§ 1A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
§ Lord AcknerMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
By appearing before your Lordships in a dinner jacket I am not signalling that I propose to make a meal of this amendment. I have an assignation with a Baroness.
When this Bill left your Lordships' House, Clause 1 provided for the setting up of a standing advisory committee on criminal justice and the penal system. The function of the council was to address the important issues of criminal and penal policies dispassionately, authoritatively and constructively. In the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice the purpose of the clause,
is to provide the Home Secretary and the Government with a reservoir of wise, informed, objective and non-partisan advice on the important and intractable problems which confront him".—[Official Report, 3/3/98; col. 1132.]When the amendment was first raised in Committee the Lord Chief Justice spoke in support, as did his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and the former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, my noble 919 and learned friend Lord Lowry. Also two former Home Secretaries, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, together with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, the former Minister of State at the Home Office, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the former Under-Secretary there.The only member of the House who spoke against the amendment was the noble Lord, Lord Henley. At Third Reading the amendment was again supported by the Lord Chief Justice, the former Lord Chief Justice, seven Law Lords, two former Home Secretaries, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and four former Home Office Ministers. Again, the only voice against, apart from the Minister, was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who said his party would not be supporting the amendment nor supporting the Government. However, in the event, a significant number of Conservatives voted for the amendment, as did a handful of Labour Peers. It was strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers as well as the only Bishops who voted.
I previously informed your Lordships that I do not take pride in the parentage of this amendment. To mark the centenary of the report of the Gladstone Committee on Prisons on 10th April 1995, a letter was sent to The Times under the joint signatures of inter alios, Professor Sean McConvill, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Professor Anthony Bottoms, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Runcie. It stated among other things:
We think that the time is right for an overview on the scale of the Gladstone inquiry, to propound a sound, authoritative penal philosophy".I have in a number of debates invited your Lordships to make provision for a comprehensive reassessment of a rational penal policy and thereby restore much needed confidence in the system. I was therefore delighted to learn that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice on two occasions, in two lectures, subsequently endorsed my suggestion. At the conclusion of the annual lecture of the Prison Reform Trust, given by him in June last year, he said that,if a revived advisory council were able, with the benefit of intensive worldwide research and consultation, to reach authoritative conclusions which commanded the respect of the public and the professional opinion, and if those conclusions were given legislative effect, this Parliament would earn an assured place in the history of this country".On 8th April, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Home Secretary communicated to Parliament his first thoughts, so to speak, on the amendment. He said:I have considered the proposal very carefully, and, in the light of that consideration, we shall seek to delete that provision in Committee. As I have already made clear, the Bill provides a new sentencing advisory panel and a national Youth Justice Board. We have, therefore, concluded another unfocused body would cause unnecessary duplication and significant delay in dealing with the many problems of the criminal justice system".—[Official Report, Commons 8/4/98; col. 378.]The two bodies which he identified are hardly relevant to the issues we have to consider. The sentencing advisory panel does not advise the Home 920 Secretary; it advises the Court of Appeal on sentencing guidelines. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, pointed out on Report it operates entirely within the existing law. It does nothing in respect of new sentences or maximum sentences, and nothing outside the existing body of statutes.The Youth Justice Board is referred to in Clause 35 of the Bill. It is primarily a monitoring body. In a letter from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice, dated 16th March, of which I was kindly given a copy, the main source of advice is now said to be the Criminal Justice Consultative Council. This was set up as a result of the Woolf Report on prisons, and its function is to reconcile the potential conflicting aims of disparate agencies of the criminal justice system; for instance, the police, the CPS, the Probation Service, and the Prison Service. Its terms of reference, set out in Annex A of the summary of its activities in 1996–97, is to promote better understanding, co-operation and co-ordination in the criminal justice system, in particular by considering reports about developments to and affecting criminal justice, considering other information about the operation of the system, and overseeing the arrangements and special conferences. As Lord Justice Rose, its president, said:
It has sought to lubricate the various parts of the criminal justice system".The council has not been given an advisory function, nor does its present composition or organisation allow it to undertake one. All members, in one way or another, are involved directly with one or other of the agencies. Three Permanent Secretaries are also members—that is, health, Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. As presently constituted therefore the committee possesses none of the elements of independence which are essential for an advisory council.As regards the suggestion that the existence of the standing council would add to delays in the making of public policy, the Minister, before referring any matter to it, would be fully entitled to impose time limits for the provision of the desired report.
I have in the past made submissions to your Lordships emphasising one area in which the standing council could produce an effective contribution; that is, in relation to the re-education of the public by providing a wider understanding of the limited contribution imprisonment can make to an effective law and order policy. I have done so because of the serious overcrowding which currently exists in prisons, and the projection by the Home Office that the current figure, given yesterday and said to be the highest ever prison population, is over 66,000. That is said to be likely to reach 83,000 within seven years or nearly 100,000 on a worst-case scenario basis. That would mean 20 new prisons at a cost of £2 billion.
Your Lordships may well seek to ask the question: if the standing council had, during the past year, been in existence, what useful function could it have performed? I think that I can give a good example. Some three or four years ago, it was appreciated, particularly as a result of the revelation of the large number of child abuse cases, that there is a tiny minority of dangerous 921 criminals, in particular paedophiles, who may, under existing procedures, be released when they still represent an unacceptable risk to the public.
The previous government sought to cater for that problem with the automatic life sentence introduced by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—a provision much criticised by the late Lord Chief Justice and the current Lord Chief Justice. The Act requires a court to impose a life sentence on any offender over the age of 18 who is convicted of a "serious offence" committed after the commencement of the Act if he has been convicted of another "serious offence" before committing the latter "serious offence". The expression "serious offence" applies inter alia to attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, incitement to murder, soliciting murder, manslaughter and other violent offences for which a sentence of life imprisonment can currently be imposed. It is not necessary for the earlier offence to have been committed before the commencement of the Act or that the offender should have been of any particular age.
That section was not brought into effect by the previous government. Therefore one can imagine that if the council existed the Home Secretary might say, "Do I bring this Section 2 into force or is there a better way of dealing with this difficult problem?" I believe that the standing council would have advised the Minister in this way: first, it would have reminded the Government of the White Paper, issued in 1990, entitled Crime Justice and Protecting the Public, where the following statement is to be found:
The Government"—that is, of course, the previous government—rejects a statutory framework on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional circumstances. It could also result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free unjustly".In explaining the wisdom of that statement the council would have pointed out, first, that if the jury is aware that the defendant faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted, it will for that very reason not convict; secondly, there will be refusals by defendants to enter, as they should and would have, pleas of guilty; thirdly, it is not difficult to imagine cases where witnesses, particularly those in close relationships with the defendant and knowing the consequences of the conviction, would refuse to give evidence or would prove unreliable; fourthly, there is the danger of the victim being killed by the offender in order to avoid the risk of detection and subsequent life imprisonment; and, fifthly, in order to be sure of obtaining a conviction there would be cases in which the prosecution would find itself obliged to accept an unrealistic plea bargain.Next, the council would doubtless have drawn the Government's attention to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill when he said:
The sentencing regime for which we contend should, as many noble Lords have said, be open and transparent; but it is nonsensical to invite a High Court judge to say 'I am sentencing you to life 922 imprisonment. By the way, you can expect to serve 18 months'. That is a perversion of the system. It will bring the whole system into disrepute".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 1063]The Home Secretary would have been informed by the standing council that Section 2 of the Act made no useful contribution to the problems dealing with psychopathic or personality disordered offenders. It does not empower a court to pass a sentence which cannot now be passed in the exercise of the court's discretion: it merely forces the court to pass a sentence which it would otherwise consider inappropriate.The Home Secretary would have been further advised of the following matters. I rely for this upon Dr. Thomas QC, of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge. He said that the section was pregnant with anomalies. The list of serious offences omits many which might be committed by dangerous offenders, such as arson and possessing explosives with intent. Buggery of a person under 16, although punishable with life imprisonment, is not a "serious offence", although unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 is. Most sexual abusers of children, who are likely to be convicted of indecent assault, indecency with a child, or abducting a child, will fall outside the Act. Some violent robbers will be covered, others not. The man who chooses to use a harmless, but frightening, toy pistol will commit a "serious offence" but not a man who uses a knife or similar weapon.
The greatest weakness of Section 2, considered from the point of view of protecting the public, is that it requires the offender to have been convicted of the first offence before committing the second. The man who is convicted on the same occasion of a series of offences, each of which is a "serious offence" for the purpose of the Act, will not attract an automatic life sentence. In short, the Minister will have been informed by the council, "Don't touch this section even with a bargepole".
I come next to how the council would have assisted the Minister on providing a much better alternative. The "reviewable sentence" has been referred to frequently over the past few years. It was first mentioned by the 1975 Butler Committee. It has the following advantages over the Section 2 mandatory life sentence provisions. First, it is not limited to repeat offenders. Secondly, it is not restricted to the narrow range of offences in the section, all of which as the law now stands can be punished by prison for life. Thirdly, it requires medical evidence before it can be imposed. Fourthly, it does not run the risk of the criminal deciding to "do in" his victim so as to avoid a life sentence. Fifthly, it does not carry the false label of imprisonment for life which, in 99 per cent. of the cases, is not intended to be effective.
The standing council would have pointed out that analogous provisions exist in Canadian, Australian and New Zealand law. Assuming the Minister would listen to sound advice, the council would have prevented the Minister from bringing into force, as he did in October of last year, this highly undesirable section. On 30th July of last year, the Home Secretary informed the other place:
My overriding priority is to secure the safety of the public".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/7/97; col. 341.)923 That, of course, is the overriding priority of any sensible government. However, the deeply depressing and worrying fact is that the Government, by a stubborn refusal to allow the provision of sound advice, so far from securing the safety of the public, are seriously prejudicing it in the way I have mentioned. Accordingly, I invite noble Lords to be convinced that a standing council would make an important contribution, in particular to securing the safety of the public. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Ackner.)
§ 6 p.m.
§ Baroness Anelay of St. JohnsMy Lords, this matter was indeed debated fully in this House in Committee on 3rd and 30th March. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, remarked, courteously but carefully and forthrightly, my noble friend Lord Henley provided valuable support to the Minister on that occasion—perhaps it was invaluable since I believe he was the only person to provide that support. I recognise that some of my distinguished noble friends supported the noble and learned Lord's amendment on that day.
I am still not entirely convinced by the case made by those who would wish to see a standing advisory council established. Like my noble friend Lord Henley, I have taken note of the fact that the council would be advisory. But I am also aware that Ministers could find themselves more bound by an advisory body than the noble and learned Lord at present anticipates.
Like my noble friend Lord Henley before me, I cannot offer my support to the noble and learned Lord. I remain of the view that it is up to the Government to make their own case on this matter. I shall not support either the Government's Motion or the noble and learned Lord's Motion.
§ Lord DholakiaMy Lords, this side of the House supported the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he moved the amendment during the passage of the Bill. Nothing has changed that would convince me otherwise. He will continue to receive that support.
Despite reading Hansard of another place, it is unclear why the clause was removed. It is deeply regrettable that the Government have not acceded to the weight of support from Members of all parties in this House for a standing advisory council. The idea also had widespread backing from external organisations involved in penal affairs and criminal justice.
In recent years there have been some regrettable instances in which policies on crime and the penal system have appeared to be driven by political opportunism and other considerations. A notable example was the "prison works" policy. We are seeing today in this country the result of that policy with one of the highest ever prison populations.
A standing advisory committee would provide an independent, expert and non-partisan voice, drawing on the expertise of a range of agencies and individuals involved in criminal justice and could be an important influence in producing balanced and practical policies. 924 It is all about advice. No one is dictating. No one would dare to. It is no good saying, "We have the Criminal Justice Consultative Council". One has the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rose, and the work of the Criminal Justice Consultative Council. But it is a body which reacts to circumstances.
We are asking for a sensible government carefully to weigh up any recommendation which comes from a source such as a standing advisory council. They do not have to accept everything. Despite the Government's protestation, the provision will not delay any reforms. The Government would be free to enact whatever reforms they see fit to introduce. They do not have to wait for the views of the advisory council. However, a regular flow of considered advice and proposals from such a body would assist a reasonable, listening government to produce practical policies to reduce crime and do justice to both victims and offenders.
The Government's main counter-argument—it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in earlier debates in this House—is that they have many other sources of advice. We welcome that. They also have advice, including committees and task forces, which they establish to advise on specific areas of policies—a welcome sign indeed. It is true to say that there have been some good examples of such groups. I refer, for example, to the Home Secretary's task force on new justice, and the working group on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. All have done interesting and valuable work.
But such groups are established by the Government to decide only on issues about which they want advice. That happens often because of immediate, short-term considerations. None has an overall, broad responsibility for examining the criminal justice system and the penal system as a total. It is therefore important that there are mechanisms to ensure a regular flow of advice and accommodation to the Government on the operation of criminal justice and the penal system, including advice on issues of great importance to those working in the field but which may not be high on the Government's list of immediate practical imperatives.
I do not seek to support a Division of this House on this matter. However, I wish to make it clear that we on this side of the House will continue to harass the Government until such time such a body is in being. I believe that the way in which matters of criminal justice have been implemented in the past is far too important to be left simply in the hands of the Home Office.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, future historians examining the weakness of the Blair Government may come to the conclusion that their primary weakness was an unwillingness to listen to advice from the people best qualified to give it. It would seem to an ordinary layman such as myself that if the leaders of the legal profession overwhelmingly suggest that a body of the kind proposed would be of value in a very important aspect of our national life, a wise government would take that into account. I am not surprised that they do not do so. When they legislate on universities, they ignore the 925 opinions of those engaged in university teaching. That list could be extended. I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord does not wish to press the matter to a Division. If he did, I should no doubt wish to support him.
§ Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, I wish to observe to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the maxim that power is delightful and absolute power absolutely delightful is not confined to a Labour Government, nor to a Conservative Government, nor, I dare say, to a Liberal Democrat Government. It is a universal maxim of those who exercise power.
Twenty five years ago, I had the privilege of working as special adviser to the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, for two years. Much as I admired his great wisdom and that of his senior advisers, I became completely convinced of the need for an independent standing advisory council on penal reform for the reasons cogently expressed today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia.
For those reasons, which I shall not repeat, it is extremely important for a Home Secretary, his Ministers and senior advisers to have access to the best advice they can obtain from a wholly independent body of well-informed specialist advisers. They do not have to take the advice, but there is nothing they need fear in obtaining it.
I therefore believe that the right course to take is to urge the Government to think again and hope that it does not become necessary to ask another place to think again. Unlike others on my Benches, such is the strength of my feeling on the matter that if it were pressed to a Division—I hope that that will not be the case because I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the situation—I should have no alternative but to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, this is the third time I have tried to explain why the Government do not want to see the re-establishment of a standing advisory council of the type specified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sitting in her place. As she formerly had responsibility for Home Office matters, we can respectfully agree, one with the other, that the one thing one does not lack in the Home Office on any occasion of this kind is an abundance of advice. Often there is too much of it.
I shall be as brief as I can because I know that other issues of great importance are to be discussed later. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, specified a large volume of advice which would have been given to the Government had such a body been set up. He specified it dot, comma, colon and semi-colon. By definition, the advice which the noble and learned Lord believes the body would have provided is already available.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord said that crime is a difficult and complex problem. Of course it is, and that is why we have introduced this Bill. We 926 have had the youth justice task force and when the Bill becomes law we shall have the youth justice board. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out that nothing has changed. It has. For instance, there is an admirable report dealing specifically with vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. It was produced promptly, efficiently and with access—I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—to all the relevant expertise that was required. It was an admirable document, praised on all sides and produced quickly.
That was not always the case with the body which is now the subject of dewy-eyed nostalgia in your Lordships' House. According to our records, the council produced nine reports in all. It took about two years to produce most of them and it produced only one between 1970 and 1977. If one wants to talk about reports which may attract public support, perhaps I may indicate what was contained in its last report (February 1978) on sentences of imprisonment. I address my remarks in particular to the need to obtain public support for penal policy. That report recommended the dramatic reduction of the maximum penalty for offences such as rape and buggery with a child under the age of 16, unlawful sexual intercourse, incest with a girl under 13, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and burglary. Curiously, those recommendations were not accepted by the government of the day.
Therefore, simply having a specialist body will not necessarily bring about the desired conclusion to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Perhaps not entirely surprisingly—I do not know whether it was coincidental—the then Home Secretary, now the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, decided not to reappoint the body in January 1980. Since that time it has had no existence.
I revert to the noble Lord's comment that nothing has changed. That is not so. Yesterday we announced the crime reduction strategy. That is based for the first time on comprehensive research evidence of what actually works. It was produced by Mr. Nuttall, who works in the Research and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office. They are independent conclusions. I say with great respect that it is worth reading that volume to see what quality of expertise is presently available.
We simply do not see the advantage of resurrecting this body. We can obtain objective and informed advice which is provided in a more flexible and responsive way. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, indicated that he had severe doubts about the practical utility of such a body, particularly bearing in mind his valid point that at the end of the day it is for the Government to take responsibility for penal and criminal policy. If it is needed, plenty of advice is available.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, presently chaired by Lord Justice Rose. We believe that there is virtue in amending its terms of reference. We are in discussion about amendment. One that we have in mind is along the lines of,
giving such advice in relation to the co-ordination of the criminal justice system as may from time to time be made by Government".927 The noble and learned Lord referred to experience abroad. We are aware of that. We know the sentencing regimes in the countries he mentioned. One needs only to read any journal from any institute of criminology to have ready access to such information. We have the Trial Issues Group and reports from Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation. I do not believe that the present chief inspector or his immediate predecessor could have been said to lack independence—perhaps to the occasional intense displeasure of some people in the Home Office—or an independent view, or the determination to give advice whether it is welcome or not.We have the Law Commission, which has particular expertise in the substantive law, and I pay all credit to its work. As regards efficiency and effectiveness, we have the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. As a result of this Bill, we shall have the sentencing advisory panel. Of course it operates within the structure of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, but those decisions are published and readily available to those who deal with these matters within the Home Office. We now have the Standing Committee on Home Affairs in another place. It is a new committee which goes about its work in an extremely effective way. Therefore, we shall have careful research produced by an authoritative body.
We believe that ample advice is available. The estimates show that it will cost not far short of £500,000 a year to operate a standing council. We have to look for added public value, to use the current jargon. With the best will in the world, and listening carefully to everything that has been said on so many occasions and in such detail, we do not believe that there is added public value in investing another £0.5 million in another body when we already have so much advice available to us.
§ Lord McNallyMy Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make our position clear. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is still a strong belief on these Benches that the Government would be wise to accept the suggestion of such an advisory council. However, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, makes any calculations of his own in that respect, I should again stress that we do not think that such an advisory council can be forced upon the Government. Therefore, although we have made our position clear on the principle, we would not be able to support the noble and learned Lord if he pressed the matter to a Division tonight.
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his courtesy in indicating the precise position of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
§ Lord AcknerMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, commenced his speech by saying that the advice is already available to the Home Secretary. He spent no time at all in dealing with the advice which I say would have been given by an independent council relative to the automatic life sentence, which he 928 castigated when he was in Opposition. The noble Lord gave no form of justification as to why his Government, knowing that they were hotly criticised not only by the legal profession but also by the judiciary and academics, brought it into effect. Moreover, the noble Lord gave no explanation as to why the "reviewable sentence", which was suggested way back in 1975 by the Butler Committee and used to a greater or lesser extent in Commonwealth jurisdictions, is not to be put in place here. Therefore, the noble Lord has established that the advice which is already available lacks the status to persuade the Home Secretary to do the sensible thing.
It is easy to ignore silent advice because there are not likely to be any critics if you do not accept it, and the general public do not know what the advice was. However, if you have a committee of status which is independent, and which would publish its advice as it should do, then you cannot turn a deaf ear to such advice without being prepared to justify it. It must be a great luxury for any Minister to enjoy to be able to refuse firmly advice which is sound and which should be listened to. I do not think that that ability would exist if the standing council were brought into existence. That is why it has been so strongly resisted. I do not believe that the Government should avoid having the views of this House expressed in regard to their refusal to adopt what I suggest is an entirely sensible approach to an independent organisation. Therefore, I seek the views of the House on my Motion.
§ 6.23 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether Motion 1A shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 127.
929| Division No. 3 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Ackner, L. [Teller.] | Hylton-Foster, B. |
| Aldington, L. | Ironside, L. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Jauncey of Tullichettle, L. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Jenkin of Roding, L. |
| Beloff, L. | Kintore, E. |
| Brightman, L. | Kitchener, E. |
| Carew, L. | Laing of Dunphail, L. |
| Carlisle, E. | Lane, L. |
| Carr of Hadley, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Lester of Herne Hill, L. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Longford, E. |
| Congleton, L. | Lowry, L. [Teller.] |
| Craigavon, V. | Lytton, E. |
| Cumberlege, B. | Marlesford, L. |
| Dacre of Glanton, L. | Mersey, V. |
| Dilhorne, V, | Molyneaux of Killead, L. |
| Dudley, E. | Monckton of Brenchley, V. |
| Dunleath, L. | Mountgarret, V. |
| Eden of Winton, L. | Napier and Ettrick, L. |
| Elton, L. | Nelson, E. |
| Exmouth, V. | Nolan, L. |
| Flather, B. | Palmer, L. |
| Gladwyn, L. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Halsbury, E. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. |
| Henderson of Brompton, L. | Rees, L. |
| Hooper, B. | Renton of Mount Harry, L. |
| Hylton, L. | Russell, E. |
| Sandwich, E. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Shannon, E. | Walpole, L. |
| Sharples, B. | Waverley, V. |
| Simon of Glaisdale, L. | Weatherill, L. |
| Slynn of Hadley, L. | Weir, V. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Alli, L. | Jay of Paddington, B. |
| Amos, B. | Jeger, B. |
| Annan, L. | Jenkins of Putney, L. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Judd, L. |
| Barnett, L. | Kennedy of The Shaws, B. |
| Bath and Wells, Bp. | Kennet, L. |
| Berkeley, L. | Kilbracken, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Lockwood, B. |
| Blease, L. | Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. |
| Borrie, L. | Lovell-Davis, L. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | McFarlane of Llandaff, B. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] |
| Burlison, L. | |
| Callaghan of Cardiff, L. | Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Mallalieu, B. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Milner of Leeds, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Mishcon, L. |
| Cork and Orrery, E. | Molloy, L. |
| Cunliffe, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Currie of Marylebone, L. | Montague of Oxford, L. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Montrose, D. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Morris of Castle Morris, L. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Murray of Epping Forest, L. |
| Desai, L. | Orme, L. |
| Diamond, L. | Paul, L. |
| Dixon, L. | Peston, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Pitkeathley, B. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Plant of Highfield, L. |
| Dubs, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Eatwell, L. | Puttnam, L. |
| Erroll, E. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Ewing of Kirkford, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Falconer of Thoroton, L. | Renwick of Clifton, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Fitt, L. | Ridley, V. |
| Gallacher, L. | Rogers of Riverside, L. |
| Gilbert, L. | St. John of Fawsley, L. |
| Gordon of Strathblane, L. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Serota, B. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Grantchester, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Grenfell, L. | Shore of Stepney, L. |
| Habgood, L. | Simon, V. |
| Hacking, L. | Simpson of Dunkeld, L. |
| Hardie, L. | Smith of Gilmorehill, B. |
| Hardy of Wath, L. | Stallard, L. |
| Haskel, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Hattersley, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Hayman, B. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Hilton of Eggardon, B. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. |
| Holderness, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Hollis of Heigham, B. | Tryon, L. |
| Hoyle, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Hughes, L. | Varley, L. |
| Hughes of Woodside, L. | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Hunt of Kings Heath, L. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] | Wedderburn of Charlton, L. |
| Whitty, L. | |
| Islwyn, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Janner of Braunstone, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and Motion 1A disagreed to accordingly.
§ Lord Williams of MostynI beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
§ Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ 6.32 p.m.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ 2 Clause 2, page 3, line 16, leave out from ("protecting") to end of line 17 and insert ("from further anti-social acts by the defendant—
- (a) persons in the local government area; and
- (b) persons in any adjoining local government area specified in the application for the order;
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
This is a small, technical amendment. When the Bill was before your Lordships' House, the Government were concerned that this should be a local order used to tackle anti-social behaviour in a particular area, which would be granted by a local magistrates' court to prohibit that behaviour in that area only.
That is still the case. We intend the orders to remain local but in discussions in another place it became apparent that to restrict the application of the order to a single local authority area in every single case would be unnecessarily restrictive where a single pattern of behaviour might spread over two or more adjoining areas. That would be unwieldy, costly to operate and inefficient.
Therefore the amendment was proposed to avoid that kind of situation. It was accepted in another place. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept it, particularly as it contains the safeguard that all relevant authorities in the areas affected must be consulted before an order is sought. We would not expect an application to go forward without explicit agreement from all concerned.
§ Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ 3 After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
§ REMOVAL OF TRUANTS TO DESIGNATED PREMISES ETC
§ (".—(1) This section applies where a local authority—
- (a) designates premises in a police area ("designated premises") as premises to which children and young persons of compulsory school age may be removed under this section; and
- (b) notifies the chief officer of police for that area of the designation.
§ (2) A police officer of or above the rank of superintendent may direct that the powers conferred on a constable by subsection (3) below—
- (a) shall be exercisable as respects any area falling within the police area and specified in the direction; and
- (b) shall be so exercisable during a period so specified;
§ (3) If a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a child or young person found by him in a public place in a specified area during a specified period—
- (a) is of compulsory school age; and
- (b) is absent from a school without lawful authority,
§ (4) A child's or young person's absence from a school shall be taken to be without lawful authority unless it falls with subsection (3) (leave, sickness, unavoidable cause or day set apart for religious observance) of section 444 of the Education Act 1996.
§
(5) In this section—
local authority" means—
"public place" has the same meaning as in section 15 above;school" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996.").
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
This amendment gives the police an additional power to take truants back to school or another place designated by the local education authority for that purpose. It is part of the Government's package to tackle school exclusions and truancy which the Prime Minister announced in May when he launched the Social Exclusion Unit's report on this subject. It will be used in support of local multi-agency efforts to tackle truancy in which the police, schools and local education authorities identify and discuss local problems and draw up strategies to deal with them.
§ Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.