already covered. However,
932
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to explain the position in greater detail. In view of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am very happy with the reply just given by my noble friend the Minister. Clearly, I do not wish to put anything into the Bill which is unnecessary. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("prescribed").
The noble Earl said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 8 to 10 and 12 to 16. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 should be taken together. I shall explain the reason for that after speaking to Amendment No. 6, which is the principal amendment. It introduces an additional and new subsection (3A) to the Bill which, as noble Lords will see from the Marshalled List, would ensure that, on granting or renewing a licence, the board would "impose conditions as to": first, the maintenance of law and order; secondly, controlling the number of persons present at any one time; thirdly, the means of escape in case of fire and proper fire precautions, including the lighting, sanitation and ventilation; fourthly, the safe condition and heating of the premises; and, finally, the hours of opening and closing the premises to avoid nuisance in the neighbourhood.
Subsection (3B) of the amendment would enable the licensing board to specify the conditions required from the applicant. Subsection (3C) would enable the board to revoke a licence where any conditions have not been complied with. Subsection (3D) would enable the board to know something about the background of the applicant and the exact address of the premises. Lastly, subsection (3E) would enable the board to hold on to any plans of a premises which it may wish a fire officer or a police officer to know about. Those words have been lifted directly from that Glasgow order of all those years ago. I felt that they were so sensible, particularly for my suggested new subsection (3A).
I wish to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to Clause 1(4) which is to be found at the top of page 2 of the Bill. It deals with the conditions that the Secretary of State may prescribe. In Amendment No, 8, I am suggesting that he should be permitted to prescribe additional conditions.
Moreover, as regards the provisions in subsection (6), which permit:
"The holder of a licence [to] appeal to the sheriff against—
(a) the terms of any condition"
except, quite rightly, under subsection (4), I am suggesting that the very important safety provisions in my proposed subsection (3A) should also be excluded by my Amendment No. 9. I hope that my brief explanation covers the consequential amendments,

933
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9 and 10, together with Amendments Nos. 12 to 16. I should like to record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its assistance in the drafting of these consequential amendments.
On Second Reading, other speakers and I expressed our concern about "rave" parties, which persons as young as 15 can attend. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that the safety provisions we were seeking were covered in the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I must admit that they are partially covered in Section 41 and Schedule 1, but not as comprehensively as I am seeking to achieve with my amendments to this Bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: Once again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for providing me with a useful opportunity to explain precisely the purpose and the benefits of Clause 1. However, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend for the careful and detailed explanation that he has given to the Committee of the aims and purpose of his amendments.
Amendment No. 6, to which my noble friend spoke when moving Amendment No. 2, is the substantive amendment in the group. As he stated, the other amendments relate to consequential drafting changes. My noble friend's amendments proceed from the basis that the licensing board would be granting or renewing a licence under the new provisions. That is not the case.
There is no provision in Clause 1 which gives licensing boards the power to grant licences, nor should there be. There are already adequate provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 for that purpose. The administrative requirements which boards should apply in these circumstances are also already set out in the 1976 Act. All this must have been gone through and the appropriate decision taken before the board turns its attention to the duty imposed on it by Clause 1 of the Bill. Therefore, there is no need to oblige the board to repeat these stages which would be part of the effect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 6 also sets out certain conditions which a licensing board should apply, presumably once it had satisfied itself that the licensed premises would be holding a relevant event. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained at Second Reading, all the types of health and safety issues set out in the conditions which my noble friend seeks to prescribe by his amendments are dealt with by the legislative requirements applying already to licensed premises. But, because a licensing board may want to go further in respect of an event covered by this Bill's provisions, it will now have the power to do so.
The purpose of Clause 1 is not to regulate the arrangements covering the granting of liquor licences or the activities of pubs generally which we know are already satisfactorily covered by the 1976 Act. The purpose of Clause 1 is to put beyond doubt that licensing boards have adequate powers to regulate specific events held on these premises. These are legal requirements on a licence holder which he must observe regardless of
934
whether he is holding an event on his premises which would attract the provisions in the Bill, and that is as it should be.
However, under the new provisions in Clause 1 there will be additional safeguards imposed by licensing boards when they think it necessary. Again, this is as it should be. Boards now have the full range of appropriate powers at their disposal. My noble friend also mentioned the scope of Section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Section 41 of that Act deals with public entertainment licences. These licences may be granted where the sale of alcohol is not involved. This Bill deals with licensed premises only.
Section 41 of the 1982 Act already enables the licensing authority to deal adequately with events on non-licensed premises. In our eyes it is therefore not relevant as respects Clause 1 of the current Bill. I hope that the explanation I have given satisfies my noble friend that his concerns about the Bill are all either covered by existing legislation, or that boards will be able to tackle them under the new arrangements in Clause 1. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No.2 and the associated amendments in this group.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am satisfied that these safeguards are provided. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, after ("it") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that I was not present at the Second Reading debate. The issue we are discussing arose out of the deaths of young people at Ecstasy raves and other such events. We have debated that matter at length in this Chamber on other occasions. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to express my views at this stage. This is an emotive issue. The amendment seeks to put an obligation on a licensing board to state its reasons for adopting a particular view. As at present drafted, Clause 1(3)(c) states, "at which it appears to the board that offences may be committed in relation to controlled drugs within the meaning of section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971". Any member of a licensing board may have public knowledge of a particular situation. A policeman may have had a word in the ear of a member of a licensing board. That is not unknown and we must be realistic about these things. My amendment seeks to insert the word "reasonably" in order to ensure that the reasons a board has for taking a particular step can be examined, perhaps by judicial review. As the clause presently stands, there is an absolute power with no provision for review. I appreciate that in the original Act the board has to state its reasons for doing what it does, but the measure we are discussing does not seem to follow the philosophy of that Act. By seeking to insert the word "reasonably" in the Bill, I seek to rectify that position.
I think all of us in the Chamber appreciate that this is a non party issue. We are trying to save young people from themselves and to control what happens in various places. We wish to ensure that the licensing boards behave themselves and do not display a knee-jerk reaction when someone applies for a licence. We are trying to ensure that licensing boards will be required to state—subject to judicial review—why they have decided that a licence should or should not be granted. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. Before I do so, I should again declare my interest as the owner of a licensed premises in Scotland. During the Second Reading debate I spoke of the concern within the trade as regards the absolute power within the Bill as currently drafted. I am grateful for the letter which the Minister sent to me. I had asked for the words "reasonable suspicion" to be incorporated in the Bill. The Minister wrote to me and informed me that that had been objected to by CoSLA who felt that it was going too far, and that it would make it difficult for it to come to a decision. However, I believe this amendment, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, represents a compromise position. It asks for reasonableness on the part of licensing boards without imposing too many of the conditions for which I had asked originally. I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I, too, wish to support the amendment but from a slightly different point of view from that of my noble friend. I believe that anything which focuses attention on health and safety measures as regards young people's events is helpful. I hope that the Minister will regard that as a positive feature of the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raises an interesting topic. I am grateful for the additional comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The question of how to define a relevant event and, in that connection, what test boards should apply when considering whether the characteristic in the present definition about contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 applies, has been debated at length in another place. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, reminded us, the subject was also touched upon during the Bill's Second Reading in this Chamber.
Those earlier concerns, particularly about the test which boards should apply, were taken seriously. Indeed, that issue, as the noble Viscount reminded us, was subject to consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities during the passage of the Bill in another place. We were anxious to have its views on the issue. CoSLA was firmly opposed to any change which could prevent licensing boards from discharging their functions properly. We have concluded therefore that what is in the Bill at present will not hamper the boards in fulfilling their statutory duties.
936
This present amendment is in fact unnecessary. It seeks to insert a requirement that boards must act reasonably when reaching a decision as to whether or not there is likely to be a contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Of course boards must act reasonably here and on every occasion where they are called upon to take a decision. If they do not, they lay themselves wide open to a challenge in the courts. Consequently, there is no need to make express provision as the charge to act reasonably is naturally implicit.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that in subsection (6), at line 25 of page 2 of the Bill, there is reference to a route of appeal. I have also reminded the noble Lord that the requirements in the 1976 Act to act reasonably apply equally to the provisions of this Bill. The grounds of appeal are clearly laid out in Section 39 of the 1976 Act. There are four specific criteria on which an appeal can be lodged by an applicant who is unhappy with the decision made by a board.
In the 1976 Act, and in this Bill, there are well recognised routes of remedy. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for his clear and informative reply. However, I still believe that the word "reasonably" should be inserted in the subsection. I shall not divide the Committee. However, I hope that the Government take further advice on the matter. I am not sure that Section 39 of the 1976 Act meets the observations made by the Minister.
I declare that I have no connection with the licensing trade apart from the fact that I have a pint from time to time in the Bishop's Bar. I have no vested interest in the issue. We seek to achieve a measure of fairness in the administration of this difficult area of life in the community.
I am sure that all noble Lords who have an interest in ensuring that young people in particular are protected from themselves—I believe that that is what the Bill is about—will note with interest what the Minister says. No doubt if representations are made from appropriate bodies those may be brought before your Lordships' House on Report. I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("or that alcohol may be consumed to excess or consumed by people who are under age.").
The noble Earl said: I propose the amendment in the belief that licensing committees will want positively to introduce health and safety measures to young people's events. The amendment seeks to extend the duty placed on the licensing committee when it considers an application for a rave or, more strictly speaking, an event with music and dancing. The amendment is designed to bring the illegal use of alcohol within the scope of the legislation.
The reason for my proposed extension of powers is based on the even greater chance, statistically and numerically, of a young person having a serious accident or dying from the misuse of alcohol. Such accidents and deaths are caused by alcohol overdose or alcohol poisoning—that is, drinking a pint of whisky too quickly with the encouragement of friends—alcohol-induced aggression, fighting, and the chance of a road accident while the inner ear or balance mechanism is temporarily inoperative. The youngster or adult is paralytic, staggering about on the way home, or, even worse, trying to drive home.
Further, alcohol, which is normally a legal recreational drug, can easily become an illegal drug. It is obviously illegal for young people under the age of 18 to possess alcohol in a public place. It is illegal to possess alcohol which has been stolen—for example, shoplifted on the way to the party. It is illegal to possess illicitly distilled alcohol; and it is illegal for an unaccompanied person to be drunk and incapable of looking after himself in a public place.
I accept that the thrust of the Bill is to make the licensing board focus on the extra health and safety conditions that it should attach to a licence for a dance when it anticipates the misuse of controlled drugs. I have absolutely no problem with the imposition of health and safety measures when cannabis or MDMA (Ecstasy) is likely to be used. But I want to ensure that similar health and safety measures are required when the misuse of alcohol is anticipated.
During Second Reading I spoke of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and Ecstasy as all being recreational drugs, and I stand by that. I have not sought to include tobacco in the amendment as I feel that the Bill focuses on sudden deaths and immediate accidents from overdosing. Therefore slow death from nicotine poisoning and cirrhosis of the liver do not fall within the scope of the Bill and are omitted from the amendment.
Perhaps I may say a few words about MDMA (Ecstasy). Unlike alcohol and cannabis, which are depressants, MDMA is a stimulant with the characteristics of an amphetamine. The Ecstasy user seeks the drug to extend his or her day time to allow vivacious all-night dancing and to give him or her good feelings about others around them—the love drug effect. I accept that that ignores the damage now believed to be done by Ecstasy to the serotonin producing brain cells. Noble Lords do not need a lecture from me about the pleasurable effects of alcohol with its disinhibitor effect and subsequent inoperation of the inner ear balance mechanism and loss of sense of place. But I hope that the different characteristics of MDMA and the more popular depressant group of drugs—alcohol or cannabis—will be recognised. Noble Lords will be happy that I consider the hallucinogenic use of drugs such as LSD to have an even more unhelpful effect than the recreational drugs that I believe we are discussing.
I believe that the Bill will be of even greater use to Scotland and its fun-loving people if the anticipated misuse of alcohol can be included in the health and safety measures proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With respect to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, his discussion seems to be slightly outwith the terms of the amendment before the Committee. The amendment is specifically related to alcohol but in terms of the Act it is related to controlled drugs. I do not make an issue of that. We are at one in that everyone in the Chamber seeks control as regards this issue.
As it stands, I believe that the amendment would be unenforceable in the courts. We do not have a Richter scale of excess to apply to someone coming through the door to a dance saying, "The chances of your getting an alcohol level of between one to 10 is"—whatever the odds might be. I took the opportunity to ask the noble Earl what the word "excess" means in the amendment. I shall not go into the question of drugs, rave places and drying-out places, because they represent another issue. Dealing purely with the amendment before us, I find that the words "to excess" make it extremely difficult to put this into legislation. Once the Government changes and we are on the other side of your Lordships' Chamber, I would certainly not wish to be asked to implement this particular piece of legislation. I support it in principle but feel that the wording would give rise to difficulty.
Viscount Thurso: Having sat next to my noble friend Lord Russell until the early hours of this morning and having greatly enjoyed his tutelage of how to perform when the House is in Committee, I believe this amendment is what he might describe as a probing amendment. My noble friend does raise a very important question; that of under-age drinking and the effect it has on young people. As a former licensee in England and the owner of licensed premises in Scotland, I believe that the vast majority of those in the trade are as concerned as all citizens are with this evil. In that respect, I thank my noble friend for having brought up this point to which we should have regard. However, I have to say to him that when I consulted with my publican friends in Scotland and particularly when I spoke to the British Hospitality Association's representative, who is also the convenor of the Licensing Committee of the Scottish Law Society, they were extremely dubious about this amendment and the effect it would have. I think it goes far wider than my noble friend might possibly have thought. While I clearly support his sentiments, I do not think I can support the amendment as it is.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to raise just one question in respect of this amendment. I am under the impression in connection with the licensing laws that a person must be over 18 to purchase a drink, but I thought that a person as young as 16 could consume a glass of wine or beer on licensed premises. If I am correct then this amendment would prevent anybody from obtaining an alcoholic drink under the age of 18, whether they bought it or they were given it.
The Earl of Lindsay: On behalf of the whole Committee perhaps I may thank to the noble Earl,

939
Lord Mar and Kellie, for the way in which he has set out, I assume from his observed experience rather than from his actual experience, some of the recreational drugs taken by younger people today. I also realise from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that the purpose behind this amendment is one that we would all agree with. However, the practicality is questionable, as the noble Lord himself stated.
Clearly we want to ensure that the excessive consumption of alcohol is, as far as possible, prevented and that under-age drinking is not encouraged. Indeed, both objectives are already covered in law and that law will continue to underpin the new arrangements which we are seeking to introduce in this Bill. The express purpose of Clause 1 is to protect the health and safety of young people attending certain events on licensed premises against drug misuse. In that respect it is, as your Lordships all know, a direct response to concerns expressed by Sheriff Neil Gow, following a fatal accident inquiry into a tragedy caused by drug misuse at an event at licensed premises, that there was potentially inadequate legislative provision to enable licensing boards to take appropriate action to regulate such events.
The provisions in Clause I put beyond doubt that licensing boards now have all the power they need. If necessary, the boards will be able to impose stringent conditions to help protect the health and safety of those attending the events which will be covered by the provisions of Clause 1. However, there may be other events held on the same licensed premises where clearly it is not necessary to impose conditions such as the provision of alternative rest areas, first aid or paramedic cover or stringent controls on numbers. The noble Earl's amendment would have the effect of bringing those events within the parameters of Clause 1.
I am not suggesting, of course, that other events should not be regulated appropriately. What I am suggesting is that other events should not be regulated excessively. We should not prevent responsible people from enjoying themselves at other events, be it in the Bishop's Bar or wherever, on licensed premises; nor should we restrict unnecessarily the licensee in the operation of his business. Licence-holders are already subject to strict controls by licensing boards in the general operation of their business, and if these are breached the licensee faces not only criminal sanctions but the threat of losing his licence and therefore his livelihood.
We have already heard concerns expressed both in this Chamber and in another place that the present definition of "events" in the Bill is too widely drawn and could mean that boards, taking a liberal interpretation of it, would impose conditions on innocuous events. We are not persuaded that this will happen. Licensing boards have enormous experience of dealing with liquor licensing and we feel that, with the assistance of Scottish Office guidance, they will bring that experience to the successful implementation of these provisions. I am afraid, though, that the noble Earl's amendment would put licensing boards into a position which gave them no room for manoeuvre or the exercise of their discretion and force the conditions to be applied where it might be quite clearly unnecessary.
940
I stress again that the motives behind this amendment are motives which we could all share, and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made a telling comment when he pointed out that this amendment, if it became part of the Bill, would be unenforceable when the Bill was enacted. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for giving us the benefit of his own experience and of the contacts he has within CoSLA and the licensing organisation.
My noble friend Lord Balfour was inquiring whether a person over 18 could buy a drink for someone who was under 18 but over 16 and that the younger person could then drink it legally. The answer is yes. A person over 16 but under 18 can drink alcohol on licensed premises but this is only legal when the drink is taken with a meal. No one under 18 can purchase alcohol legally.
I hope that on the basis of the explanations I have given, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I would also draw the noble Earl's attention to issues which we have raised in the recent White Paper on crime and punishment as they hinge upon the areas that he is concerned about.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I should like to thank various noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. It was of course designed to produce a debate and it has done so. Might I reassure the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench that, apart from my experience in the Bishop's Bar, which has helped perhaps, the majority of my experience was learnt while working on an intensive probation project—on the staff, I hasten to add, because it is not first-hand experience.
To be slightly more serious, I am concerned about the resistance of the noble Earl to under-age drinking. He said that the licensing committee can take a hard line on this but I actually do not think that is what is needed. I think it is important that we actually get to work with under-age drinkers and persuade them not to do it, rather than just close the pubs which they are currently using. These days drug workers go to raves and work with people who take controlled drugs. They give information about drugs and what they are doing. Occasionally they give advice, there being a substantial difference between the two. Presumably they also ensure that water is available and they notice if anyone begins to go under. People can be picked up there and then and the health problems which might arise are prevented. Perhaps I see the problem too much as a health and safety issue and not enough as a licensing issue. I appreciate that there is a problem with the rule of law and that we are bringing forward a Bill which takes into account illegal activity. Perhaps the noble Earl wishes to reply.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Bill seeks specifically to deal with the problem of misuse of drugs by young people. We have a basket of other measures and initiatives specifically aimed at under-age drinking. I should not like the noble Earl to think that, because we are not convinced of the benefits of his amendment to this Bill dealing with the misuse of drugs, we are therefore in any way slack in our

941
commitment to prevent under-age drinking. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State regards the misuse of drugs and alcohol by young people as an absolute priority.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for that. I did not know it and I look forward to the legislation which will be proposed. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 8. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. It is a famous Scottish amendment going back to the days of Willie Ross, George Willis and all those great characters. Every Scottish Bill contained an amendment saying "omit 'may' and insert `shall'". However, there was usually a reason for it.
Amendment No. 7 is to ensure that the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe certain conditions applicable to raves. The Bill currently allows the Executive discretion on the issue of conditions. The amendment removes or curtails that discretion and requires mandatory action by the Secretary of State.
Raves are fairly new. They are not necessarily harmful but can easily go over the edge. Therefore, we believe that firm minimum conditions should be prescribed by the Secretary of State which can act as a basic standard countrywide. Then in response to local conditions and the local climate, there can be alterations. I was amused, when we were listening to the earlier debate, to hear that a person aged 16 can drink with a meal. The noble Earl may remember the famous Scottish bona fide traveller. If you travelled a certain distance in a bus, coach or train, you could go into a public house, order a meal and then get a drink, although it would not be allowed in your local area; you had to be a traveller. The definition of a traveller was someone who dropped in for food. There was some truth in the myth—it was not just a joke—that the traveller got the same pie every week. It lay on the table until he had finished eating and then it was taken away and brought back the next Sunday.
I seek certain parameters. That kind of thing can happen and much more dangerous things can occur with events like raves. Therefore, the Secretary of State should lay down much more precise rules and then local people, with his permission, can add to them or adapt them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for moving his amendment. I endorse the story of the bona fide traveller: it seems mad to throw out a good pie unfinished if it can be used again the following Sabbath.
The question of whether the Secretary of State should exercise immediately his power to prescribe minimum conditions was debated at length in another place. The
942
conclusion of that consideration was that his power should remain discretionary. Let me take this opportunity to explain the rationale behind that decision.
The Secretary of State's power to make an order prescribing certain conditions was introduced in response to concerns that boards might not act reasonably and responsibly in the way they discharge their obligations under the new measures and that there may be inconsistencies throughout Scotland.
We are, of course, committed to issuing guidance to licensing boards on the nature and terms of conditions that may be attached to licences. But we cannot guarantee that the guidance will be followed consistently by each board. The health and safety of the young and vulnerable are important enough to require certain minimum standards to be applied across the country as a whole. Giving the Secretary of State a power which he can exercise, if required, to prescribe minimum conditions which boards must attach to relevant licences, will ensure that the basic policy underlying Clause 1 will not be undermined through inconsistency of approach.
However, this is very much a precautionary measure. There is every reason to believe that licensing boards will act responsibly and implement the policy fully. There is every reason to believe that that will be the case.
To impose mandatory conditions immediately would fetter the important element of local discretion and knowledge which boards can exercise when taking local decisions.
The Scottish Office will monitor practices closely. If it appears that licensing boards, supported by detailed guidance, are unwilling to impose appropriate conditions, then the means are available to enable the Secretary of State to move swiftly to put matters right. The detailed guidance of which I speak will also include model conditions which will give boards an idea of the type of issues to be addressed. However, I should say that a good number of licensing boards already impose those kinds of conditions on public entertainment licences and are therefore familiar with the concept.
Those model conditions will illustrate minimum requirements such as the maximum number of people who can attend the event, the provision of rest areas away from the main activity and that there should be adequate security and support staff of both sexes. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was concerned about that point.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that unless it proves necessary to take formal action, reliance on co-operation and the full exercise of local discretion provide a better way of achieving our objectives. I imagine that the noble Lord will read the response I have given in Hansard and ponder on it and I hope he will understand that there is little between us. We feel that ideally the exercise of discretion in response to local conditions should be the prime response of local licensing boards before the Secretary of State seeks to impose mandatory minimum conditions on them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will be aware that I always read Hansard to check on what

943
was said. I thank him for the assurance he has given; it is a big improvement. His explanation clears up a number of problems. I only hope that local licensing boards will take careful note of what he said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3. line 28, after ("licence") insert ("or his representative").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which I have discussed with the Minister. Under the Bill at the present, if the holder of the licence does not appear, the proceedings fall. The reason for the amendment is so that the holder's representative can appear. Perhaps the Government can find a suitable term such as "authorised agent" instead of "or his representative", whatever the wording might be. We wish to widen the scope of representation before the board. Under the Bill as presently drafted, only the holder of the licence can appear, but, taking a strict reading of the Bill, he cannot do so if he happens to be in America. The amendment is to introduce a degree of flexibility in representation. On that basis, I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful for the explanation of this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The amendment proposed would, effectively, enable a representative to attend in place of a licence holder at a licensing board meeting where consideration is being given to whether a current licence should be varied so that conditions may be imposed on it in cases where the premises will hold events attracting the provisions in Clause 1.
This issue was extensively debated when the Bill was considered in another place. Indeed, the matter was taken away for further scrutiny. However, after careful consideration it was concluded that the change was both unnecessary and potentially damaging.
I believe that my honourable friend the Minister of State in the Scottish Office wrote to the honourable Member for Dumbarton explaining the Government's decision. I could easily make a copy of that letter available to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay.
I welcome the opportunity to offer the same explanation to the Committee as to the reasoning that led to that conclusion. When this point was debated in another place it was suggested that this issue was precedented in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
I acknowledge that there is express provision at Section 15 of the 1976 Act for an applicant or his representative to attend a statutory meeting of the licensing board when an application for a new licence or the renewal of a licence is being considered. That is an entirely separate issue and not directly relevant to the matter under review today.
Section 15 gives a board the discretion whether or not to proceed to consider an application for a new licence or renewal of a licence if neither the applicant nor his
944
representative are present. Presumably, this statutory provision was made in order to prevent an applicant being unnecessarily disadvantaged through an inability to present himself at a particular meeting.
If we are looking for comparisons in the existing legislation then I suggest that Section 31 of the 1976 Act provides a more suitable example. Section 31 details the procedures for suspending an existing licence on receipt of a complaint. In these circumstances, the board must hold a hearing in the same way as is envisaged in the new arrangements to vary a licence. There is no express provision for the licensee to field a representative or to bring another person to the hearing to assist him in pleading his case. Nevertheless, the exercise of these options is accepted standard procedure which licensing boards use as appropriate.
There is nothing in the Bill as drafted to prevent a licensing board from exercising the same discretion where appropriate in relation to the procedures set out for varying current licences.
We feel that the amendment proposed is unnecessary on that basis. But it is also dangerous because it could call into question the legitimacy of existing arrangements under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and in other legislation where a representative or agent may attend in the place of, or to assist, the licensee without there being any express statutory provision.
There is potentially more to be lost by conceding this amendment than could possibly be gained. I imagine the noble Lord will want to consider the explanation that I have given. However, I hope that in the light of this response the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment today.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but Section 15(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 does not appear to cover the problem which we have in this Bill; nor does Section 31 cover it, in my view. It might lead to an interesting legal debate, but if you look at the interpretation clause of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, there is no definition of the licence holder apart from the words
"a & licence-holder' and 'holder of a licence' mean the holder of a licence under this Act other than under Part III of this Act".
That does not take us any further in terms of the amendment. The issues that were dealt with in Sections 15(1) and 31(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 do not appear to meet the practical problem which has been raised, and I know it has been debated at length and no doubt will be debated again. But it seems to me, if I may say so, that this a very simple amendment which will make no difference to the progress of applications before the licensing board and, in fact, would introduce a degree of flexibility.
However, in keeping with the other amendments which have been put before the Committee, those interested in these matters, including your Lordships, will look with interest at what the Minister has said. In the meantime, with thanks to him for his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (63) as first printed by the Comtnons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
`(aa) a person is charged with an indictable offence and he is committed for trial for the offence concerned,
(a) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer given under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (serious or complex fraud),
(ab) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer served on a magistrates' court under section 53 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (certain cases involving children),'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 50, 51, 58, 60 to 65, 72, 73, 89 and 90. Taken together, these amendments remove provisions in the Bill relating to transfer for trial and replace them with a modified procedure for committal proceedings. They also make a number of amendments to other legislation associated with these new provisions.
The transfer for trial scheme set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was intended to improve the efficiency of moving cases into the Crown Court. Importantly, it was also intended to resolve the difficulties identified by the Royal Commission and others of vulnerable witnesses being exposed to the double ordeal of giving oral evidence and being cross-examined at committal proceedings as well as at the trial itself.
These aims and objectives are widely shared by all practitioners. The Government are committed to achieving them in a way that is effective and takes full account of the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system and the experience of those working within it.
946
The work on implementation of the transfer procedures highlights certain difficulties and complexities which suggested that the transfer scheme might not in practice offer the gains in efficiency that were originally envisaged. We have concluded that the two central objectives of improved efficiency and the protection of witnesses can be better achieved by a modified form of committals of the kind proposed by the Law Society and moved, though not pressed, by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, at Committee and Report stages of the Bill in this House.
The amendments that we are considering today are long and complex but many are necessary consequential amendments to existing legislation that flow from these changes that are made to the existing committal system. The key feature of the newly modified committal procedures is that only documentary evidence and exhibits tendered by the prosecution will be admissible.
When determining whether there is a case to answer, a magistrates' court will consider such evidence only together with representations by both parties. Crucially, no witness will be called to give evidence or to be cross-examined. As I said, that form of modified committals in based on the Law Society's proposal which commanded widespread support among all practitioners. It differs in only one significant respect.
The Law Society's proposal envisaged streamlining uncontested committals by allowing cases to proceed to the Crown Court for trial without the attendance of any parties at the magistrates' court at the discretion of the defence. In that respect, our system makes no change to the existing procedures for uncontested committals. We considered whether it would be possible to follow the Law Society's approach but concluded, albeit reluctantly and for reasons that I shall explain, that it would not.
To dispense with hearings in uncontested cases, we would need a complex administrative procedure in every case to ensure that the prosecution served the case on the defence and the court sufficiently in advance of the proceedings, to ensure that the defence informed the court of its decision not to contest the case and to ensure that the court sent notice to the defence that no hearing was required. That would give rise to some of the same difficulties which caused concern in the context of the transfer scheme.
In addition, even though a committal is uncontested, there may still be a need for a hearing: for example, where there is amendment, substitution or addition of charges, or where issues relating to bail need to be resolved. Unfortunately, it is impossible to identify in advance those cases where none of those would be necessary. If it were, the Law Society's proposal might have worked.
All of that led us to decide against making any procedural changes in this respect but to focus on the principal objective of excluding oral evidence in contested committals. The issue was considered during Committee in another place, when an amendment to give effect to that aspect of the Law Society's proposal was moved but was not pressed. No change was made to the modified committal proceedings as proposed by the Government.

947
This new form of committals will involve minimal changes to existing practice and procedure. We believe that it will guarantee a scheme which will work and which has the confidence of practitioners. I hope that the House will agree that it will also achieve the goals that we all share: to improve efficiency in the courts and to give greater protection to witnesses. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise only to give a general welcome to the amendments and to the change of heart with regard to transfer of trial, which the Government have undergone. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will speak to, although of course he cannot move at this stage, the manuscript amendments to Amendment No. 90 which the Minister has included in the group but has presumably not yet spoken to in detail. I hope that she will have an opportunity to respond to the points that he makes.
What the Government are now saying is very welcome. It contrasts rather strongly with what was said in this House and I am pleased to find that 90 per cent. of the points that we made in support of this form of reform of the transfer of trial have now been accepted by the Government. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the other 10 per cent., the exception, and accept that she is right. It would not be possible to know in advance the circumstances in which that part of the Law Society's proposals would have taken effect and therefore it is better to do it in this form.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I speak, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey indicated, simply to manuscript Amendments Nos. 90A to 90F.
The Minister was good enough—I am most grateful for her helpful courtesy—to send, as it were, a briefing note to my noble friend and to me. In the briefing note relating to Amendment No. 90, there is an extremely important clause. It says: "the effect of the provisions contained in the schedule"— that is Schedule 1, the subject of Amendment No. 90—"subject to suitable safeguards". That is the important clause. The concern that we feel—it is shared by the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association—is that there are no suitable safeguards presently incorporated. Amendment No. 90, in the form of the schedule, deals with two distinct sets of circumstances. Paragraph 1 refers to statements and paragraph 2 refers to depositions. What is important about paragraph 1 is that by definition it refers to a written statement, which will not have been subject to cross-examination at the committal proceedings. It is well known that the form of a written statement in those circumstances very substantially depends on the person who took it. That is inevitable—it is not a criticism of any police officer who takes the statement and is simply the way life is.
The problem and the very deep concern that has been expressed, in particular by the Criminal Bar Association, is that there are no safeguards. If one looks at
948
sub-paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) together, the net result is that, if a written statement has been admitted in committal proceedings, it may be read as evidence in the trial of the accused in the Crown Court before the jury in certain circumstances.
I do not deal with sub-paragraph (3)(a) because that is a technical matter of form. But sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) are very important. Sub-paragraph (3)(b) indicates that the court of trial at its discretion may order that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply; in other words, exclude the evidence of the written statement.
Sub-paragraph (3)(c) gives the entitlement to a party to the proceedings to object. However, the judge may override that objection if—this is the only limit—he considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.
There are two points there which I should mention. The right of objection is given to a party, that is, the prosecution and the defence has equal right of objection. But the fact is that it will virtually never—probably never—be a written statement on behalf of the defendant that is sought to be introduced. It will virtually always—probably always—be a written statement on behalf of the prosecution to which the defence objects. The curiosity is that sub-paragraph (3)(b) entrusts the court with a discretion—undescribed, unspecified. Sub-paragraph (4) directs the court to have regard to the interests of justice. That is a curious distinction which leaps from the page.
What I say about statements, of course, applies to depositions also. The purpose of these amendments is to try to redress the balance which will be unfairly tilted against the defendant. But one would have expected some safeguards to have been included: the kind of criteria that one finds in Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. One would expect to find some categories—for instance, where a witness is dead, has been intimidated, is ill, or beyond the seas; that kind of witness. One fully understands that it may be legitimate to have the statement of such a witness given in evidence subject to the usual warning that a trial judge might give to the jury that the statement has not been cross-examined to.
It may be that the noble Baroness the Minister may be able to indicate quite clearly that the criteria in Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are intended to apply and that one will simply not have a bald discretion. After all, it is a fundamental principle of great validity and respectable antecedence that a defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to see his accuser.
These provisions are too draconian. They take away from the defendant the right to cross-examine; they take away from the jury the possibility of assessing a witness's demeanour. They may be necessary in some circumstances but the basis of my support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend is that one needs careful safeguards and one ought to limit that to specific and designated circumstances.
It is intended to be a helpful amendment in order that criminal trials, to be fair, should not only be expediently conducted from the point of view of the prosecution, complainants and witnesses for the prosecution, but

949
should also maintain a proper balance when one puts into the scales the interests of the defendant in a fair trial.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking me so carefully through that explanation. As he is aware, I only had sight of the amendments a few moments ago. We all recognise that this is a complicated matter and there is no point of principle at issue between us. The amendments are defective. But other than making that technical point, I make no other comment in that regard. I want to respond to the points being made by the noble Lord.
It may be helpful if I say a few words as regards the provisions in paragraph 1 of the new schedule introduced in Amendment No. 90 dealing with the admissibility of written statements at a trial. Put simply, the aim is to facilitate the conduct of the trial by allowing for written statements to be admitted at the trial in place of oral evidence where all parties agree. If the evidence contained in a specific statement has been admitted in earlier committal hearings and is not disputed by any parties at the trial, it would be both unnecessary and wasteful to require the presence of witnesses to give that evidence again orally. That is a practice which already exists and we are not seeking to introduce anything new or revolutionary in the current provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made light of the limitation which exists in relation to the "interests of justice", to which I shall turn in a moment. He described it as a "bald" discretion. There must be an opportunity for a party to object and for the witness to be called. But that is provided for by paragraph 1(3)(c). In such circumstances the provision makes clear that the witness will be called to give evidence orally unless the trial judge decides that it would not be in the interests of justice to allow that to happen. However, the court would have to be satisfied that it was in the interests of justice.
It is not a new test. It is the test that the court must apply in looking at questions of admissibility. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Acts 1925 and 1988 we are not seeking to change the way in which that test is interpreted. The fact that the provision does not elaborate on that phrase does not mean that the test is in any way different. It must also be right to allow that element of discretion since there may be circumstances in which it would be impossible to ensure a witness's attendance. For example, if, since making the original written statement, the witness had died or moved abroad and was unable to be contacted, it would be wrong for one party to be able to preclude such evidence merely by objecting. The judge must be able to say whether or not, in the interests of justice, such evidence should be admitted.
I believe the anxiety over the way in which the provision will work in practice is misplaced. We are not seeking to introduce any fundamental changes to the interests of justice test and do not believe that the provision does so. Of course, we shall monitor that
950
position in the future to see whether any difficulties arise and take appropriate action if necessary. I do not believe that it will come to that.
The only final point I want to add is that the interests of justice test—we see it as a limitation but it is an important point to make—is appealable. If the power is exercised wrongly by the courts or in a way that concerns the defence, the decision can be appealed against. Therefore, recognising the point being made by the noble Lord, I hope with that explanation he will feel able to accept the government amendments and not press his own.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I can deal with this matter. I am grateful for the tone of the Minister's response. I am familiar with the present practice that, where all parties agree, a statement can be read and juries are directed that they must treat the evidence which is read in exactly the same way as though the witness had attended to give evidence orally.
The interests of justice is a broad concept and one simply looks for some headings by which a trial judge may be guided. It is true that the wrongful admission of evidence can be appealed against, and the appeal may be successful. But, bearing in mind the present state of the criminal listings in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, that is of little benefit to a defendant who may have been wrongly convicted and who has had to wait nine or 12 months before his appeal is heard. Surely it is better to get things right rather than to wait for appeal after they have gone wrong.
I am grateful that the Minister was able to say unequivocally that the present safeguards are intended to subsist and continue; that is, the safeguards already spoken about and in particular those found in Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I indicated that where a witness is dead or unavailable there may be legitimate reasons to have the statement read. But the fundamental principle remains, and it is important: the presumption should be that a witness ought to attend for cross-examination so that the defendant may confront his accuser. I repeat that there remains doubt about this matter and I invite the Minister to consider that if there is a lingering doubt—to use a phrase from another context—it ought to be reconsidered more fully in another place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am not entitled to intervene at this stage, but I merely rise to inquire as to the present procedural position. I understood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had tabled two manuscript amendments which he would not move but to which he was speaking. I gather that the view was that those amendments were unavailable at this stage to enable them to be moved. However, I thought that with the Commons amendments that we are considering, a manuscript amendment was in order. In any event, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has spoken after the Minister as though he had a substantial amendment tabled.

951
I may have misunderstood the position entirely. I rather gather from the aspect of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I have. I only intervene to ask for enlightenment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can respond and say that I am afraid the noble and learned Lord has, to some extent, misunderstood. The Minister moved Amendment No. 1 and spoke to a group of amendments, including Amendment No. 90. We could not move manuscript amendments—a copy of which the noble and learned Lord now has—to Amendment No. 90 but, as Amendment No. 90 had been spoken to by the Minister, it was felt proper that we should speak to them now. The Minister will have a right of reply to the debate on Amendment No. 1, which is the only Motion now before the House.
My noble friend was seeking some indication from the Minister that even if there is the merest scintilla of doubt in the Government's mind about the validity of the point being made in the manuscript amendments, it would be for the benefit of Parliament if the Minister were to accept those amendments, acknowledging that they are defective and that the outcome may not be the same, in order that the matter can be discussed between the Home Office and the Criminal Law Bar Association and resolved before such amendments go back to the Commons.
We make no party political point about this at all. All we are saying is that if these amendments are not accepted, there is no possibility of further parliamentary consideration of this rather technical issue. I appeal to the Minister now to indicate that for the purposes only of further discussion and without commitment to the outcome, she is prepared to accept even one of the manuscript amendments.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not want to give the commitment that we shall accept these amendments today. Interestingly, when I was preparing for today, without the additional six amendments to Amendment No. 90, I had anticipated that there might be some concern about the issue and that it might be brought to our notice.
There are two matters. I have given a commitment to monitor this matter. The other is that in practice we have the test of "in the interests of justice" being applied, but we do not have sufficient concern about it to accept that it is going to be a problem area. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is worried about its application. That is important. The noble Lord drew on the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and I shall say a word on that. It is well established that the courts at present enjoy a discretion to exclude evidence admissible under Section 13(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925. In deciding whether to admit such evidence, case law has held that the courts should apply the "interests of justice" test laid down in Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which I believe is the part referred to by the noble Lord.
952
It is anticipated that under the new arrangements the courts will, as now, turn for guidance to Section 26 of the 1988 Act for assistance in applying the provisions in the new schedule to the Bill. We believe that with that body of case law and the continuing habit of referring back for guidance as to how this measure will apply in practice, that is sufficient. Therefore, I argue that the amendments I have pressed on the House today should be accepted and the manuscript amendments rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again with the leave of the House and before the Minister sits down and the Question on Amendment No.1 is put, perhaps I may make one last appeal. If the Minister rejects the amendments to Amendment No. 90, the issue is dead and the Bill becomes law this afternoon. There is no possibility of rethinking of any kind. For the sake of a few days' delay in obtaining Royal Assent, can she not consider the matter further? We shall make no political point about it. Whatever conclusion is come to, there will be no delay and we will let the measure pass on the nod. On this occasion can she consider the possibility of letting one of these amendments go through so that the matter can be considered again with those who are very concerned in the Criminal Bar Association? They may be wrong. I am not saying they are right. But at least their views can be heard. They are very late in putting them forward and culpable in that respect. However, there should be an opportunity just to consider the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot invite the House to accept that proposal. "In the interests of justice" is a tried and tested test. We believe that there is a sufficient body of case law to act as guidance for its application in these circumstances. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a sufficient case at this late stage on this particular issue for accepting six new amendments to be sent to another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 3, page 2, line 32, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 16, 17, 21 to 23, 25 and 26.
These amendments clarify the definition of "prosecution material" in Clauses 3, 7, 8, and 9. Under the Bill at present, the prosecutor in any particular case must consider whether to disclose any material in the possession of any prosecutor, or inspected by any prosecutor in pursuance of the code of practice, whether or not it has any bearing on the particular case he is prosecuting. This imposes an impossible and unnecessary burden on the prosecutor. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 rectify this unintended consequence by limiting prosecution material to material which is in the prosecutor's possession or which he has inspected in connection with the case against the accused. All the other amendments are consequential.

953
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— '(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 3, page 2, line 37, leave out 'making a copy of it and giving the copy' and insert 'securing that a copy is made of it and that the copy is given'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 to Clause 3(3) and (4) are designed to reflect more closely the existing responsibilities of the police and the prosecutor in copying material to the accused. At present, where the police give a copy of the material to the prosecutor, and it is disclosable, either the police or the prosecutor will then give a copy to the accused. But Clause 3(3) and (4) place the duty of copying to the accused on the prosecutor in all circumstances. The amendments provide that the prosecutor must secure that a copy is made and given to the accused, leaving it open whether the police or the prosecutor will do the actual copying.
Amendment No. 5 is a technical amendment designed to reflect developments in technology. Clause 3(3)(a) provides for the prosecutor to disclose material by making a copy of it and giving the copy to the accused. This implies that the copy will be in the same form as it was when it reached the prosecutor. But it may well be more efficient, particularly in cases with a large volume of written material, for the material to be scanned on to a computer and disclosed on a computer disk. The information would be the same as before but it would be recorded in a different form. Amendment No. 5 makes that possible.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert— 'and a copy may be in such form as the prosecutor thinks fit and need not be in the same form as that in which the information has already been recorded.'
954
6 Page 3. line 2, leave out 'making a copy of it and giving the copy' and insert 'securing that a copy is made of it and that the copy is given'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out from 'during' to end of line 21 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 18, 27, 30 to 34 and 37 to 39. The substantive amendments are the three new clauses contained in Amendments Nos. 27, 38 and 39. They are designed to introduce some flexibility into the provisions of the Bill relating to the timing of prosecution and defence disclosure.
The Bill as it left this House required the prosecutor and the accused to make disclosure within a period to be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations. It is intended to prescribe a standard period which should be sufficient for the majority of cases. Disclosure may take longer in some cases where, for example, there is a large amount of material to consider or it is necessary to secure a court ruling on the disclosure of sensitive material. In those cases more time may be needed to comply with the Bill's disclosure duties. But the Bill does not provide for the disclosure time limits to be extended. Amendment No. 38 remedies this by widening the regulation-making power so that it may make provision to allow the prosecutor and the accused to make disclosure within an extended period if the court agrees to an application for extension. Inserting this new clause into Part I of the Bill requires us to make a number of consequential amendments, and Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 13, 18, 30 to 34 and 37 achieve this.
Because the prosecutor will be required to make disclosure within a time limit, whether original or extended, there is a risk of the accused trying to have the proceedings aborted if the prosecutor is a few days late. Amendment No. 27 guards against this. It provides that a failure to make prosecution disclosure within a time limit does not of itself constitute grounds for staying proceedings for abuse of process. But the protection does not apply if the delay by the prosecutor is such as to prevent the accused receiving a fair trial.
Finally, Amendment No. 39 provides a transitional arrangement until such time as regulations are made for prosecution disclosure. The new disclosure regime is different from the old and we are not going to know what the time limits for prosecution disclosure ought to be until the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have gained some practical experience of operating the new system. Accordingly, Amendment No. 39 requires the prosecutor to make disclosure as soon as is

955
reasonably practicable after the duty arises. That will enable us to monitor the operation of the new system and to collect information as a basis on which to develop time limits for prosecution disclosure.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not in any way criticise the substance of this group of amendments. However, from the drafting point of view, I think that Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 go into too much unnecessary detail and that a more compendious method of stating the matter in general terms would have served the purpose. The more detail that we go into in procedures relating to either civil or criminal proceedings, the greater the excuses for one side or another to take advantage of very small points. I say no more.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 5, page 3, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 4 and insert— '(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (2B), this section applies where—

(a) this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2), and

(b) the prosecutor complies with section 3 or purports to comply with it.

(2) Where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(a). this section does not apply unless—

(a) a copy of the notice of transfer, and

(b) copies of the documents containing the evidence,

have been given to the accused under regulations made under section 5(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.
(2A) Where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(ab), this section does not apply unless—

(a) a copy of the notice of transfer, and

(b) copies of the documents containing the evidence,

have been given to the accused under regulations made under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
(2B) Where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(c), this section does not apply unless the prosecutor has served on the accused a copy of the indictment and a copy of the set of documents containing the evidence which is the basis of the charge.'.
9 Page 4, line 4, at beginning insert 'Where this section applies'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I note that the Minister did not refer to the original amendment. We have no objection at all to her continuing not to do so throughout these proceedings.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
956
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Page 4, line 4, after 'the' insert 'court and the'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, 35 and 36.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 provide that when a defence statement is given to the prosecutor under Clauses 5 or 6, it must also be given to the court. The reason for these amendments is that the court will need to have a copy of the defence statement before it can decide under Clause 10 whether an inference should be drawn from a failure in defence disclosure. All the other amendments are consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Page 4, line 25, leave out from 'during' to end of line 27 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
12 Clause 6, page 4, line 31, leave out 'accused may give a defence statement to the prosecutor; and subsections' and insert 'accused—

(a) may give a defence statement to the prosecutor, and

(b) if he does so, must also give such a statement to the court.

(2A) Subsections'.
13 Page 4, line 35, leave out from 'during' to end of line 36 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
14 Clause 7, page 4, line 38, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
15 Page 4, line 43, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
16 Page 5, line 4, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
17 Page 5, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— `(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'
18 Page 5, line 18, leave out from 'during' to end of line 20 and insert 'the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for this section'.
19 Clause 8, page 5, line 22, leave out `to the prosecutor'.
20 Page 5, line 27, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
21 Page 5, line 32, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
22 Page 5, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— `(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'
23 Page 5, line 38, at end insert 'in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
24 Clause 9, page 6, line 26, leave out `to the prosecutor'.
25 Page 6, line 32, after 'possession' insert 'and came into his possession in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused'.
26 Page 6, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— `(b) which, in pursuance of a code operative under Part II, he has inspected in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'

957
27 After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
PROSECUTOR'S FAILURE TO OBSERVE TIME LIMITS
'.—(1) This section applies if the prosecutor—

(a) purports to act under section 3 after the end of the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 3, or

(b) purports to act under section 7 after the end of the period which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 7.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the failure to act during the period concerned does not on its own constitute grounds for staying the proceedings for abuse of process.
(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the failure constituting such grounds if it involves such delay by the prosecutor that the accused is denied a fair trial.'
28 Page 7, line 4, leave out 'the prosecutor'.
29 Page 7, line 5, leave out 'the prosecutor'.
30 Page 7, line 6, leave out 'mentioned in section 5(7)' and insert 'which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 5'.
31 Page 7, line 7, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
32 Page 7, line 10, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
33 Page 7, line 13, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
34 Page 7, line 15, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
35 Page 7, line 19, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.
36 Pagc 7, line 20, leave out 'the prosecutor'.
37 Page 7, leave out line 21 and insert 'which, by virtue of section (Time limits), is the relevant period for section 6'.
38 After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
TIME LIMITS
'.—(1) This section has effect for the purpose of determining the relevant period for sections 3, 5, 6 and 7.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the relevant period is a period beginning and ending with such days as the Secretary of State prescribes by regulations for the purposes of the section concerned.
(3) The regulations may do one or more of the following—

(a) provide that the relevant period for any section shall if the court so orders be extended (or further extended) by so many days as the court specifies;

(b) provide that the court may only make such an order if an application is made by a prescribed person and if any other prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(c) provide that an application may only be made if prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

(d) provide that the number of days by which a period may be extended shall be entirely at the court's discretion;

(e) provide that the number of days by which a period may be extended shall not exceed a prescribed number;

(f) provide that there shall be no limit on the number of applications that may be made to extend a period;

(g) provide that no more than a prescribed number of applications may be made to extend a period;

and references to the relevant period for a section shall be construed accordingly.
(4) Conditions mentioned in subsection (3) may be framed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), so far as the relevant period for section 3 or 7 is concerned—

(a) conditions may be framed by reference to the nature or volume of the material concerned;

958

(b) the nature of material may be defined by reference to the prosecutor's belief that the question of non-disclosure on grounds of public interest may arise.

(6) In subsection (3) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.'
39 Insert the following new clause—
TIME LIMITS: TRANSITIONAL
`.—(1) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section (Time limits) have come into force for the purposes of section 3, section 3(8) shall have effect as if it read—
"(8) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after—

(a) the accused pleads not guilty (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1)),

(b) the accused is committed for trial (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(aa)),

(c) the proceedings are transferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(a) or (ab)),

(d) the count is included in the indictment (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(b)), or

(e) the bill of indictment is preferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(c))."

(2) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section (Time limits) have come into force for the purposes of section 7, section 7(7) shall have effect as if it read—
"(7) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after the accused gives a defence statement under section 5 or 6."'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 39 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 39.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
40 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATIONS: OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
'Where—

(a) an application is made under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(5), 9(8), 11(2) or 12(4),

(b) a person claiming to have an interest in the material applies to be heard by the court, and

(c) he shows that he was involved (whether alone or with others and whether directly or indirectly) in the prosecutor's attention being brought to the material,

the court must not make an order under section 3(6), 7(5). 8(5), 9(8), 11(3) or 12(5) (as the case may be) unless the person applying under paragraph (b) has been given an opportunity to be heard.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.
This new clause is designed for situations where a third party, such as a local authority social services department, is the originator of sensitive material which is put before a court for a decision on disclosure to the accused. Under the Bill at present, only the prosecutor can make representations to the court about the material.

959
But the third party may well be more knowledgeable about the material and may be better placed to argue the issue of disclosure. Under the new clause, the third party would be able to instruct separate counsel if necessary to make representations to the court.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, this very day I have been dealing with exactly this point. It is extremely important that the third party should be able to address the court on this matter. I am delighted to see this provision being inserted into the Bill as amended.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
41 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION
—(1) If the accused is given or allowed to inspect a document or other object under—

(a) section 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 or 12, or

(b) an order under section 8,

then, subject to subsections (2) to (4), he must not use or disclose it or any information recorded in it.
(2) The accused may use or disclose the object or information—

(a) in connection with 'the proceedings for whose purposes he was given the object or allowed to inspect it,

(b) with a view to the taking of further criminal proceedings (for instance, by way of appeal) with regard to the matter giving rise to the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c) in connection with the proceedings first mentioned in paragraph (b).

(3) The accused may use or disclose—

(a) the object to the extent that it has been displayed to the public in open court, or

(b) the information to the extent that it has been communicated to the public in open court;

but the preceding provisions of this subsection do not apply if the object is displayed or the information is communicated in proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section (Confidentiality: contravention).
(4) If—

(a) the accused applies to the court for an order granting permission to use or disclose the object or information, and

(b) the court makes such an order,

the accused may use or disclose the object or information for the purpose and to the extent specified by the court.
(5) An application under subsection (4) may be made and dealt with at any time, and in particular after the accused has been acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor has decided not to proceed with the case concerned; but this is subject to rules made by virtue of section 13(2).
(6) Where—

(a) an application is made under subsection (4), and

(b) the prosecutor or a person claiming to have an interest in the object or information applies to be heard by the court,

960
the court must not make an order granting permission unless the person applying under paragraph (b) has been given an opportunity to be heard.
(7) References in this section to the court are to—

(a) a magistrates' court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1);

(b) the Crown Court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2).

(8) Nothing in this section affects any other restriction or prohibition on the use or disclosure of an object or information, whether the restriction or prohibition arises under an enactment (whenever passed) or otherwise.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42.
The aim of these amendments is to ensure the confidentiality of unused material that is disclosed by the prosecutor, under Part I of the Bill, to the accused. Your Lordships will recall that I indicated during our Third Reading debate that it was our intention to bring forward amendments to this effect.
I begin with the new clause introduced to the Bill by Amendment No. 41. The purpose of this new clause is to protect unused material disclosed to the accused under Part I of the Bill by requiring it to be treated confidentially. The only reason that the accused has access to this material is that the prosecution has disclosed it. It may contain sensitive or potentially embarrassing information about other people, which could be used to harass witnesses or even for blackmail. It may be used for financial gain or published without authorisation. All of these mischiefs would be tackled at source by this clause. The accused will be able to use disclosed unused material to prepare his or her defence, or any appeal, but could not use the material for other purposes unless the court gives permission.
I should also emphasise that this protection applies to unused material only—it does not apply to the prosecution case which is served on the defence which will form the major part of court proceedings, or to anything read out in open court. Court proceedings are, in most cases, open to the press and public and it would not be appropriate to place any special duty of confidentiality on the accused in respect of this material.
The new clause that is introduced by Amendment No. 42 makes contravening the confidentiality requirement, established in the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 41, punishable as a contempt of court. The penalties available to the courts are similar to those in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The court that heard the original case for which the material was disclosed will consider any contempt arising from misuse. The courts will have power to confiscate any protected material that has been misused, as well as to penalise the misuse.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

961
COMMONNS AMENDMENT
42 After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIALITY: CONTRAVENTION
'.—(1) It is a contempt of court for a person knowingly to use or disclose an object or information recorded in it if the use or disclosure is in contravention of section (Confidentiality of disclosed information).
(2) The following courts have jurisdiction to deal with a person who is guilty of a contempt under this section—

(a) a magistrates' court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1);

(b) the Crown Court, where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2).

(3) A person who is guilty of a contempt under this section may be dealt with as follows—

(a) a magistrates' court may commit him to custody for a specified period not exceeding six months or impose on him a fine not exceeding £5,000 or both;

(b) the Crown Court may commit him to custody for a specified period not exceeding two years or impose a fine on him or both.

(4) If—

(a) a person is guilty of a contempt under this section, and

(b) the object concerned is in his possession,

the court finding him guilty may order that the object shall be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
(5) The power of the court under subsection (4) includes power to order the object to be destroyed or to be given to the prosecutor or to be placed in his custody for such period as the court may specify.
(6) If—

(a) the court proposes to make an order under subsection (4), and

(b) the person found guilty, or any other person claiming to have an interest in the object, applies to be heard by the court,

the court must not make the order unless the applicant has been given an opportunity to be heard.
(7) If—

(a) a person is guilty of a contempt under this section, and

(b) a copy of the object concerned is in his possession,

the court finding him guilty may order that the copy shall be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
(8) Subsections (5) and (6) apply for the purposes of subsection (7) as they apply for the purposes of subsection (4), but as if references to the object were references to the copy.
(9) An object or information shall be inadmissible as evidence in civil proceedings if to adduce it would in the opinion of the court be likely to constitute a contempt under this section; and "the court" here means the court before which the civil proceedings are being taken.
(10) The powers of a magistrates' court under this section may be exercised either of the court's own motion or by order on complaint.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
962
COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 13, page 9, line 5, at end insert—
`(aa) proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section (Confidentiality: contravention);'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 49.
These amendments are consequential on the new clauses which relate to representations by third parties at disclosure hearings, confidentiality of unused material, and disclosure time limits. They provide for rules of court to be made governing the practice and procedure for applications to the court under these new clauses and the resulting court orders.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
44 Clause 13, page 9, line 6, leave out 'or 12(4)' and insert `,12(4), (Applications: opportunity to be heard)(b), (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(4) or (6)(b) or (Confidentiality: contravention)(6)'.
45 Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
'(aa) an application under regulations made under section (Time limits);'.
46 Page 9, line 8. leave out '11(3)' and insert '3(6), 7(5), 8(2) or
(5), 9(8), 11(3), (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(4) or (Confidentiality: contravention)(4) or (7)'.
47 Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
'(d) an order under regulations made under section (Time limits).'
48 Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by virtue of subsection (2)(aa) above may contain or include provision equivalent to Schedule 3 to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (proceedings for disobeying magistrates' court order) with any modifications which the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate on the advice of or after consultation with the rule committee for magistrates' courts.
(2B) Rules made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) in relation to an application under section (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(4) may include provision—

(a) that an application to a magistrates' court must be made to a particular magistrates' court;

(b) that an application to the Crown Court must be made to the Crown Court sitting at a particular place;

(c) requiring persons to be notified of an application.'

49 Page 9, line II, leave out 'subsection (I)' and insert 'this section'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 49.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

963
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
50 Clause 15, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
'(ab) the accused is committed for trial (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(aa))'.
51 Page 10, line 14, after '(a)' insert 'or (ab)'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Clause 17, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
`(aa) that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued;'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.
Amendment No. 52 ensures that the code of practice to be prepared under Part II of the Bill must require an investigator to take all reasonable steps for the purposes of a criminal investigation and in particular must pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry.
This amendment arises from the Government's response to Chapter K5 of the Scott Report, which is concerned with prosecution procedures. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's response in a Written Answer on Thursday 6th June and in a more detailed paper which was placed in the Library of the House.
The Scott Report made eight recommendations about prosecution procedures. These were directed at what Sir Richard perceived as a failure to gather relevant material, confusion over what inquiries had been made, and failures in disclosure. His recommendations were based on existing law and he recognised that they needed to be considered against the provisions of this Bill.
The Bill and the code partly address Sir Richard's concerns by providing for a clear audit trail whenever requests for documents elicit items which may be relevant to the investigation, and by imposing specific new disclosure duties on the prosecutor and the accused which are designed to clarify the issues in dispute. But something more is needed. We think that the code of practice should require the investigator to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry in a criminal investigation, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. This should help to ensure that relevant material is not overlooked. It also provides statutory backing for what is already regarded as good investigative practice.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 53 to 55. One of the matters which the code of practice must be designed to secure in Clause 17(1)(e) is that where the prosecutor inspects material held by the police and he asks them to disclose it to the accused the accused is allowed to
964
inspect it or is given a copy. This provision prevents the police disclosing material to the accused which the prosecutor has not inspected. But in cases involving a large volume of material it may be in everyone's interest to allow such disclosure. For example, the police may have obtained 1,000 very similar invoices, and it may be clear to the prosecutor from inspecting 50 of them that all of them ought to be disclosed to the accused. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 make this possible. Amendment No. 55 is consequential.
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. The effect of Clauses 18(2) and 18(3) is that all material retained by the police in the course of a criminal investigation must be described on either a sensitive or a non-sensitive schedule and that schedule is given to the prosecutor. Amendment No. 56 is designed to protect exceptionally sensitive material such as a list of the names and addresses of a number of police informants. Current police practice is not to describe such material on the sensitive schedule but to tell the prosecutor about it and invite him or her to inspect it. The amendment ensures that the code can reflect current practice and, in particular, that the prosecutor must be told of the material and invited to inspect it. Amendment No. 57 ensures that matters prescribed under Clause 18 are prescribed under the code. There is an identical provision in Clause 17(8).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe Amendment No. 52 to be of great value, reinforced as it is by the Minister's indication that all reasonable lines of inquiry embrace those which may point to an acquittal. This is an extremely valuable amendment, and I welcome it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
53 Clause 17, page 11, line 3, leave out from 'where' to `and' in line 4 and insert 'such a person inspects information or other material in pursuance of a requirement that it be revealed to him,'.
54 Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
`(ee) that where such a person is given a document indicating the nature of information or other material in pursuance of a requirement that it be revealed to him, and he requests that it be disclosed to the accused, the accused is allowed to inspect it or is given a copy of it;'.
55 Page 11, line 11, after '(e)' insert 'or (ee)'.
56 Clause 18, page 12, line 41, at end insert—
'(6A) The code may provide that if the person required to reveal material has possession of material which he believes is sensitive and of such a nature that provision contained in the code by virtue of subsection (2) should not apply with regard to it—

(a) that provision shall not apply with regard to the material,

(b) he must notify a person identified in accordance with prescribed provisions of the existence of the material, and

(c) he must allow the person so notified to inspect the material.'

965
57 Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
'(8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the code.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 57.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Clause 22, page 14, line 7, at end insert—
`(aa) on or after the appointed day the accused is committed for trial for the offence concerned,'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 Clause 28, page 17, line 10, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74, 88, 91 and 92. Amendments Nos. 59 and 91 are technical amendments to remove an inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 74 is designed to ensure that the amendment to Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 which is made by Clause 54 applies in relation to things done or omitted on or after a day appointed for the purpose of Clause 54 by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 88 removes Clause 62(2) which provides that nothing in the Bill imposes any charge on the people or on public funds. It was inserted by this House to avoid questions of privilege.
Finally, Amendment No. 92 is a technical amendment to Schedule 2 which takes account of the fact that a preparatory hearing may be ordered under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 where a case has been committed for trial under the provisions reinstated by other amendments to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
60 Clause 33, page 20, line 19, after 'after' insert 'the accused has been committed for trial for the offence concerned or after'.
61 Leave out Clause 38 and insert the following new clause—
REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
`.—(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
(2) Section 44 and Schedule 4 (which provide for transfer for trial instead of committal proceedings) shall be omitted.
966
(3) In each of sections 34, 36 and 37 for paragraph (a) of subsection (2) (magistrates' court proceeding with a view to transfer) there shall be substituted—
"(a) a magistrates' court inquiring into the offence as examining justices;".
(4) Sections 34(7), 36(8) and 37(7) (transitional) shall be omitted.
(5) In Schedule 11 (repeals) the entries relating to the following (which concern committal, transfer and other matters) shall be omitted—

(a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;

(b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;

(c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";

(d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";

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

(f) in section 32(1)(6) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 the words "tried or";

(g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";

(h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(1)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

(i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";

(j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";

(k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;

(1) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;

(m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or", and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.

(6) The 1994 Act shall be treated as having been enacted with the amendments made by subsections (2) and (5).
(7) Subsections (3) and (4) apply where a magistrates' court begins to inquire into an offence as examining justices after the day on which this Act is passed.'
62 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
NOTICES OF TRANSFER
'.—(1) Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (notices of transfer in cases of serious or complex fraud) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (9)(a) (regulations) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".

967
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (9)—
"(9A) Regulations under subsection (9)(a) above may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(4) In Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (notices of transfer in certain cases involving children) paragraph 4 (regulations) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".
(6) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)—
"(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(7) In paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act (reporting restrictions) in sub-paragraph (8) for the words "sub-paragraphs (5) and (6)" there shall be substituted "sub-paragraphs (5) and (7)".
(8) This section applies where a notice of transfer is given under section 4 of the 1987 Act or served under section 53 of the 1991 Act (as the case may be) on or after the appointed day.
(9) The reference in subsection (8) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
63 Insert the following new clause—
WAR CRIMES: ABOLITION OF TRANSFER PROCEDURE
'.—(1) In the War Crimes Act 1991—

(a) in section 1(4) (which introduces the Schedule providing a procedure for use instead of committal proceedings for certain war crimes) the words "England, Wales or" shall be omitted, and

(b) Part I of the Schedule (procedure for use in England and Wales instead of committal proceedings) shall be omitted.

(2) In section 20(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (power of magistrates' court to grant legal aid for Crown Court proceedings)—

(a) the word "or" shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b), and

(b) paragraph (bb) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part I of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall be omitted.'

64 Insert the following new clause—
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
'Schedule (Committal proceedings) to this Act (which contains provisions about committal proceedings and related matters) shall have effect.'
65 Leave out Clause 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 to 65.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 to 65.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
968
COMMONS AMENDMENT
66 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
SUMMONS TO WITNESS AND WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST
`.-(1) In section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2A)—
"(2B) A justice may refuse to issue a summons under subsection (1) above in relation to the summary trial of an information if he is not satisfied that an application for the summons was made by a party to the case as soon as reasonably practicable after the accused pleaded not guilty.
(2C) In relation to the summary trial of an information, subsection (2) above shall have effect as if the reference to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) above included a reference to the matter mentioned in subsection (2B) above."
(2) This section applies in relation to any proceedings for the purpose of which no summons has been issued under section 97(1), and no warrant has been issued under section 97(2), before the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 which introduce new clauses concerning procedures for issuing witness summonses. These are the means by which reluctant witnesses are brought to court to give oral evidence or to produce documentary evidence. They are also the means used to achieve third party disclosure in criminal cases.
I indicated at Third Reading that it was the Government's intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill to improve arrangements for third party disclosure in criminal proceedings. We were not able to do so until the Bill had passed to another place because of our wish to consult widely on what is a complex area. The changes that are reflected in these amendments are modest. We do not regard them as the final word on third party disclosure. It is our intention to look again at procedures for disclosure by third parties once we are able to assess the practical benefits of the new arrangements that are set out in Amendments Nos. 66, 70 and 71. Although modest, the changes that are proposed, and which have been drawn up in consultation with the judiciary and with many of those potential third parties directly affected by the changes, are nevertheless in our view sensible, practicable and helpful. I hope that the House will agree.
Amendment No. 66 deals with the procedures in the magistrates' courts. It will enable the justices to take account of the timeliness of an application for a witness summons and give them discretion not to issue a summons. Late applications are a problem for both third parties and the court. This provision should encourage earlier applications without penalising those who may have good reason for a last minute application.
Amendment No. 70 replaces the existing provisions for witness summons in the Crown Court. At present a witness summons in the Crown Court is issued automatically and can be challenged by a third party

969
who has to prove that he or she should not disclose material. The amendment allows for new procedures such that in most cases witness summonses will be issued by the court only on an application. The application for a witness summons has to be justified, specific and timely. Provision is made for the third party to apply to be heard before the summons is issued. The court will also be able to order advance disclosure of documents in a witness summons after which the witness may be stood down if his or her evidence is not required.
There are circumstances in which the Crown Court will need to act of its own motion. I have in mind, in particular, letters of request which are made under the terms of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 in respect of foreign proceedings. In such cases the Secretary of State nominates a court to take evidence under Section 4 of the 1990 Act. The court issues a witness summons, as necessary, of its own motion. New Section 2D inserted by Amendment No. 70 ensures that this can continue to happen and that we can continue to comply with the terms of the 1990 Act.
Amendment No. 71 simply ensures that the Crown Court is able to enforce a witness summons. It allows the Crown Court to issue a warrant to arrest the witness if he or she fails to comply with the summons.
Finally, Amendment No. 69 concerns witness orders. Unimplemented provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolished witness orders. Amendment No. 69 makes similar provision. The notification of witnesses to attend court will instead be achieved by a new administrative procedure. Crown Courts retain their powers to issue a witness summons to ensure the attendance at court of reluctant witnesses.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, leaving aside the international dimension—which does not come my way very often—the rest of these amendments appear to me to be wholly admirable and will be very helpful for the administration of justice in the courts with which I deal.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have no difficulty with these amendments. I should like to put a question to the noble Baroness. If she does not want to answer it today perhaps she can deal with it by way of correspondence. Given the number of criminal justice Acts which are being significantly amended, is this area likely to be a priority candidate for consolidation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, unequivocally yes. The answer to the noble Lord's question lies ultimately with my masters. However, on the basis of the number of Acts to which I have referred in speaking to these amendments, the case for consolidation is well made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
67 After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
ROAD TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT: PROVISION OF SPECIMENS
.—(1) In section 7(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (provision of blood or urine in course of investigating whether certain road traffic offences have been committed) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(bb) a device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above has been used at the police station but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned, or".
(2) In section 31(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (provision of blood or urine in course of investigating whether certain offences have been committed by persons working on transport systems) the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—
"(bb) a device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above has been used at the police station but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned, or".
(3) This section applies where it is proposed to make a requirement mentioned in section 7(3) of the 1988 Act or section 31(3) of the 1992 Act after the appointed day.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.
The new clause ensures that the police can make full use of new evidential breath testing equipment, which will shortly be available, by continuing to be able to exercise their existing discretion to require blood or urine samples from suspected drink drivers in certain situations. It makes similar provision in the Transport and Works Act which provides a scheme for dealing with railway employees suspected of exceeding the alcohol limit.
The existing breath testing equipment at police stations was introduced in 1983 and we need to plan ahead for its replacement. Technology has moved on since 1983, as have the international standards on breath testing. The new equipment therefore incorporates some new software which enables it to identify and flag up automatically certain situations which are currently catered for by operational arrangements. Put simply, these cover situations where it is suspected an interfering substance may be present, or the alleged offender produces mouth alcohol or the difference between the reading for two breath samples is greater than 15 per cent. In such situations, the machine will advise the operator and the constable should then be able to require a blood or urine sample as an alternative.
The existing provisions in Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 do not currently allow specimens to be required in a situation where a properly working

971
machine indicates such readings. The new clause therefore extends the police's existing discretion to allow specimens to be taken in such situations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the new clause is of some importance to motorists. As I understand the present law, if a motorist is given a breath test and it shows that he may be outside the limit that is allowed, he is entitled to call for another test (blood or urine). I am not sure how this new clause will work. It gives the constable the opportunity to decide whether the breath test could have been inaccurate.
If the breath test shows that the motorist is in the clear—in other words, it does not show that he has taken enough alcohol to convict him—but the constable thinks that the breath test should have shown that he has taken more alcohol, the constable can then require a urine or blood test. I am not sure whether in those circumstances the rights of motorists to claim that as the breath test was all right, it shall hold. I hope that I am not being unfair to my noble friend. I have not given her notice of this question, but it is a point that we should consider in passing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that if someone is stopped on the side of the road and given a breath test, that information is not admissible in court. The person would need to be returned to the police station, and an evidential breath test would then be taken. The existing equipment, as I understand it, measures for alcohol. If the machine was not there or was malfunctioning in some way, the police could resort to a urine or blood sample for a measurement.
As I understand it, the new machinery, which is not yet in everyday use, can measure not just levels of alcohol but can flag up for the person using the machine that there is another interfering substance present; for example, drugs. Because the law in the past has dealt with only one type of equipment and one set of circumstances in which that secondary equipment may be bypassed for a urine or blood sample, we have had to make this small adjustment to this law so that the constable concerned can resort to a blood or urine sample on grounds other than the machine not working or not being present.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
CHECKS AGAINST FINGERPRINTS ETC
`.—(1) In section 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) (checks against fingerprints etc. where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence)—
"(1) Where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence or has been charged with such an offence or has been informed that he will be reported for such an offence, fingerprints or samples or the information derived from samples taken under any power conferred by this Part of this Act from the person may be checked against—
972

(a) other fingerprints or samples to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held by or on behalf of a police force (or police forces) falling within subsection (1A) below or are held in connection with or as a result of an investigation of an offence;

(b) information derived from other samples if the information is contained in records to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(1A) Each of the following police forces falls within this subsection—

(a) a police force within the meaning given by section 62 of the Police Act 1964 (which relates to England and Wales);

(b) a police force within the meaning given by section 50 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

(c) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve;

(d) the States of Jersey Police Force;

(e) the salaried police force of the Island of Guernsey;

(f) the Isle of Man Constabulary."

(2) This section applies where a person—

(a) is arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence,

(b) is charged with a recordable offence, or

(c) is informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence,

after the day on which this Act is passed.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.
This new clause is designed to enable the police in England and Wales speculatively to search DNA and fingerprint information taken under powers conferred by Part V of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as inserted by Section 56 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) from a person who has been charged with or informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence. It will also enable them to cross-search that information against other such information which has been taken and retained lawfully as part of the investigation of an offence anywhere in the United Kingdom.
It is needed because existing provisions covering powers to search do not cover fingerprints or samples taken from a person who has not been arrested, convicted or cautioned, and they do not contain any specific authority to cross-search information collected in different jurisdictions within the UK.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly what will happen in relation to police forces in other parts of the UK. The police in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man do not currently have the power to take DNA samples but they do take fingerprints and the new clause will allow for cross-searching of the fingerprints.
Amendment No. 105 to Schedule 3 achieves for the police in Northern Ireland what this amendment achieves for the police in England and Wales.
The powers which are conferred on the police in England and Wales by virtue of this new clause already apply in Scotland. Scottish common law gives police

973
forces in Scotland the power to search lawfully held prints, impressions and samples and information derived therefrom.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
69 After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
ABOLITION OF WITNESS ORDERS
'.—(1) Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (examining justices to order witness to attend and give evidence before Crown Court) shall be omitted.
(2) In that Act the following words shall be omitted—

(a) in section 3(1) the words "witness order or";

(b) in section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or";

(c) in the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons";

(d) in section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

(3) In section 145 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (rules) subsection (1)(e) (which relates to witness orders) shall be omitted.
(4) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'
70 Insert the following new clause—
SUMMONS TO WITNESS TO ATTEND CROWN COURT
'.—(1) The Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following shall be substituted for section 2 (summons to witness to attend Crown Court)—
"issue of witness summons on application
Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court.
2.—(1) This section applies where the Crown Court is satisfied that—

(a) a person is likely to be able to give evidence likely to be material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, for the purpose of any criminal proceedings before the Crown Court, and

(b) the person will not voluntarily attend as a witness or will not voluntarily produce the document or thing.

(2) In such a case the Crown Court shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to the person concerned and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the Crown Court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

(b) give the evidence or produce the document or thing.

(3) A witness summons may only be issued under this section on an application; and the Crown Court may refuse to issue the summons if any requirement relating to the application is not fulfilled.
(4) Where a person has been committed for trial for any offence to which the proceedings concerned relate, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the committal.
(5) Where the proceedings concerned have been transferred to the Crown Court, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the transfer.
974
(6) Where the proceedings concerned relate to an offence in relation to which a bill of indictment has been preferred under the authority of section 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (bill preferred by direction of Court of Appeal, or by direction or with consent of judge) an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the bill was preferred.
(7) An application must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(8) Crown Court rules—

(a) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;

(b) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application on the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed;

(c) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be supported by an affidavit containing such matters as the rules may stipulate;

(d) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, make provision for enabling the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed to be present or represented at the hearing of the application for the witness summons.

(9) Provision contained in Crown Court rules by virtue of subsection (8)(c) above may in particular require an affidavit to—

(a) set out any charge on which the proceedings concerned are based;

(b) specify any stipulated evidence, document or thing in such a way as to enable the directed person to identify it;

(c) specify grounds for believing that the directed person is likely to be able to give any stipulated evidence or produce any stipulated document or thing;

(d) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated evidence is likely to be material evidence;

(e) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated document or thing is likely to be material evidence.

(10) In subsection (9) above—

(a) references to any stipulated evidence, document or thing are to any evidence, document or thing whose giving or production is proposed to be required by the witness summons;

(b) references to the directed person are to the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed.

Power to require advance production.
2A. A witness summons which is issued under section 2 above and which requires a person to produce a document or thing as mentioned in section 2(2) above may also require him to produce the document or thing—

(a) at a place stated in the summons, and

(b) at a time which is so stated and precedes that stated under section 2(2) above,

for inspection by the person applying for the summons.
Summons no longer needed.
213.—(1) If—

(a) a document or thing is produced in pursuance of a requirement imposed by a witness summons under section 2A above,

(b) the person applying for the summons concludes that a requirement imposed by the summons under section 2(2) above is no longer needed, and

975

(c) he accordingly applies to the Crown Court for a direction that the summons shall be of no further effect,

the court may direct accordingly.
(2) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(3) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the effect of a direction under this section to be notified to the person to whom the summons is directed.
Application to make summons ineffective.
2C.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 2 above is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court,

(b) satisfies the court that he was not served with notice of the application to issue the summons and that he was neither present nor represented at the hearing of the application, and

(c) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may he, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above it is immaterial—

(a) whether or not Crown Court rules require the person to he served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

(b) whether or not Crown Court rules enable the person to be present or represented at the hearing of the application.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) above "served" means—

(a) served in accordance with Crown Court rules, in a case where such rules require the person to be served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

(b) served in such way as appears reasonable to the court to which the application is made under this section, in any other case.

(4) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(5) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(6) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application under this section on the person on whose application the witness summons was issued.
(7) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
(8) Where a direction is made under this section that a witness summons shall be of no effect, the person on whose application the summons was issued may be ordered to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application under this section,
(9) Any costs payable under an order made under subsection (8) above shall be taxed by the proper officer of the court, and payment of those costs shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order for payment of costs made by the High Court in a civil case or as a sum adjudged summarily to be paid as a civil debt.
976
Issue of witness sutntnons of court's own motion.
Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion.
2D. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

(b) give evidence, or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

Application to make summons ineffective.
2E.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 2D above is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court, and

(b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
Other provisions".
(3) In section 3 (punishment for disobedience to witness summons) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Any person who without just excuse disobeys a requirement made by any court under section 2A above shall be guilty of contempt of that court and may be punished summarily by that court as if his contempt had been committed in the face of the court."
(4) In section 3, in subsection (2) for the words "such disobedience" there shall be substituted "any disobedience mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A) above".
(5) In section 4 (further process to secure attendance of witness) in the proviso to subsection (1) after the word "give" there shall be inserted "evidence likely to be".
(6) Schedule 1 (application for direction that witness summons shall be of no effect) shall be omitted.
(7) This section applies in relation to any proceedings for the purpose of which no witness summons has been issued under section 2 of the 1965 Act before the appointed day.
(8) The reference in subsection (7) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
71 Insert the following new clause—
WITNESS SUMMONS: SECURING ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS
`.—(1) In section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (judge of High Court may issue warrant to arrest witness in respect of whom witness summons is in force) for the words "High Court" there shall be substituted "Crown Court".
(2) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'

977
72 Insert the following new clause—
USE OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
'Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act (which relates to the use at the trial of written statements and depositions admitted in evidence in committal proceedings) shall have effect.'
73 Insert the following new clause—
PROOF BY WRITTEN STATEMENT
'.—(1) In section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (proof by written statement) in subsection (3)(a) (statement by person under 21 must give his age) for "twenty-one" there shall be substituted "eighteen".
(2) This section applies in relation to statements tendered in evidence on or after the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.'
74 Clause 54, page 34, line 4, at end insert 'by order.'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 74.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 74.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1995
'.—(1) The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 27 (breach of bail conditions: offences) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) The fact that the subsequent offence was committed while the accused was on bail shall, unless challenged—

(a) in the case of proceedings on indictment, by giving notice of a preliminary objection under paragraph (b) of section 72(1) of this Act or under that paragraph as applied by section 71(2) of this Act; or

(b) in summary proceedings, by preliminary objection before his plea is recorded,

be held as admitted.".
(3) In subsection (1) of section 65 (prevention of delay in trials), for the words from "shall be discharged forthwith" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted—

"(a) shall be discharged forthwith from any indictment as respects the offence; and

(b) shall not at any time be proceeded against on indictment as respects the offence".

(4) In Schedule 9 (certificates as to proof of certain routine matters), in the entry relating to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for "Section 114(4)" in column I there shall be substituted "Section 112(1)".'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.
This new clause amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It is designed to achieve three things: first, it applies existing evidential presumptions to the new arrangements for tackling offending while on bail, introduced in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 which received Royal Assent last year;
978
secondly, it states that the time limits in Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for the commencement of trials apply to proceedings on indictment only; and, thirdly, it corrects a textual error in the recent consolidation of Scottish criminal procedure legislation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS
'In section 148(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (power of court to act where another may act) the reference to that Act includes a reference to this Act.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with Commons in their Amendment No. 76.
This new clause is designed to ensure that anything which a magistrates' court may do under the Bill may be done by any other magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessional area. This principle already operates for magistrates' courts proceedings under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
It is needed because the bench of magistrates which is to try a case may not be the same as the bench which was originally constituted for the purposes of those proceedings. Unlike judges in the Crown Court, the great majority of magistrates can only sit part-time. If the proceedings are adjourned for any reason, the accused may well find himself up before a different bench when he returns.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought we said that when the Bill was before the House, and the Government did not agree with us. I am delighted to see the change of heart.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
77 Clause 59, page 35, line 34, leave out 'power of the Secretary of State to make an order' and insert 'powers of the Secretary of State to make orders'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 to 81. All of these amendments are designed to tidy up the drafting of Clause 59.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 77.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
78 Clause 59, page 35, line 36, leave out 'The' and insert 'Any'.
79 Page 35, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) Any order or regulations may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.'

979
80 Page 35, line 39, leave out 'The power to make an order' and insert 'Any power to make an order or regulations'
81 Page 36, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'subject' in line 2 and insert 'A statutory instrument containing—

(a) an order under section (Application to armed forces), or

(b) regulations, shall be'.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
82 After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION TO ARMED FORCES
'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to section 57(2) and (3), nothing in this Act applies to—

(a) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;

(c) any investigation conducted with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence under any of those Acts or whether a person charged with such an offence is guilty of it.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) make as regards any proceedings falling within subsection (3) provision which is equivalent to the provisions contained in or made under Part I, subject to such modifications as he thinks fit and specifies in the order;

(b) make as regards any investigation falling within subsection (4) provision which is equivalent to the provisions contained in or made under Part II, subject to such modifications as he thinks fit and specifies in the order.

(3) The proceedings falling within this subsection are—

(a) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Army Act 1955;

(b) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Air Force Act 1955;

(c) proceedings before a court martial constituted under the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(d) proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court.

(4) An investigation falls within this subsection if it is conducted with a view to it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence under any of the Acts mentioned in subsection (3) or whether a person charged with such an offence is guilty of it.
(5) An order under this section may make provision in such way as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and may in particular apply any of the provisions concerned subject to such modifications as he thinks fit and specifies in the order.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of section 59(2A), an order under this section may include provision—

(a) repealing section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (alibi) as it applies to proceedings before courts martial;

(b) amending or repealing any provision of section 12 of that Act or of section 57 above.'

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82. It is a long-established principle that procedures in service courts should follow those in civilian courts as closely as possible. This new clause reflects that principle by giving the Secretary of State power to make an order for the purposes of proceedings before a court martial and standing civilian court and supporting investigations, containing provisions equivalent to those in Parts I and II of the Bill relating to disclosure and a code of practice. In doing so, the new clause makes it clear that subject to an order being made, nothing in the Bill applies to those proceedings or to supporting investigations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
83 Clause 60, page 36, line 5, leave out '56,' and insert `(Road traffic and transport: provision of specimens), 56, (Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995), 57(2) and (3) and (Application to armed forces),'.
84 Page 36, line 7, at end insert—
'(bb) paragraph 4A of Schedule 4;'.
85 Page 36, line 9, at end insert—
`(1A) Section (Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995) extends only to Scotland.'
86 Page 36, line 10, leave out '54' and insert '(Reinstatement of certain provisions), (Committal proceedings), (Abolition of witness orders), (Witness swnmons: securing attendance of witness), (Use of written statements and depositions at trial)'.
87 Page 36, line 13, at end insert—
'(4) Section 57(2) and (3) extend to any place where proceedings before courts martial may be held.
(5) Section (Application to armed forces) extends as follows—

(a) so far as it relates to proceedings, it extends to any place where such proceedings may be held;

(b) so far as it relates to investigations, it extends to any place where such investigations may be conducted.'

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 87. These amendments to Clause 60 are all consequential on amendments made to the Bill in the House of Commons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 83 to 87.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
88 Clause 62, page 36, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
89 Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new schedule—
'COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
PART I
MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1980
Introduction
1. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended as mentioned in this Part of this Schedule.

981
Amendments
2.—(1) Section 4 (general nature of committal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
"(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, evidence tendered before examining justices shall be tendered in the presence of the accused."
(3) In subsection (4) for the word "given" (in each place) there shall be substituted "tendered".
3. The following sections shall be inserted after section 5—
"Evidence which is admissible.
5A.—(1) Evidence falling within subsection (2) below, and only that evidence, shall be admissible by a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.
(2) Evidence falls within this subsection if it—

(a) is tendered by or on behalf of the prosecutor, and

(b) falls within subsection (3) below.

(3) The following evidence falls within this subsection—

(a) written statements complying with section 5B below;

(b) the documents or other exhibits (if any) referred to in such statements;

(c) depositions complying with section 5C below;

(d) the documents or other exhibits (if any) referred to in such depositions;

(e) statements complying with section 5D below;

(f) documents falling within section 5E below.

(4) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Written statements.
5B.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a written statement complies with this section if—

(a) the conditions falling within subsection (2) below are met, and

(b) such of the conditions falling within subsection (3) below as apply are met.

(2) The conditions falling within this subsection are that—

(a) the statement purports to be signed by the person who made it;

(b) the statement contains a declaration by that person to the effect that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made the statement knowing that, if it were tendered in evidence, he would be liable to prosecution if he wilfully stated in it anything which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true;

(c) before the statement is tendered in evidence a copy of the statement is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to each of the other parties to the proceedings.

(3) The conditions falling within this subsection are that—

(a) if the statement is made by a person under 18 years old, it gives his age;

(b) if it is made by a person who cannot read it, it is read to him before he signs it and is accompanied by a declaration by the person who so read the statement to the effect that it was so read;

(c) if it refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy given to any other party to the proceedings under subsection (2)(c) above is accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary to enable the party to whom it is given to inspect that document or a copy of it.

982
(4) So much of any statement as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.
(5) Any document or other object referred to as an exhibit and identified in a statement admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall be treated as if it had been produced as an exhibit and identified in court by the maker of the statement.
(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Depositions.
5C.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a deposition complies with this section if—

(a) a copy of it is sent to the prosecutor under section 97A(9) below,

(b) the condition falling within subsection (2) below is met, and

(c) the condition falling within subsection (3) below is met, in a case where it applies.

(2) The condition falling within this subsection is that before the magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence concerned as examining justices a copy of the deposition is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to each of the other parties to the proceedings.
(3) The condition falling within this subsection is that, if the deposition refers to any other document as an exhibit, the copy given to any other party to the proceedings under subsection (2) above is accompanied by a copy of that document or by such information as may be necessary to enable the party to whom it is given to inspect that document or a copy of it.
(4) So much of any deposition as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any deposition as is not read aloud.
(5) Any document or other object referred to as an exhibit and identified in a deposition admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall be treated as if it had been produced as an exhibit and identified in court by the person whose evidence is taken as the deposition.
(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Statements.
5D.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a statement complies with this section if the conditions falling within subsections (2) to (4) below are met.
(2) The condition falling within this subsection is that, before the committal proceedings begin, the prosecutor notifies the magistrates' court and each of the other parties to the proceedings that he believes—

(a) that the statement might by virtue of section 23 or 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents) be admissible as evidence if the case came to trial, and

(b) that the statement would not be admissible as evidence otherwise than by virtue of section 23 or 24 of that Act if the case came to trial.

(3) The condition falling within this subsection is that—

(a) the prosecutor's belief is based on information available to him at the time he makes the notification,

(b) he has reasonable grounds for his belief, and

(c) he gives the reasons for his belief when he makes the notification.

983
(4) The condition falling within this subsection is that when the court or a party is notified as mentioned in subsection (2) above a copy of the statement is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to the court or the party concerned.
(5) So much of any statement as is in writing and is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.
Other documents.
5E.—(l) The following documents fall within this section—

(a) any document which by virtue of any enactment is evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;

(b) any document which by virtue of any enactment is admissible, or may be used, or is to be admitted or received, in or as evidence in such proceedings;

(c) any document which by virtue of any enactment may be considered in such proceedings;

(d) any document whose production constitutes proof in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment;

(e) any document by the production of which evidence may be given in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment.

(2) In subsection (1) above—

(a) references to evidence include references to prima facie evidence;

(b) references to any enactment include references to any provision of this Act.

(3) So much of any document as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any document as is not read aloud.
(4) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.
Proof by production of copy.
5F.—(1) Where a statement, deposition or document is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 5B, 5C, 5D or 5E above it may be proved by the production of—

(a) the statement, deposition or document, or

(b) a copy of it or the material part of it.

(2) Subsection (1)(b) above applies whether or not the statement, deposition or document is still in existence.
(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section how many removes there are between a copy and the original.
(4) In this section "copy", in relation to a statement, deposition or document, means anything onto which information recorded in the statement, deposition or document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly.
4. In section 6 (discharge or committal for trial) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—
"(1) A magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices shall on consideration of the evidence—

(a) commit the accused for trial if it is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to put him on trial by jury for any indictable offence;

(b) discharge him if it is not of that opinion and he is in custody for no other cause than the offence under inquiry;

984
but the preceding provisions of this subsection have effect subject to the provisions of this and any other Act relating to the summary trial of indictable offences.
(2) If a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices is satisfied that all the evidence tendered by or on behalf of the prosecutor falls within section 5A(3) above, it may commit the accused for trial for the offence without consideration of the contents of any statements, depositions or other documents, and without consideration of any exhibits which are not documents, unless—

(a) the accused or one of the accused has no legal representative acting for him in the case, or

(b) a legal representative for the accused or one of the accused, as the case may be, has requested the court to consider a submission that there is insufficient evidence to put that accused on trial by jury for the offence;

and subsection (1) above shall not apply to a committal for trial under this subsection."
5.—(1) Section 25 (change from summary trial to committal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (2) and (6) for the words "may adjourn the hearing without remanding the accused" there shall be substituted "shall adjourn the hearing."
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7)—
"(8) If the court adjourns the hearing under subsection (2) or (6) above it may (if it thinks fit) do so without remanding the accused."
6. Section 28 (using in summary trial evidence given in committal proceedings) shall be omitted.
7. In section 97 (summons to witness and warrant for his arrest) in subsection (1)—

(a) the words "at an inquiry into an indictable offence by a magistrates' court for that commission area or" shall be omitted;

(b) for the words "such a court" there shall be substituted "a magistrates' court for that commission area".

8. The following section shall be inserted after section 97—
"Summons or warrant as to committal proceedings.
97A.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where a justice of the peace for any commission area is satisfied that—

(a) any person in England or Wales is likely to be able to make on behalf of the prosecutor a written statement containing material evidence, or produce on behalf of the prosecutor a document or other exhibit likely to be material evidence, for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,

(b) the person will not voluntarily make the statement or produce the document or other exhibit, and

(c) the magistrates' court mentioned in paragraph (a) above is a court for the commission area concerned.

(2) In such a case the justice shall issue a summons directed to that person requiring him to attend before a justice at the time and place appointed in the summons to have his evidence taken as a deposition or to produce the document or other exhibit.
(3) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by evidence on oath of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) above, and also that it is probable that a summons under subsection (2) above would not procure the result required by it, the justice may instead of issuing a summons issue a warrant to arrest the person concerned and bring him before a justice at the time and place specified in the warrant.

985
(4) A summons may also be issued under subsection (2) above if the justice is satisfied that the person concerned is outside the British Islands, but no warrant may be issued under subsection (3) above unless the justice is satisfied by evidence on oath that the person concerned is in England or Wales.
(5) If—

(a) a person fails to attend before a justice in answer to a summons under this section,

(b) the justice is satisfied by evidence on oath that he is likely to be able to make a statement or produce a document or other exhibit as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above,

(c) it is proved on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that he has been duly served with the summons and that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for costs and expenses, and

(d) it appears to the justice that there is no just excuse for the failure,

the justice may issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before a justice at a time and place specified in the warrant.
(6) Where—

(a) a summons is issued under subsection (2) above or a warrant is issued under subsection (3) or (5) above, and

(b) the summons or warrant is issued with a view to securing that a person has his evidence taken as a deposition,

the time appointed in the summons or specified in the warrant shall be such as to enable the evidence to be taken as a deposition before a magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence concerned as examining justices.
(7) If any person attending or brought before a justice in pursuance of this section refuses without just excuse to have his evidence taken as a deposition, or to produce the document or other exhibit, the justice may do one or both of the following—

(a) commit him to custody until the expiration of such period not exceeding one month as may be specified in the summons or warrant or until he sooner has his evidence taken as a deposition or produces the document or other exhibit;

(b) impose on him a fine not exceeding £2,500.

(8) A fine imposed under subsection (7) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.
(9) If in pursuance of this section a person has his evidence taken as a deposition, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the deposition to the prosecutor.
(10) If in pursuance of this section a person produces an exhibit which is a document, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable send a copy of the document to the prosecutor.
(11) If in pursuance of this section a person produces an exhibit which is not a document, the clerk of the justice concerned shall as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the prosecutor of the fact and of the nature of the exhibit."
9. Section 102 (written statements before examining justices) shall be omitted.
10.—(1) Section 103 (evidence of children in certain committal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) In any proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring as examining justices into an offence to which this section applies, a statement made in writing by or taken in writing from a child shall be admissible in evidence of any matter."
986
(3) Subsections (3) and (4) (exclusion of subsection (1) and of section 28) shall be omitted.
11. Section 105 (deposition of person dangerously ill may be given in evidence before examining justices) shall be omitted.
12. In section 106 (false written statements tendered in evidence) in subsection (1) for "tendered" there shall be substituted "admitted" and for "section 102" there shall be substituted "section 5B".
13. In Schedule 3 the following shall be substituted for paragraph 2(a) (representative may make statement on behalf of corporation before examining justices)—
`(a) make before examining justices such representations as could be made by an accused who is not a corporation;".
PART II
OTHER PROVISIONS
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867
14. Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 (statements taken under section 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) shall he omitted.
Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879
15. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879—
"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices, this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "orally or"."
16. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 5 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879—
"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices, this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "either orally or"."
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933
17. In section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedure for indictment of offenders) in proviso (i) to subsection (2) for the words "in any examination or deposition taken before a justice in his presence" there shall be substituted "to the magistrates' court inquiring into that offence as examining justices".
Criminal Justice Act 1948
18. In section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (evidence by certificate) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—
"(5A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

(a) subsection (4), and

(b) in subsection (5), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it."

Theft Act 1968
19. In section 27 of the Theft Act 1968 (evidence on charge of theft or handling stolen goods) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (4) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices that subsection shall have effect with the omission of the words from "subject to the following conditions" to the end of the subsection."
20. In section 28 of the Theft Act 1968 (orders for restitution) in subsection (4) for the words from "the depositions" to the end of the subsection there shall be

987
substituted "and such written statements, depositions and other documents as were tendered by or on behalf of the prosecutor at any committal proceedings".
Children and Young Persons Act 1969
21. In Schedule 5 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, in paragraph 55 for the words "section 102" there shall be substituted "section 5B".
Criminal Justice Act 1972
22.—(1) Section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (written statements made outside England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) the following words shall be omitted—

(a) "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";

(b) "which respectively allow";

(c) "committal proceedings and in other";

(d) "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980";

(e) "which punish the making of;

(f) "102 or";

(g) ", as the case may be".

(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) The following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them,

(b) section 5B of that Act, and

(c) section 106 of that Act,

shall apply where written statements are made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as where written statements are made in England and Wales.
(1B) The following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them, and

(b) section 5B of that Act,

shall (subject to subsection (1C) below) apply where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom.
(1C) Where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom—

(a) section 5B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply with the omission of subsections (2)(b) and (3A);

(b) paragraph 1 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements at trial) shall not apply."

(4) Subsection (2) shall be omitted.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976
23.—(1) Section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (application of restrictions on evidence at certain trials to committal proceedings etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) Where a magistrates' court inquires into a rape offence as examining justices, then, except with the consent of the court, no restricted matter shall be raised; and for this purpose a restricted matter is a matter as regards which evidence could not be adduced and a question could not be asked without leave in pursuance of section 2 of this Act if—

(a) the inquiry were a trial at which a person is charged as mentioned in section 2(1) of this Act, and

988

(b) each of the accused at the inquiry were charged at the trial with the offence or offences of which he is accused at the inquiry."

(3) In subsection (2) for the words "evidence or question" (in each place) there shall be substituted "matter".
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
24. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 71 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (microfilm copies)—
"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "authenticated in such manner as the court may approve."
25. In section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (confessions) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (8)—
"(9) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section", and

(b) subsections (2) to (6) and (8)."

26. In section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (exclusion of unfair evidence) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(3) This section shall not apply in the case of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
27. In Schedule 3 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (computer records) at the end of paragraph 9 there shall be inserted the words "; but the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply where the court is a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
Criminal Justice Act 1988
28. In section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (first-hand hearsay) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
29. In section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (business etc. documents) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
30. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents)—
'This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
31. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (proof of statements contained in documents)—
"This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
32. In section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (expert reports) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

989

(a) in subsection (1) the words "whether or not the person making it attends to give oral evidence in those proceedings", and

(b) subsections (2) to (4)."

33. In section 32A(10) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (video recordings) the words "notwithstanding that the child witness is not called at the committal proceedings" shall be omitted.
34. In section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc.) in subsection (1) for the words from "in an examination" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted "to a magistrates' court inquiring into the offence as examining justices".
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
35. In section 11 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (evidence by certificate as to driver, user or owner) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of—

(a) subsection (2), and

(b) in subsection (3), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it."

36. In section 13 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (admissibility of records as evidence) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(7) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (2) above are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings" were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4) the word "and" were inserted at the end of paragraph (a);

(c) in subsection (4), paragraphs (c) and (d) and the words "as if the accused had appeared and admitted it" were omitted."

37. In section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (specimens) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(6A) Where the proceedings mentioned in section 15(1) of this Act are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of subsection (4)."
38. In section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (speeding etc.) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (8)—
"(8A) Where the proceedings for an offence to which this section applies are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect as if in subsection (8) the words from "and nothing" to the end of the subsection were omitted."
PART III
COMMENCEMENT
39. Parts I and II of this Schedule shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'
90 After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS
Statements
1.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) a written statement has been admitted in evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.

990

(b) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,

(c) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the statement complied with section 5B of that Act prior to the committal for trial,

(d) the statement purports to be signed by a justice of the peace, and

(e) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the statement may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the statement was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,

(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply, or

(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.
Depositions
2.—(l) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (summons or warrant to have evidence taken as a deposition etc.) a person has had his evidence taken as a deposition for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,

(b) the deposition has been admitted in evidence in those proceedings,

(c) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,

(d) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the deposition complied with section 5C of that Act prior to the committal for trial,

(e) the deposition purports to be signed by the justice before whom it purports to have been taken, and

(f) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the deposition may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the deposition was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,

(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply, or

(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.
Signatures
3.—(1) A justice who signs a certificate authenticating one or more relevant statements or depositions shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 as signing the statement or deposition or (as the case may be) each of them.

991
(2) For this purpose—

(a) a relevant statement is a written statement made by a person for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;

(b) a relevant deposition is a deposition made in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the purposes of such proceedings.

Time limit for objection
4. Without prejudice to section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (rules of court) the power to make rules under that section includes power to make provision—

(a) requiring an objection under paragraph 1(3)(c) or 2(3)(c) to be made within a period prescribed in the rules;

(b) allowing the court of trial at its discretion to permit such an objection to be made outside any such period.

Retrial
5. In Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (procedural and other provisions applicable on order for retrial) in paragraph 1 for the words from "section 13(3)" to "before the original trial" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements and depositions) shall not apply to any written statement or deposition read as evidence at the original trial".
Repeals
6.—(1) Section 13(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (which relates to depositions taken before examining justices and is superseded by paragraph 2 above) shall be omitted.
(2) Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by paragraph 3 above) shall be omitted.
Commencement
7. This Schedule shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90A to 90F, as amendments to Amendment No. 90, not moved.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Schedule 2, page 41, line 42, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
92 Page 45, line 16, at end insert—
'(aa) on or after the appointed day the accused is committed for trial for the offence,'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
992
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
93 Schedule 3, page 45, line 41, leave out from 'Reserve' to end of line 47.
94 Page 46, line 6, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(aa) a person is charged with an indictable offence and he is committed for trial for the offence concerned,
(a) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer given under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (serious or complex fraud),
(ab) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court by virtue of a notice of transfer given under Article 4 of the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (certain cases involving children),'.
95 Page 46, line 21, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
'5.—(1) In section 5(2) for "section 5(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987" substitute "Article 4(7) of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988".
(2) In section 5(2A) for "paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991" substitute "paragraph 3 of Schedule I to the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995".'
96 Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
'5A. In section (Time limits: transitional) (1) for "the bill of indictment is preferred" substitute "the indictment is presented".
5B. After section 11 there shall be inserted—
"Public interest: review for scheduled offences.
11A.—(1) This section applies where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2) and the offence charged is a scheduled offence within the meaning of section I of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
(2) At any time—

(a) after a court makes an order under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(5) or 9(8), and

(b) before the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case concerned,

the accused may apply to the court for a review of the question whether it is still not in the public interest to disclose material affected by its order.
(3) In such a case the court must review that question, and if it concludes that it is in the public interest to disclose material to any extent—

(a) it shall so order; and

(b) it shall take such steps as are reasonable to inform the prosecutor of its order.

(4) Where the prosecutor is informed of an order made under subsection (3) he must act accordingly having regard to the provisions of this Part (unless he decides not to proceed with the case concerned)."
5C. In section 12(1) at the end add "and section 11A does not apply".
5D. In section (Applications: opportunity to be heard) after "11(2)" insert ", 11A(2)" and after "11(3)" insert ", 11A(3)".
5E. In section (Confidentiality of disclosed information)(1)(a) after "11" insert 11A".'

993
97 Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
'5F. In section (Confidentiality: contravention) at the end add—
"(11) In section 13 (legal aid) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (as set out in Schedule 4 to that Act) in subsection (1)(a) after sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be inserted—
"(iia) by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court under section (Confidentiality: contravention) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; or"."'.
98 Page 46, line 36, after '6' insert '—(1)'.
99 Page 46, line 42, at end insert—
'(2) In section 13(2)(a) after "11(2)" insert ", 11A(2)".
(3) In section 13(2)(b) after "11(3)" insert ", 11A(3)".
(4) In section 13 omit subsection (2A).'
100 Page 47, line 1, leave out from 'for' to end of line 5 and insert 'paragraph (d) substitute— ".'
101 Page 47, line 9, leave out from 'subsections' to end of line 14 and insert '(2) and (3) substitute— ".'
102 Page 47, line 23, leave out '10 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991' and insert '11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996'.
103 Page 47, line 36, at end insert—
'11A. In section (Notices of transfer) for subsections (1) to (8) substitute—
"(1) Article 4 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud)(Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (notices of transfer in cases of serious or complex fraud) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In paragraph (7)(a) (regulations) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".
(3) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (7)—
"(7A) Regulations under paragraph (7)(a) may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(4) In Schedule 1 to the Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (notices of transfer in certain cases involving children) paragraph 3 (regulations) shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) for the words "a statement of the evidence" there shall be substituted "copies of the documents containing the evidence (including oral evidence)".
(6) The following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (1)—
"(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may provide that there shall be no requirement for copies of documents to accompany the copy of the notice of transfer if they are referred to, in documents sent with the notice of transfer, as having already been supplied."
(7) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1995 Order (reporting restrictions) in sub-paragraph (8) for the words "sub-paragraphs (5) and (6)" there shall be substituted "sub-paragraphs (5) and (7)".
(8) This section applies where a notice of transfer is given under Article 3 of the 1988 Order or Article 4 of the 1995 Order (as the case may be) on or after the appointed day".
11B. In section (War crimes: abolition of transfer procedure) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
994
"(1) Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991 and section 1(4) of that Act so far as relating thereto (transfer procedure in Northern Ireland in cases of war crimes) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In Article 29(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (free legal aid in Crown Court) sub-paragraph (d) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall cease to have effect."'.
104 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17A. For section (Road traffic and transport: provision of specimens) substitute—
"Road traffic: provision of specimens.
.—(1) In Article 18(4) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (provision of blood or urine in course of investigating whether certain road traffic offences have been committed) after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(bb) a device of the type mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) has been used in the circumstances described in paragraph (2) but the constable who required the specimens of breath has reasonable cause to believe that the device has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned, or".
(2) This section applies where it is proposed to make a requirement mentioned in Article 18(4) of the 1995 Order after the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland by order.
(4) The power of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make an order under subsection (3) shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979."'.
105 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17B. In section (Checks against fingerprints etc.) for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) In Article 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph (1) (checks against fingerprints etc. where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence)—
"(1) Where a person has been arrested on suspicion of being involved in a recordable offence or has been charged with such an offence or has been informed that he will be reported for such an offence, fingerprints or samples or the information derived from samples taken under any power conferred by this Part from the person may be checked against—

(a) other fingerprints or samples to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held by or on behalf of a police force (or police forces) falling within paragraph (1A) or are held in connection with or as the result of an investigation of an offence;

(b) information derived from other samples if the information is contained in records to which the person seeking to check has access and which are held as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a).

(1A) Each of the following police forces falls within this paragraph—

(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve;

(b) a police force within the meaning given by section 62 of the Police Act 1964;

995

(c) a police force within the meaning given by section 50 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;

(d) the States of Jersey Police Force;

(e) the salaried police force of the Island of Guernsey;

(f) the Isle of Man Constabulary."."'.

106 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17C. For section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court) substitute—
".—(1) After section 51 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 there shall be inserted—
"Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court.
51A.—(1) This section applies where the Crown Court is satisfied that—

(a) a person is likely to be able to give evidence likely to be material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, for the purpose of any criminal proceedings before the Crown Court, and

(b) the person will not voluntarily attend as a witness or will not voluntarily produce the document or thing.

(2) In such a case the Crown Court shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to the person concerned and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the Crown Court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

(b) give the evidence or produce the document or thing.

(3) A witness summons may only be issued under this section on an application; and the Crown Court may refuse to issue the summons if any requirement relating to the application is not fulfilled.
(4) Where a person has been committed for trial for any offence to which the proceedings concerned relate, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the committal.
(5) Where the proceedings concerned have been transferred to the Crown Court, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the transfer.
(6) Where the proceedings concerned relate to an offence in relation to which an indictment has been presented under the authority of section 2(2)(c), (d), (e) or (f) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, an application must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable after the indictment is presented.
(7) An application must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(8) Crown Court rules—

(a) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;

(b) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application on the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed;

(c) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be supported by an affidavit containing such matters as the rules may stipulate;

(d) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, make provision for enabling the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to be directed to be present or represented at the hearing of the application for the witness summons.

996
(9) Provision contained in Crown Court rules by virtue of subsection (8)(c) may in particular require an affidavit to—

(a) set out any charge on which the proceedings concerned are based;

(b) specify any stipulated evidence, document or thing in such a way as to enable the directed person to identify it;

(c) specify grounds for believing that the directed person is likely to be able to give any stipulated evidence or produce any stipulated document or thing;

(d) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated evidence is likely to be material evidence;

(e) specify grounds for believing that any stipulated document or thing is likely to be material evidence.

(10) In subsection (9)—

(a) references to any stipulated evidence, document or thing are to any evidence, document or thing whose giving or production is proposed to be required by the witness summons;

(b) references to the directed person are to the person to whom the witness summons is proposed to he directed.

Power to require advance production.
51B. A witness summons which is issued under section 51A and which requires a person to produce a document or thing as mentioned in section 51A(2) may also require him to produce the document or thing—

(a) at a place stated in the summons, and

(b) at a time which is so stated and precedes that stated under section 51A(2),

for inspection by the person applying for the summons.
Summons no longer needed.
51C.—(1) If—

(a) a document or thing is produced in pursuance of a requirement imposed by a witness summons under section 51B,

(b) the person applying for the summons concludes that a requirement imposed by the summons under section 51A(2) is no longer needed, and

(c) he accordingly applies to the Crown Court for a direction that the summons shall be of no further effect,

the court may direct accordingly.
(2) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(3) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the effect of a direction under this section to be notified to the person to whom the summons is directed.
Application to make summons ineffective.
51D.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 51 A is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court,

(b) satisfies the court that he was not served with notice of the application to issue the summons and that he was neither present nor represented at the hearing of the application, and

(c) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to he material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial—

(a) whether or not Crown Court rules require the person to be served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

997

(b) whether or not Crown Court rules enable the person to be present or represented at the hearing of the application.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) "served" means—

(a) served in accordance with Crown Court rules, in a case where such rules require the person to be served with notice of the application to issue the summons;

(b) served in such way as appears reasonable to the Crown Court, in any other case.

(4) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(5) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(6) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require the service of notice of an application under this section on the person on whose application the witness summons was issued.
(7) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
(8) Where a direction is made under this section that a witness summons shall be of no effect, the person on whose application the summons was issued may be ordered to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application under this section.
(9) Any costs payable under an order made under subsection (8) shall be taxed by the Master (Taxing Office), and payment of those costs shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order for payment of costs made by the High Court in a civil case or as a sum adjudged summarily to be paid as a civil debt.
Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion.
51E. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons; and

(b) give evidence or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

Application to make summons ineffective.
51F.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 51E is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court, and

(b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
(2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
(3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
(4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

998

(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
Punishment for disobedience to witness summons.
51G.—(1) Any person who without just excuse—

(a) disobeys a witness summons requiring him to attend before the Crown Court; or

(b) disobeys a requirement made by the Crown Court under section 51B,

shall be guilty of contempt of that court and may be punished summarily by that court as if his contempt were in the face of the court.
(2) A person shall not be committed to prison by reason of any disobedience mentioned in subsection (1) for a period exceeding three months.
Further process to secure attendance of witnesses.
51H.—(1) If the Crown Court is satisfied by evidence on oath that—

(a) a witness in respect of whom a witness summons is in force is unlikely to comply with the summons; and

(b) the witness is likely to be able to give evidence likely to be material evidence or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence in the proceedings,

the Crown Court may issue a warrant to arrest the witness and bring him before the court.
(2) Where a witness who is required to attend before the Crown Court by virtue of a witness summons fails to attend in compliance with the summons, the Crown Court may—

(a) in any case, cause to be served on him a notice requiring him to attend the court forthwith or at such time as may be specified in the notice;

(b) if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has failed to attend without just excuse, or if he has failed to comply with a notice under paragraph (a), issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before the court.

(3) A witness brought before the Crown Court in pursuance of a warrant under this section may be remanded by that court in custody or on bail (with or without sureties) until such time as the court may appoint for receiving his evidence or dealing with him under section 51G.
(4) Where a witness attends the Crown Court in pursuance of a notice under this section, the court may direct that the notice shall have effect as if it required him to attend at any later time appointed by the court for receiving his evidence or dealing with him under section 51G."
(2) No subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum shall issue after the appointed day in respect of any criminal proceedings for the purposes of which—

(a) a witness summons may be issued under section 51A of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978; or

(b) a summons may be issued under Article 118 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (process for attendance of witnesses in magistrates' courts).

(3) In section 47(4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 after the words "Subject to" there shall be inserted the words "section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court)(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (subpoenas not to issue in certain criminal cases) and to".
(4) This section applies in relation to any proceedings for the purposes of which no summons requiring the attendance of a witness has been issued before the appointed day.

999
(5) The references in subsections (2) and (4) to the appointed day are to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order."'
107 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17D. In section (Proof by written statement)(1) for "section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" substitute "section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968" and for "subsection (3)(a)" substitute "subsection (4)(a)".'
108 Page 48, line 50, at end insert—
'17E. In section 54 for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) In Article 10 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981—

(a) in paragraph (1) (power of Lord Chancellor to defray expenses in connection with proceedings) after the words "justice or clerk" (where they first occur) there shall be inserted "in relation to any matter other than a criminal matter", and

(b) after paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) The Lord Chancellor shall defray any expenses reasonably incurred by a resident magistrate or other justice of the peace or by a clerk of petty sessions in, or in connection with, any proceedings or claim brought as a result of the execution, or purported execution, of the office of that magistrate, justice or clerk in relation to any criminal matter, unless it is proved, in respect of the matters giving rise to the proceedings or claim, that he acted in bad faith."."'.
109 Page 49, line 11, at end insert—
'19A. For section (Power of magistrates' courts) substitute—
"Power of magistrates' courts.
.Anything authorised or required by this Act to be done by, to or before the magistrates' court by, to or before which any other thing was done, or is to be done, may be done by, to or before any magistrates' court acting for the same county court division as that court—.
110 Page 50, line 15, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
111 Page 53, line 25, at end insert—

'1A. WAR CRIMES

Chapter or Number

Short title

Extent of repeal

1981 NI 18.

The Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

In Article 29(2), sub-paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately before it.

1991 c.13.

The War Crimes Act 1991.

Section 1(4), so far as relating to Part II of the Schedule. Section 3(3). Part II of the Schedule.'

112 Page 53, line 25, at end insert—

'1B. SUMMONSES TO WITNESSES

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1831 c. 44.

The Tumultuous Risings (Ireland) Act 1831.

Section 8.

This repeal has effect in accordance with section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court) of this Act.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments to Schedule 3 contain modifications from Northern Ireland in consequence of Commons amendments relating to the law in England and Wales. I realise that the amendments
1000
tabled by the Opposition have not been moved and I hope that that is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants to do with those amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 93 to 112.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as our plea was rejected so coldly, we were not going to move the amendments to Amendment No. 90 and we accept that Amendment No. 90 has been agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
113 Schedule 4, page 54, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.
114 Page 54, column 3, leave out line 17 and insert—

'Section 34(7).

Section 36(8).

Section 37(7).

Section 44.

Schedule 4.

In Schedule 11, the entries mentioned in note 1 below.'
115 Page 54, line 18, at end insert—
'1. The entries in Schedule 11 to the 1994 Act are those relating to the following—

(a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;

(b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;

(c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";

(d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";

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

(f) in section 32(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 the words "tried or";

(g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";

(h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(1)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

(i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";

(j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";

(k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;

(l) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;

(m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or". and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.'

116 Page 54, line 19, leave out 'These repeals' and insert '2. The repeals under this paragraph (reinstatement of certain provisions)'.

1001
117 Page 54, line 19, leave out 'Schedule 1 to' and insert 'section (Reinstatement of certain provisions) of'.
118 Page 54, line 19, at end insert—

'1A. WAR CRIMES

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1988 c.34.

Legal Aid Act 1988.

Section 20(4)(bb).

1991 c.13.

War Crimes Act 1991.

In section 1(4) the words "England, Wales or". Section 3(2). Part I of the Schedule.'

119 Page 54, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.
120 Page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'4A. SPECIMENS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1992 c.42.

Transport and Works Act 1992.

In section 31(4) the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b).

This repeal has effect in accordance with section (Road traffic and transport: provision of specimens) of this Act.'
121 Page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'4B. WITNESS ORDERS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1965 c.69.

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

Section 1. In section 3(1) the words "witness order or". In section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or". In the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons". In section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

1971 c.23.

Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 45(1).

1980 c.43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 145(1)(e).

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under section (Abolition of witness orders) of this Act.'
122 Page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'4C. SUMMONSES TO WITNESSES

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1965 c.69.

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

Schedule 1.

1971 c.23.

Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 45(2) and (5).

These repeals have effect in accordance with section (Summons to witness to attend Crown Court) of this Act.'
123 Page 56, line 11, at end insert—

'6A. COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1867 c. 35.

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867.

Section 6. Section 7.

1972 c. 71.

Criminal Justice Act 1972.

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

1980 c. 43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 28. In section 97(1) the words "at an inquiry into an indictable offence by a magistrates' court for that commission area or". Section 102. Section 103(3) and (4). Section 105. In Schedule 7, paragraph 2.

1988 c. 33.

Criminal Justice Act 1988.

In section 32A(10) the words "notwithstanding that the child witness is not called at the committal proceedings". In Schedule 15, paragraph 68.

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under Schedule (Committal proceedings) to this Act.'
124 Page 56, line 11, at end insert—

'6B. STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1925 c.86.

Criminal Justice Act 1925.

Section 13(3).

1965 c.69.

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

In Part I of Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

1967 c.80.

Criminal Justice Act 1967.

Section 7.

1980 c.43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 63.

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act.'
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 113 to 124. These amendments to the repeals schedule are all consequential on other amendments made to the Bill in the Commons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 113 to 124.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be able to help some of us who must administer the course of justice. Now that we have reached this stage of the Bill, does the Minister have any idea when the major procedural amendments are likely to be brought into force? A good deal of preparation needs to be done and it would help all concerned, in particular in the Crown Courts but also in the magistrates' courts, to have an idea of the timetable which the Government have in mind.
These provisions will be an enormous help in getting cases on, organised in time and brought before juries so that they can be properly considered. Any indication so that we can make some planning arrangements in the various courts would be greatly welcomed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, following on from what the noble Viscount said, we should bear in mind that the embodiment of the amendments in the Bill will require immense care and take a great deal of time. That is a factor that should be borne in mind perhaps in favour of the Government because it will need very great care.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a great deal of work is already underway in the department. The code of practice is almost ready to go out in its final draft form for consultation. The timescale that we are looking at is early 1997. We bear two points in mind. Of course this should be done as soon as is practicable but we must ensure that the work is done properly. Therefore, with an eye on both those objectives, we are looking at the early part of 1997.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill
5.47 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pilkington of Oxenford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Conspiracy to commit certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I must apologise for not having been present on Second Reading but I was detained in Somerset. I should like to welcome the Bill because it goes part way towards fulfilling this country's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
1004
I understand that someone in, for example, Bangkok or Manila who sends a fax or an Internet message with details of children for sale in those places to individuals in the United Kingdom would be causing incitement under the Bill and would therefore be liable to arrest if and when he came to the United Kingdom. That is a small advance on the present position.
Your Lordships may know that I have a parliamentary interest in this matter since the House has twice approved my Bill which provided extra-territorial jurisdiction for the United Kingdom courts in relation to the sexual abuse of children taking place overseas.
I do not in any way seek to delay the passage of the Bill and I shall not be pressing this Motion. However, I should like to ask the Government some questions of which I have given notice. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, will be able to tell me what progress is being made in relation to the Government's review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, especially in relation to sexual offences committed overseas against people under the age of 18.
Secondly, will the Minister tell me whether the strong legal opinions in favour of such jurisdiction expressed in the course of several debates in your Lordships' House are being taken into account? Finally, will the noble Earl say when the review will be brought to an end or carried through to a conclusion; whether its results or conclusions will be announced; and, in particular, whether they will be published? I should be grateful for a reply to those questions.
The Earl of Courtown: Clause 1 of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Pilkington will give the police and courts an additional weapon to use against those who sexually abuse children overseas. It is right that Parliament should enact measures which penalise preparatory acts committed in this country in support of these perverted activities abroad. The removal of Clause I from the Bill as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, would lead to the Bill's impact being diluted, although I acknowledge what he said in his speech concerning not pressing his opposition to Clause 1. That removal would be unacceptable and, therefore, the Government cannot support it.
As he said, the noble Lord did indeed give me warning of the points that he was going to raise. I greatly appreciate that fact. The noble Lord asked what progress was being made on the Government's review of extra-territorial jurisdiction, especially in relation to sexual offences against people under 18 committed overseas. I understand that good progress is being made in the review. So far as concerns its conclusion, I can tell the noble Lord that it remains the hope of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that we shall announce the Government's conclusions, in the light of the review, before the House rises for the Summer Recess. The noble Lord also asked whether the results of the review would be made public. I shall have to write to him on that matter.
The noble Lord asked whether we were taking into account the views expressed in this and the other place,

1005
as well as those expressed outside. The review has, of course, taken full account of the arguments in favour of extra-territorial jurisdiction which have been expressed not only by Members of this Chamber in past debates on the issue—and which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, expressed again this evening—but also by honourable Members in another place, voluntary organisations and others working in the field. Those arguments have of course to be set against the considerable difficulties which have always existed in taking wider jurisdiction. Whatever the outcome of the review, it is unlikely to change our view that the best way of dealing with offending abroad is by enabling foreign authorities to bring prosecutions in their own countries, wherever possible.
1006
In conclusion, we support the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pilkington on—it is to be hoped—the successful completion of the Committee stage.
Lord Hylton: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. In passing, perhaps I may just remark that it would be most satisfactory if the results of the review could be made available before the start of the World Congress on Commercial Child Sexual Exploitation which takes place in Stockholm at the end of August. I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 1 stand part.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.