Lords Sitting of 18 January 1999

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

Education: Parental Participation
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to extend the policy of allowing parents to vote on the future of grammar schools to other education issues.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we are committed to increasing parental participation in education. Grammar school ballots are one way of doing that, so are parental ballots on new legal categories for grant-maintained schools. However, ballots are only one way of involving parents and they are appropriate to particular circumstances. We are taking a wide range of other measures to increase parental participation. These include having more parents on school governing bodies, parent governor representatives on local authority committees dealing with education, home-school agreements and parental involvement in our literacy and numeracy strategies.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness remember that on 15th December she said,

"This is all about providing an opportunity for parents to exercise choice about the form of secondary education that they prefer. That seems to me to be democratic and utterly appropriate in the circumstances"?—[Official Report, 15/12/98; col. 1231.]
Why, therefore, are Her Majesty's Government not prepared to allow the same democratic choice which the noble Baroness so admires to parents of pupils who are at non-selective schools who wish them to become selective? Why is democracy restricted to one element of the education system? Democracy surely is universal.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the whole purpose of parental ballots is to consult those parents who are likely to be affected in future by a change in the admissions process in selective schools. Those parents whose children already attend selective schools will be able to keep their children in those schools and the schools will remain selective in respect of those particular children. Therefore it would be wholly inappropriate to consult them. They will not be affected by a change in the same way as parents whose children have not yet gone to secondary school.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is it not correct that the Government of which my noble friend is a distinguished Member have corrected a flawed system which they inherited from the previous administration?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the extent to which the system that we inherited is flawed. There are 166 grammar schools left in this country. That is a relatively small number but nevertheless we put before the electorate a commitment that we would end selection. That is a commitment we intend to keep. The great majority of the electorate appear to agree with that because they voted for us.
Lord Tope: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House why the Government decided that parents whose six year-old children attend an all-through primary school will obtain a vote in a grammar school ballot, but parents whose six year-old children attend an infant school will not? Could not that be an area for extending the ballot?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has raised this matter on a number of previous occasions. It is always a problem to decide what is the right thing to do as regards a ballot of this kind. But having considered all the pros and cons I believe that the Government took the right decision to allow those parents with children in primary schools which are feeder schools for secondary schools—in other words, either all-through primary schools or junior schools—to have a vote.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that parents are now much more involved than previously in raising standards in primary and secondary schools? They are involved in education committees and—as my noble friend said—in home-school agreements. Schools encourage them to come in much more often. It is excellent that parents should be much more involved and I hope that it will continue.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend has said about the importance of parental involvement in our schools. If we are to raise standards we must make parents welcome in all schools for children of all ages. That is somewhat easier in the case of young children than is sometimes the case in our secondary schools. There is now a wealth of research evidence to show that the most successful schools are those which involve parents in discussions about the curriculum and about how to help and support their children through giving them the space and opportunity to do their homework properly and which involve parents in a variety of extracurricular activities. That is absolutely central to this Government's programme of educational reform.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as the Government desire the abolition of selection at secondary level, and plainly hope that that will be the result of their carefully restricted ballots, is the Minister aware that officials in the Kent education authority have estimated that the cost of conversion in Kent will be £150 million? Does the Minister consider that that would be best value for money? If

361
that is the result of the ballots, does she undertake that the Government will pay that sum? If not, what advice does she have for the authority as to where it will find the money?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are aware that Kent local education authority has done some calculations about what wholesale reorganisation might mean in Kent? However, the Government do not accept that a move from selective to non-selective admission policies necessarily involves wholesale reorganisation. A great deal of experience of grammar schools becoming comprehensive schools has been gained in the past which has not always involved wholesale reorganisation, particularly in parts of the country—I am not quite sure what the gesture of the noble and learned Lord means; I do not know whether he is trying to shut me up and get me to sit down, I cannot interpret it—where there is already a substantial number of comprehensive schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the overwhelming support the Government are receiving for their proposals on ballots concerning grammar schools? I urge the Minister and the Government to implement the proposals as soon as possible. As the Question asks about possible future ballots, will the Government consider arranging a ballot as to whether the charitable status which public schools enjoy should be continued?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as to the first part of my noble friend's question, the Government have already passed legislation to allow ballots to take place and they issued guidance on the procedures for those ballots shortly before Christmas. As to the second part of his question, there are about 1,200 schools which have charitable status—that is about half of all independent schools. It is a matter for the Charity Commissioners to decide what organisations should have charitable status. As I understand it, the Charity Commissioners are now undertaking a review of all organisations that currently have charitable status, including independent schools, and they have consulted the organisation which represents independent schools of charitable status.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, have the Commissioners also consulted those independent schools which are of religious foundation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if an independent school with a religious foundation also has charitable status, I am sure it will be a member of the organisation representing independent schools with charitable status, which has been consulted.

Bahrain: Prime Ministers' Meeting
2.46 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was discussed by the Prime Minister at his meeting with the Prime Minister of Bahrain in the Seychelles.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Prime Minister and the Bahraini Prime Minister met in the Seychelles on Tuesday, 5th January. The meeting focused on recent events in Iraq and the Prime Minister took the opportunity to thank Shaikh Khalifa for Bahrain's continued support.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Prime Minister say anything to his opposite number about the cases of Shaikh Abdul Amir Al-Jamri and Mr. Abdul Wahad Hussain, who will have been detained for three years without charge or trial this coming Wednesday? Did he also take the opportunity of suggesting to the Bahraini Prime Minister that, rather than locking these people up, he should consult them about the restoration of the 1972 constitution and the 1973 parliament in pursuance of the mission statement of the Foreign Office, under which we promised to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy that we demand for ourselves?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, both the Prime Minister and Shaikh Khalifa were on private holidays. The Prime Minister simply took advantage of the opportunity to thank the Bahrainis for their help and support during Operation Desert Fox. It was not an appropriate occasion to raise any individual case in the very complex and sensitive field of human rights. I assure the noble Lord that we have raised the case of Shaikh Al-Jamri and the question of human rights with the Bahraini Government. The case of Shaikh Al-Jamri was raised by Mr. John Shepherd, the Deputy Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, with the Bahraini ambassador as recently as 11th January.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The courtesies of this House are rather different from those of another place.
Is my noble friend aware of the political complexities in Bahrain, as I am after visiting there on behalf of the Maimonides Foundation? In particular, did the Prime Minister have any chance to discuss with the Bahraini Prime Minister the continuing Middle East peace process and the part that the Gulf states might play, not least in the light of the extraordinary meeting last week at the Peres Peace Centre which was attended not only by Gorbachev and seven Nobel peace prize winners but by representatives of Palestine, Egypt, Israel and

363
Jordan? Surely the Gulf states should be encouraged to come into this process as swiftly and effectively as possible?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, my noble friend makes some interesting points. However, to my knowledge, the Prime Minister did not raise the question of the Middle East peace process with the Bahraini Prime Minister when he met him during his holiday in the Seychelles.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while it is important that human rights should be preserved and protected in Bahrain, as elsewhere, it is nevertheless of considerable importance to this country that our traditional friendship with Bahrain and the Al-Khalifa family should be preserved and developed? In the present situation in Iraq it is of paramount importance that we continue to protect and preserve our political, economic and military interests in Bahrain and elsewhere in the Gulf.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the points made by the noble Lord. The UK's trade and defence relations with Bahrain are extremely good. There are many recent examples of co-operation, but I shall not take up the time of the House by going into them in detail. On the question of co-operation offered by Bahrain, we have two VC10s in Bahrain providing refuelling in the air for the planes which implement the no-fly zone in southern Iraq. Relations and co-operation with Bahrain are particularly good and it is important that they are maintained. However, that does not prevent us from also having strong views on the question of human rights. Wherever it is appropriate, we make that point to the Bahrainis.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not the case that our strong friendship with the Al-Khalifa family, our indebtedness to them for the assistance they gave us during the recent crisis over Iraq and the presence of UNSCOM's headquarters in the territory and the American fifth fleet in the area inhibit us from raising human rights matters with the Bahraini Government? Would it not be a good idea if, as happens in other parts of the world, officials at the British Embassy in Bahrain were to visit the prisoners of conscience who have been detained for three years, two of whom I mentioned?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there is no question but that this Government do raise human rights issues with the Bahrainis whenever that is appropriate. The case of Shaikh Al-Jamri in particular is constantly being raised. The noble Lord has asked about Shaikh Al-Jamri on a number of occasions and he has also asked whether officials at the embassy could visit Shaikh Al-Jamri in prison. As he knows, because the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, told him in a written reply in May last year, there is no legal basis for officials at the British Embassy to request to visit Shaikh Al-Jamri in prison. We were then, and still are, assured that he is being well treated and has access to
364
medical treatment whenever he needs it. But our good relations with Bahrain are a way of helping us to encourage our friends in the Bahraini Government to implement the movements, which indeed they are making—by, for example, signing in April of last year the convention on torture—towards improving human rights inside their country.

Euro-zone Currency Conversions: Commission
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that European banks charge minimal commission for euro-zone currency conversions by individual travellers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the banks and governments of member states participating in economic and monetary union and for the Commission.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, perhaps I may express a little disappointment. After all, many British people will acquire euros in travellers cheques or as part payment to small businesses or part payment in salary, but when they go abroad they may be charged 4 per cent. commission. Does the Minister agree that when the single currency offers so many advantages it would be unfortunate if we did not allow the British public to have the advantages of the euro? Does he further agree that the Government should take a more pro-active stance in order to protect British travellers from profiteering banks which charge around 4 per cent. commission?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as to conversion between sterling and the euro, the position is no different from conversion between sterling and any of the currencies of the 11 member countries. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that there should be any reduction in charges. The only time it will affect either the banks or British travellers abroad is when they are converting between one country and another. That indeed is a matter for the banks and the Commission. The Commission has taken a view that conversion between one currency and another in the 11 should be virtually free of transaction costs.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that the Government have taken careful note of the Commission's recommendations of 23rd April regarding transparency, under which transaction costs must be clearly separated from the transaction itself? In the light of that, does he not agree that there is quite enough competition already?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. We certainly agree with the statement to which the noble Viscount referred. He made a valid point about competition. If there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, suggested in her supplementary

365
question, profiteering on the part of banks, they are all subject to competition; notably, from the various exchange bureaux which have sprung up in recent years around Europe and the world.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a good deal of this misunderstanding arises out of the Government's probably deliberately misleading attempt to give the impression that there is something very special about the euro? To avoid such misunderstanding among well informed people, would it not be useful if the Government issued some kind of propaganda to point out that there is, as he rightly said, no difference between trading in pounds, dollars, euros or any other currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept for a moment that the Government have been issuing misleading propaganda. It is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that, as far as possible, businesses in this country are prepared for changes in the euro as they will have to set up accounts in an additional currency and they will benefit from the transactional costs. For example, I used to commission survey research in six or seven European countries at the same time. All of them could now bill me in euros rather than in six or seven different currencies which have to be converted, one between another. The exchange risks involved in that made it very much easier for me—or would have made it easier if I had still been in business—to quote a precise price for my clients.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, are the Government aware that many in business and in the City very much welcome the steps taken by the Government to ensure that we are fully prepared for the euro, whether or not we enter the single currency? Some of us feel that the time is ripe for the Government to mount a much stronger campaign than the ones they have embarked on so far.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. If I may return the compliment to the City, I think it is generally agreed that conversion over the weekend of 1st January to 4th January went very well indeed. We have a substantial information campaign. We have had responses from more than 300,000 small and medium enterprises to the literature we sent out and we have had requests for further information. We have business advisers touring the country giving advice on how best to take advantage of the existence of the euro and we have made our public services as friendly as possible to the euro by saying that in Britain we can pay tax, we can file company returns and we can receive certain grants in euros.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little more to act as the champion of the British consumer. The fact is that more and more people will take euro travellers cheques on holiday. They will be widely advertised. The noble Lord said that there is competition among banks. I hear what he says but I understand from a report in the Financial Times that there are charges of up to 4 per cent. This is a grey area. Perhaps the noble
366
Lord should be a little more pro-active because we want to win those hearts and minds in a referendum. It would be unfortunate if people were to be put off the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with due respect, I have read the article in the Financial Times as well. I think that the noble Baroness has misunderstood it. The reference to commission of 3 or 4 per cent. is to Germany and Italy in particular and it refers to conversion between one country within euroland and another country. The noble Baroness's proper concern about the British consumer is largely about conversion between sterling and European countries. Very few British travellers spend a great deal of time or money converting from one euro 11 currency to another. For those who are not doing that, there is no significant difference in transaction costs. We have never said that a reduction in transaction costs is one of the principal benefits of European monetary union. It is a significant benefit. However, we are much more concerned with the longer-term benefits of macro-economic stability, to which we shall refer in more detail in Wednesday's debate.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I accept the reassurance of Her Majesty's Government that they are doing their uttermost to inform the public as to the presumed workings of the new single currency system, but at the same time will the Minister give the House an assurance that they will be very careful in the interests of honest transparency to point out the dangers of such a course?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not understand my noble friend's reference to the "presumed" change. The change has already taken place; the currency is already successfully in operation. Euros are used as the medium of exchange between 11 countries. As a country that has 50 per cent. of its trade with those 11 countries, it is proper that we should help consumers and business in this country to operate effectively with the new currency. The dangers would be to stay out and ignore the currency rather than the reverse.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that if it is the Government's intention to take this country into the euro, a referendum will be held to allow the voting public to have their say in the matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the question of whether it is the intention of this Government to take this country into the euro is one that the Government will decide, based on the principles that we have set out. We have said that we are in principle in favour of British membership and that we see no overriding constitutional objection but that, subject to sustained convergence and

367
stability, we will put a proposition to Parliament and the British people. Therefore I can confirm that before that step is taken there will indeed be a referendum.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the advent of the single currency affect the degree of corruption which is manifest in the workings of the European Commission and which the European Parliament has signally failed to challenge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord legitimately finds an opportunity to depart from the original Question. I do not know what proportion of the fraud that undoubtedly exists in European Community budgets arises from exchange transactions between the 11 different countries. If I knew the answer, that would be the answer to the noble Lord's question. But from what we know, I suspect that it is a relatively minor part of the abuses to which he properly draws attention.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would save time and energy if he arranged for the Treasury to send Members of this House a copy of the material that it sends to the public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a useful suggestion. If that view were shared by other noble Lords, I am sure that could be done. Meanwhile, any material that we send out is available to your Lordships either from the Printed Paper Office or in the Library. I shall report the noble Baroness's suggestion.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the Statement is not likely to be taken before 4.30 p.m.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): 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 Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause [Referral of young offenders to youth offender panels]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("section") insert ("(subject to subsection (4A))").
The noble Viscount said: At Second Reading everyone welcomed the creation of the remedy of the new disposal of courts for young offenders in the form of a referral to the youth offender panel. This is a necessary paving amendment to Amendment No. 6, in which I seek to remedy what I believe to be a small missed opportunity.
In the Crime and Disorder Act a number of new disposals for young offenders—particularly, under Sections 67 and 69, reparation orders and action plan orders—are available to the Crown Court. They will probably not be used by the Crown Court very often because people of that age do not often come before the Crown Court. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle the Government decided to make those disposals available. I am wondering why in this case the referral to a youth offender panel is confined to magistrates' courts.
I suggest that it is a mistake so to do, and for this reason. Young offenders can come before the Crown Court in two circumstances. First, they can come if they are on the same indictment with an adult and have been involved in the same offence. In those circumstances they would be joined in the indictment and tried and dealt with by the Crown Court as such. But perhaps more appositely in this case they could come before the Crown Court, consisting of a judge sitting with two justices, by way of an appeal from the youth court. They could come there in their own right, without being associated with any adult offender.
When one is dealing, particularly in the Crown Court, with young people of the sort of age that this part of the Bill has in mind, it is extraordinarily difficult to decide what to do with them. Those Members of the Committee who are magistrates will have struggled for years with that very problem. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, nodding her head. But it is no easier for the Crown Court.
I understand the idea that referrals to the youth panel should be able to be done extremely quickly. When the provision becomes available in a sessional area, there will be a very short time between the arrest and bringing the offender before the court and this form of disposal. That must be all to the good, because the more quickly justice operates in relation to people of that age, the better.
The problem is, however, that in the limited number of cases for which the Bill provides a referral to a youth offender panel by way of a disposal, there is still the possibility of an appeal. If there is an appeal, the disposal will be postponed until after the appeal is heard. In the case of such an appeal, the Crown Court judge will sit with two magistrates who, one assumes, will be familiar with and trained in the sort of cases that are suitable for a referral to the youth offender panel. Therefore, it is not a matter of the judge alone charting unknown territory. He or she would have the assistance of, and, if necessary, could be overruled by, the two sitting magistrates.
I therefore suggest to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the small extension provided for in my Amendment No. 6 is warranted because occasions do arise, albeit rarely, when the Crown Court

369
does not know what to do. I was recently involved in a case of this kind and we still have not decided what to do about it. One of the difficulties about the disposals that are available at the moment is that the children concerned are still at school and are preparing for their A-levels. In those circumstances it beggars belief what one can do, even though one of the offences concerned was a very serious one.
I suggest that there should be a minor extension of the ability to use these orders, which are a very good idea, and that in the circumstances where the Crown Court consists also of two skilled and trained magistrates this disposal should be available to them. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise briefly to express my view that the noble Viscount's proposal has merit. It seems to me that when young people come before the Crown Court in either of the circumstances which he outlined it would be an advantage if this new method of disposal were available to the Crown Court. The noble Viscount suggested that it might be more apt when a young person came before the Crown Court on their own, as a result of appeal, and so on. I do not disagree with anything the noble Viscount said, but it seems to me that it could also be extremely relevant in a case where a young person appeared before the court with an adult charged with the same offence and where, as presumably in most cases, the young person had been led into the offence by the adult. In those circumstances a disposal of this kind may be exactly the right way in which to deal with a young person. I think it is entirely apt that it should be available when a young person appears before the Crown Court with an adult on the same offence as well as when they appear on his own.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 1 of the Bill makes referral orders available in both the youth court and the adult magistrates' court. We did not propose to make them available to the Crown Court because by and large the Crown Court would not be dealing with the young offenders for which the sentence is intended and, where such cases do arise, it is open to the Crown Court to remit to the youth court for sentencing.
Not for the first time, the noble Viscount has raised an extremely important point and I am most grateful for the care he has given to these matters. He has identified a situation where the Crown Court requires the power to consider a referral order; that is, as his amendment makes plain, where the court is reviewing sentence on appeal.
I am happy to say that, having researched the matter, we do not believe that we need to specify this on the face of the Bill because that power already exists by virtue of Section 48(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which provides that the Crown Court, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, may award any punishment which the lower court appealed against might have awarded.
370
I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this point. I have had it researched and I believe that the answer is there.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I do not suppose that many judges who sit in the Crown Court would have found that section. No doubt guidance will be given, area by area, about the use to be made of the new powers when they come into operation. I hope that the Home Office's guidance for the use of Part I of the Bill will include guidance to the Crown Court about that matter because I believe everyone is now agreed that it would be desirable to be able to use this power on a suitable occasion. As it is already in the law, albeit in a somewhat obscure corner of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("under the age of 18").
The noble Lord said: It is suggested that we discuss Amendment No. 3 together with Amendment No. 2, which is obviously right since they go together. These amendments seek to clarify the age of the young people to whom these new provisions are to apply. The Bill talks about the court dealing with someone under 18. I take that to mean that the alleged offender—or, by the time he is convicted, the offender—is under 18 at the time he appears in front of the magistrates and that the new sentence is not available if the offender was under 18 at the time of the offence but before coming to court and being found guilty had passed his 18th birthday.
I understand that when it was last measured, about a year ago, the average time taken to come to court was about four-and-a-half months. There will be quite a number of young people who become 18 during that four-and-a-half months and move over the borderline. Given that in certain circumstances it is compulsory for magistrates to impose this, the sentence will depend on whether the case comes to trial before or after the offender's 18th birthday.
It seems to me that in these circumstances either the offender or another party, such as the prosecution, may think it desirable either to expedite or delay the trial in order to affect the sentence, which does not seem to me a satisfactory way to proceed. In addition, it is in the nature of things that in some parts of the country courts have a shorter waiting time than in other parts of the country and that some courts are able to respond more quickly than others. The availability of this sentence will therefore also depend on the court at which the young offender is to appear. Later in the Bill the Secretary of State is given the power to vary the offender's age for many purposes. I refer to Clause 2(4)(a). Therefore this age might in any case vary.
It seems to me at least worth asking whether it would not be better if the crucial date which decided whether or not this sentence were available should be the date on which the offence was committed rather than the

371
date on which the young person appeared before either the youth court or the magistrates' court, whichever was by that time appropriate. In addition, the fact that the adult magistrates' court might be involved suggests to me that it might be thought proper to sentence some people over 18 in this manner. It is in that spirit of inquiry as to whether it might not be preferable to make this change that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. Unless there is, unseen by him, a provision elsewhere in the Bill that clarifies this point, it seems completely against natural justice that the length of time taken to bring a young person to court should affect the sentence which that young person receives. Young people and the public would see this as unfair. If there is no other provision to clarify the point, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: In supporting my noble friend's amendment perhaps I may make one further point. The amendment would benefit the administration of the courts. Otherwise, if the age of a person changes in the run-up to the hearing the courts' administration may or may not make the right guess as to when the hearing will take place. Having started work in the youth court it may have to move the matter to the magistrates' court and resume all of the administration a second time. I believe that my noble friend's amendment will assist the administration of the courts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, identifies correctly the approach we have adopted; namely, that the referral order should be available for young offenders between the ages of 10 and 17 at the time they are dealt with by the courts. I cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness that this is against natural justice. It is found quite commonly within the justice system. The noble Lord referred to an average period of four and a half months, and that is so. If the prosecution sought to delay the trial for the purpose of ensuring that the young offender was over the age of 17 at the time of disposition it would be a wholly illegitimate use of power, and I believe that it would not happen.
We have tried to make youth justice the top law and order priority because we need to divert people away from crime as early as possible. We need effective interventions to tackle the causes of offending by young people and prevent recurrence. We believe that that is the right intervention for this group which is rightly specified as being between the ages of 10 and 17. The amendment of the noble Lord would focus the attention of the court on the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the offence rather than when he would benefit from the intervention. The amendment would mean that if many years elapsed between the commission of the offence and its detection and prosecution young offenders way beyond the 10 to 17 age band would be given referral orders, as he rightly observed.
372
Referral orders are disposals tailored specifically to prevent reoffending by young offenders. That is the purpose of these orders. In the case of young adults beyond that age group we believe that the courts should have disposals available to them to reflect those offenders' maturity and attitude. The noble Lord is right. We must keep this carefully under review. After all, the courts will have available to them a wholly new remedy. Self evidently, we shall want to see how it pans out in practice. For the moment I believe that we have got it right; namely, 10 to 17 as the age of disposition for this entirely novel remedy. I hope that that explanation assists the noble Lord who moved the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure that I am wholly convinced. One question remains in my mind, the answer to which may be obvious to others but not to me. Why should adult magistrates' courts be involved if all of the offenders concerned with the possible disposal will be under 18? Another point raised by the Minister, which I believe has considerable weight, was that there might be a very long delay which was not the fault of the prosecution between the commission of the offence and the time when the trial took place if the offender was not detected for a long period and the matter arose much later. The Minister is right that it would be a disadvantage if somebody aged 25 or perhaps 30 was sent compulsorily to the youth offender panel under the terms of the Bill. But, as I shall explain when I turn to later amendments, I am in any event against compulsion. However, I do not argue that point at the moment. I shall deal with the matter at the appropriate time. But this is the way out of a particular difficulty rather than leaving very much in the air the question of the availability of the sentence according to whether the 18th birthday of the youth happens to fall before or after the trial.
I understand the Minister's point about the prosecution misbehaving if it tried to fix or affect the date so as to achieve that result. However, it would be entirely open to the defence to do so. It may be improper but that does not mean that it will not necessarily happen. I do not believe that that is a very satisfactory position in which to leave the law. I do not know wether the Minister is able to respond to my question about the adult courts and the youth courts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I deal first with the general points raised by the noble Lord. If someone under a particular age commits an offence and comes up for sentence having passed the time gap for sentence the usual rule is that the sentence is passed appropriate to the age at the time of sentence. We do not believe that it will be possible for a defendant in this category simply to manipulate the system as has been notoriously done in the past. This is the whole purpose of the Narey reforms to which the Home Secretary is personally committed. We want to reduce the national average of four and a half months. As to magistrates' courts or other adult courts dealing with an under 18 year-old, in the main this will not happen. The purpose of the present draft is simply to establish that the youth court

373
is a class of magistrates' court. Therefore, one is not looking at the circumstances to which the noble Lord refers.
The fundamental point is that we have selected this group which is suitable in the limited circumstances already outlined—a first time offender who pleads guilty—for early intervention of this particular type. We shall keep the matter under review. But the usual practice in the criminal regime is that an individual is sentenced to the appropriate range of penalties according to age at the time of sentence, not the time of conviction for an offence. The noble Lord makes the perfectly legitimate point that he wants a discretionary, not mandatory, resolution. He rightly says that that is a story for later today. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between us in that respect.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Before the noble Lord sits down, if the Government consider that they may think again about the age of the offender at the time that he or she comes to court, I observe that in Clause 2(3) the Secretary of State's powers to make amendments by regulation do not include a power to deal with Clause 1(1). In the light of what the noble Lord has said, it may be advantageous if it does so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not say that the Government had it in mind to alter it. I said that plainly these matters would be kept under review. I am grateful as always for what the noble Viscount says. I shall think about his proposal but I cannot give any clearer indication than that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have been given some food for thought on this matter by the Minister. I am grateful to my noble friends for their support for my amendment but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: As it turns out, it has not been such a long wait for discussion on whether or not this new form of sentence should be compulsory in some circumstances.
The Bill provides that the sentence is compulsory so far as concerns the magistrates. They have no discretion in the cases set out in Clause 2(1). Where those conditions are fulfilled, the magistrates have no option whatever. An important point of principle is involved. It is a point of principle that we have sometimes discussed at the other end of the judicial hierarchy when discussing whether or not judges should be obliged to pass life sentences in the case of murder. The Lord Chief Justice, and many others before and since, have argued that it would be advantageous if judges retained a discretion as regards sentences for murder. In view of the special nature of the crime of murder, I agree with
374
the Government that the judges' discretion should be limited; and that a life sentence is the correct sentence for a conviction for murder.
However, at the other end of the judicial hierarchy there is no question of the special considerations applying to the offence of murder. Many of the arguments used by the Lord Chief Justice about the necessity for discretion seem to apply in this situation. Only the magistrates on the spot who have heard the case and know the offence, the offender, and so on, are in a position to say that such a disposal is the appropriate course of action. The fact that it is a first offence, and that the other conditions in Clause 2(1) are fulfilled, are matters that they would take into account in deciding whether or not to use their discretion in that way and to pass the new sentence. It seems unwise to fetter their discretion in that way.
Why should the Government think it essential to tie the magistrates' hands in these cases? Perhaps the Government do not entirely trust the magistrates to use the new form of sentence. I hope that that is not the case because it should not be; I do not believe that there is justification for it. As time goes on, magistrates will judge for themselves whether it is an effective sentence, and the correct sentence under Clause 2(1); or whether the provision should be used only in some cases and the criteria for deciding in which cases such a course would be appropriate. No doubt different magistrates will take slightly different decisions, but that is always the case when an individual appears before the courts, and there is nothing that we can do to ensure that the courts always take precisely the same course of action. We have to rely on the discretion of the magistrates. We usually do so and are not let down.
The thought also occurred to me, but I immediately dismissed it, that it might be part of the Government's obsession with wishing to control everything. However, I am sure that that is not so in the case of the Minister. I do not believe that it is desirable for the magistrates to be compelled to use the provision automatically whenever the circumstances of Clause 2(1) occur.
The amendments grouped with Amendment No. 4 are intended to be consequential to the main amendment. Whether I have all the consequential amendments correct is not clear. I have attempted to do so, but if the principle is agreed no doubt we can settle the consequential amendments at a later stage. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 10.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As a matter of principle, perhaps I may support my noble friend. As the Minister may remember, I am in favour of discretionary life sentences for murder, as I believe that he was at one time, and may still be. The principle in question is that if one removes discretion one tends to impair the quality

375
of justice if the quality of those judging is reasonably high. I ask the Government to think again about the question. An important principle is involved.
Viscount Tenby: Rather irritatingly, I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, I understand a situation where one has established youth panels and one has to put in hand the machinery for them to come into existence. The moment one makes the position discretionary, individual benchers may decide not to pass such cases on and a coach and horses may be driven through that important aspect of the Bill.
On the other hand, the Minister will not need reminding that at present youth justice panels on benches are grappling manfully (and no doubt "womanfully") with the forest of new orders under the Crime and Disorder Act. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues have taken that factor into account. However, if at the same time as those panels seek to deal with that problem they find they are being emasculated in their discretion as regards disposals, it may have an adverse effect on their morale at a delicate time. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to reassure me that that matter has been taken into account.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems likely that the Minister will answer my noble friend by saying that there is a wide menu from which the court may choose when agreeing the programme for the young offender. The point of my noble friend's amendment is that the Bill fetters the discretion of the court on the decision whether the offender is the right person with whom to make a contract. Should there be a contract? Is that person likely to respond to a contract? If the young person is extremely truculent and unwilling to co-operate at the outset, it may do more harm than good to enter into this sentence.
There is a strong point in my noble friend's amendment. It would affect a number of other issues which will arise later in Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not a desire to control everything. I can only repeat publicly, as has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on so many public occasions, our trust in the virtue and value of the magistrates of this country.
I take the point of principle put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Cope. The important difference of principle is this. What makes the new referral order different from the ordinary sentence disposition is that its purpose is not a sentence (full stop). Its intended purpose is to ensure that the conviction of the young offender, who has to be a first offender and plead guilty, will trigger on a basis of mandatory obligation an inquiry into the reasons for the offending behaviour. That is the real importance of the youth panel. It is not a sentence in itself; it is the triggering of an inquiry.
We believe that it is essential to break the cycle of continued offending and re-offending and to go immediately to the first offender who has pleaded guilty and say, "It is necessary, it is obligatory, it is mandatory to have this inquiry at this stage." I respectfully suggest
376
to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that that is the difference between the sentence to which he and I are accustomed in the criminal courts and the mandatory triggering of an inquiry. It is an intentional and fundamental shift in the way we deal with young offenders.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I take the point of distinction but I cannot see that it makes any substantial difference. Perhaps I am being obtuse about the matter. I agree with the Minister 100 per cent. that we should break the cycle. I have faith in the quality of the magistrates and I believe that they should be given a discretion to exercise as they see fit in order to break the cycle. Of course I take the distinction, but for the life of me I cannot see the difference.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is a big difference. We are for the first time imposing on a young offender who pleads guilty the principle of restorative justice. That is to be obtained only by the intervention of a panel. That is why it is mandatory.
We recognise that this is a fundamental shift—it is intended to be such—in the way that the youth court deals with young people in such categories. We are separating the question of guilty or not guilty from the process of dealing with the offending behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right in saying that the measure would alter completely the arrangements for mandatory referrals. His amendment removes the conditions which make compulsory referrals necessary and it would allow a court to make a referral in any case where a first-time offender was being sentenced, including an offender who offered a not guilty plea.
We have set the mandatory criteria on a deliberate basis. We believe that we need to focus our attentions and qualities in a way that has not been done previously on the category of young offender most likely to benefit from the approach. We believe that a necessary precondition for that is an admission of guilt.
I have listened carefully to the arguments. We adhere firmly to the necessity of a mandatory principle here. It is not an attack on the discretion of the magistracy generally. There will be an opportunity to review the conditions attached to mandatory referrals. The new arrangements will be piloted so that we can assess whether we have got them right. As has been indicated, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to change the availability criteria in the light of experience.
We are at a fundamental difference of approach. We believe that there should be a uniformly required inquiry into first-time young offenders who plead guilty. We have reached that belief as a matter of fundamental principle. I believe it right that young people who offend for the first time and who plead guilty should be the subject of required intervention at a very early stage. That is the only way in which we will effectively break the cycle.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support the idea of restorative justice and the youth offender panels.

377
I believe that they will prove valuable in tackling youth crime. However, I hesitate about making them compulsory in every case which falls under Clause 2(1).
The Minister said that to be sent before a youth panel was not a sentence in itself but would set in place an inquiry. In many ways it will be seen as a sentence by the young person whether or not the Minister or I see it as such. It can involve a financial penalty, even though it is not called a "fine" and even if the money goes to the victim or to the local community. It can involve restrictions on the person's movements. He may not be sent to a youth offender centre but he may be restricted from going to certain places or going out at certain times. Those options will be available under the contract. I believe that something imposed under the authority of the court which involves taking money away from an offender and restricting his movements is akin to a sentence, however we like to look at the niceties.
The Minister said that an inquiry would be set in place. I hesitate over the term. We are familiar with the fact that after someone is found guilty there may be a delay before sentence is passed in order to obtain inquiry reports from the Probation Service, or whoever, so that a more effective sentence can be passed. This is not of that character. It is not so much an inquiry as a discussion. There will be a discussion about the possibility of agreeing a contract. That is desirable, but it will be a discussion rather than an inquiry.
The Minister made his position clear. We shall consider what he said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) If the area in which the offender resides, or will reside, is not an area in which referral is available under subsection (4), the court shall sentence the offender as if he had always resided in a place where referral was not available.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to remedy an omission from the Bill. The Bill provides for what should happen if an offender moves to live in another area in which youth offender panels function. We hope that soon there will be youth panels everywhere, but initially they will be available to the courts only in some parts of the country. I cannot see what will happen if an offender moves to an area where there is no youth offender panel. He cannot be sent to the panel in the area from which he is moving because it may be a considerable distance and he cannot be sent to a new one because there is not one in the area to which he has moved. I believe that in those circumstances he should be sent back to the court and sentenced as though no youth panel were available. It is a temporary situation but not one we can ignore.
The Bill is long and complicated and I hesitate to be absolute on the matter. However, I do not believe that the situation has been provided for in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley has raised what I consider to be one of the most difficult
378
points on this part of the Bill. Paragraph 34 of Notes on Clauses states:
"Subsection (4) limits the availability of the new order to those courts that have been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements are in place for a youth offending team to implement referral orders. It is intended that the new orders will be introduced at different times across the country",
that means in different places at any one time,
"also on a pilot basis",
and I ask what that means,
"so that their effectiveness and the resource implications can be fully assessed in advance of nationwide implementation".
It has generally been the practice and, indeed, a principle of the administration of justice in England and Wales that the same system of justice, the same powers of the courts, apply throughout England and Wales. But here we are to have a system in which in one area—and I shall ask the meaning of the word "area" in a few moments—we may find that the courts have a particular power and in another area they have not. That is a very strange situation which may have a strange effect. It may mean that in some cases where an offence has been committed a well-informed young offender—17 is not so young—may decide to commit his offence in a place where a referral is available rather than the court exercising its usual powers of sentence.
I find that a strange situation. I hope that the Government will consider it very seriously. Frankly, if my noble friend's amendment were accepted, there would be an answer to that problem. But perhaps I may say, with respect to him, that if his amendment is accepted, Clause 1(4) could not stand. There would be a contradiction within Clause 1 between the new subsection proposed by my noble friend and subsection (4) as it now stands.
This is the most important matter raised so far today. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will give a helpful answer.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I hope so. Pilot schemes are quite well known now in the criminal justice system. One has schemes which, in the nature of things, have not been tried in the past. Resources are focused on particular areas—probation or magistrates' courts areas—to see how schemes work. There is nothing novel about that. For example, one may have bail support schemes in a particular area in a format which does not exist in another area, even an area which is contiguous. For example, there are all sorts of pilots in relation to tagged bail which are tried out in some parts of the country and not in others.
Pilots are an extremely useful tool because one can monitor results in practice. For example, rather than saying to your Lordships that something is a good idea, a pilot scheme enables me to say, "This is an excellent idea because it has worked well in practice." That is an extremely important additional tool in the armoury of criminal justice, in particular in relation to the question of restorative justice.
At the moment it is plain that the operation of the youth offender panels depends on the existence of a local youth offending team which has taken on specific responsibilities for the implementation of the orders.

379
That is why Clause 4(4) restricts the availability of the orders to the courts in those areas where a youth offending team is in operation in the young offender's home area or the area in which it is expected that he will be living during the currency of the order. The court will be notified where that is the case and referral orders will then be available to the court unless or until that notice is withdrawn.
The existence of the notice is a necessary pre-condition before the court can start to consider a referral order. If one has the sort of devious criminal identified by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one must bear in mind that under the provisions of Clause 1(1)(b), the court may impose a custodial sentence if it wishes or, alternatively, at quite the opposite end of the spectrum, it can issue an absolute discharge for this particular category of offender.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, identified was: what happens if a young offender is sentenced in area A where there are youth offending panel facilities available and he moves away to another area where there are no such facilities? He asks whether there is possible injustice or lack of symmetry. The answer is in the Bill. There is no question at all that a young offender should be required to attend a panel away from his home area even when he has recently resided in an area where referral orders were available.
If a young person's family moves out of the area, even after the contract has been agreed, we find a solution to the noble Lord's legitimate concern in Clause 11. That offers the opportunity to the court, if a young person's family moves out of the appropriate sentence area—that is, appropriate because the facilities are available—to consider alternative disposal. We included that provision to meet the possibility which the noble Lord identified.
I hope that I have been able to deal with that specific point although I see out of the corner of my right eye, blinkered as I am not, that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may not be entirely satisfied.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has given an extremely interesting answer but I do not believe that it is adequate. He refers to pilot schemes; for example, pilot schemes for bail. They would not do much harm. But have there been pilot schemes in relation to sentencing or the non-availability of a sentence? That is the point. Certainly in my time, when I did a good deal of judicial work at the lower level as a recorder and relief judge, the courts had the same powers everywhere. A fairly experimental departure from that is now envisaged. But has any pilot scheme gone beyond provisions relating to bail and, fundamentally, to the courts' powers and obligations to sentence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Pilots relating to bail deal with the liberty of the individual. Pilots are now becoming increasingly commonplace. They are allowed for in the Crime and Disorder Act and in this Bill because, in the nature of things, one cannot always have a nationwide network of availability when one is introducing completely new concepts.
380
After all, there is nothing different in principle here. Quite often there may not be available the desired appropriate disposition because places are simply not available. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was sentencing, he would not have been able to sentence, in some categories of cases, as he wished because the available places were not available; for example, in a secure mental hospital. I merely give an example with which he will be well familiar. So there has never been total uniform availability.
We are saying to the court, "You cannot, in your area, sentence using this particular disposition unless, within your area, the resource is available for you to do it." I do not regard that as illegitimate or revolutionary. It is merely a different gloss on the noble Lord's experience, and, indeed, my experience when we were sentencing.
4 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: It is not true that there have not been pilots in sentencing. Electronic tagging was mentioned earlier and that, as a disposal, has been working on a pilot basis. In that regard a probation order is supported by electronic tagging. It had to be done in that way because not everywhere was equipped with the staff, supervision and facilities to undertake the scheme.
The system was tried out in certain areas and has recently been extended to Middlesex among other places. A demonstration was given of not only how it works, but also the sorts of cases where it was found to be effective elsewhere. Therefore, even in sentencing, there are precedents—and not only under the Crime and Disorder Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, therefore, should allow some encouragement for this sort of activity. It happened also with video recordings of children; that scheme began on a pilot basis. One sees how it works, if it does; if it does not, the pilot is not extended and one may have to think again about the legislation.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. We are being invited to allow an experiment to take place which will not be universal; it will be partial. That is what it comes to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My noble friend Lord Renton is exactly right in his description.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Is not the noble Viscount right also in his description of the history so far?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Indeed, the noble Viscount is absolutely correct in his description. In fact, it does not seem to me necessarily wrong for there to be pilots in the case of electronic tagging or, for that matter, in this case. On the contrary, in practical terms it is essential that such schemes are introduced gradually. It would probably be impossible to introduce this new form of disposal satisfactorily everywhere from a specific day one. The same applies to electronic tagging.
It is right also, however, to take a slightly cautious attitude to the implementation; to make sure that one has the details right in these cases before extending the

381
scheme. I believe I am right in thinking that that was the case in relation to electronic tagging and it seems to be the case in this regard. But this cautious pilot approach sits rather badly with the compulsion we were discussing a few moments ago. However, I will not go back over that argument.
The argument on the principles behind the cautious introduction of the scheme arose from my drawing attention in the amendment to a much smaller aspect of this matter; that is, what happens if a young person moves in the middle of the scheme. At a quick glance, the Minister has been able to reassure me on that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) This Part shall cease to have effect two years after it comes into force unless an order to continue it in effect, made by the Secretary of State, has been laid before, and approved by resolution of. each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us back to the hesitant approach about which I was speaking a moment ago. The amendment proposes that the whole system should be reviewed.
The Minister told us that the Government intend to keep the scheme under review; that officials will consider the matter to see how it is working as time goes on. At the moment only Parliament is not due to consider the matter. My amendment suggests therefore that, after the scheme has been running for two years, an affirmative order should be required in each House of Parliament in order to extend it. If all is going well and there are no major snags, there will be no difficulty in carrying an affirmative order. However, if difficulties have arisen, it is right that the matter should be considered at that time.
We have not been told what the criteria will be in the monitoring of the scheme. Presumably the rate of reoffending will be the highest item in the list, and that should be so. But I suspect that, if something like this amendment is not incorporated in the Bill, Parliament will hear little more about the scheme; it will simply trundle on unless it is involved in a scandal or something of that sort. Then one day a piece of paper will be given to a busy Minister saying, "By the way, do you remember the Bill that your colleagues passed a few years ago? It is all going smoothly; we are just banging on with it." Any Minister who is then asked the question will be able to say that it has been reviewed and agreed.
On the other hand, if this provision were inserted in the Bill, at least a Minister would have to pay attention to it and bring it before Parliament. We should then be able to have a proper review of the situation. All that the Minister was saying in relation to the introduction of pilots and trying out schemes in practice would be monitored by Parliament. The amendment therefore strengthens the hand of the Minister as well as the hand of Parliament because of the way in which it would work.
It is desirable that novel and new devices should be kept under consideration. I do not believe that there is any disagreement between myself and the Minister in that regard. The only question is how it should be done. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: It became clear, in the course of the discussion on Amendment No. 5, that the scheme to refer young offenders to youth offender panels which is to be implemented area by area is experimental. Amendment No. 8 is therefore important because it means that if we are to conduct an experiment, it should not go on indefinitely. A time limit should be placed upon it. My noble friend's suggestion that the time limit should be two years seems to me practicable and sensible in the interests of justice.
In the course of the previous discussion I asked the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to say what the area would be, as referred to on page 2, line 2. He did not say, but it is relevant to Amendment No. 8. If, for example, the areas are going to be large and after two years every area of the country but one has conducted a scheme, that means that the experiment succeeded. On the other hand, if half a dozen areas are still without a scheme, it has not been successful and should be brought to an end in the two years proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is essential that there should be some provision for Parliament to look at how the scheme progresses. I have not had the opportunity of discussing with my noble friend Lord Cope his reason for proposing two years. I wonder whether that is long enough. As he says, the rate of reoffending will be a major consideration in deciding whether or not the experiment should turn into a permanent feature and it takes time to discover how reoffending will be affected by such a measure. I am not sure whether a period of two years is right. However, I believe that we need such a provision. The Minister must remember that a number of people will spend a good deal of time as members of panels and, before committing themselves to such a scheme, they will want to be assured that it will be a success. The scheme should not be undertaken lightheartedly. If it is not succeeding, it should be stopped. My hope is that it will succeed. It is an extremely good idea and an extremely good experiment on which I am very keen.
This is an important point. The Secretary of State should have to bring the provisions to Parliament for consideration after two years or a little longer.
Viscount Tenby: The introduction of trial periods into the criminal justice system, which we have seen in the past few years, is to be welcomed. Trial periods have to be evaluated. Accordingly, there must be a necessary discipline and audit to establish whether the new procedures are working. Therefore, I believe that it would be desirable to have on the face of the Bill a provision specifying that there should be a period of

383
accountability. I am not sure how long such a period should be, but a period of two years does not seem unreasonable.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I fear that I shall be the one discordant voice. I see little merit in the proposal.
First, to echo what the noble Baroness said, looking at the matter seriously, as it deserves, a period of two years is inappropriately short to carry out a detailed evaluation.
Secondly, I want to raise questions about the alleged advantages of the affirmative resolution procedure. I must admit that, over the years, I have spent many hours in the House urging governments to accept affirmative resolution proposals, but, realistically, one knows that in the House of Commons many affirmative resolutions are agreed without any debate. There is a view in this House that we should not vote against affirmative resolutions. The Government have a majority of 179, which raises a number of other questions about how effective such a provision would be.
Apart from anything else, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that trial periods are desirable. Community service orders were introduced by the then Mr. Carr, now the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary in Mr. Heath's Government of 1970–74. The community service orders began as an experiment in, I think, six probation areas. Thereafter, they were extended to the rest of the country by the succeeding Labour Government. There was no affirmative resolution and no parliamentary procedure; the government of the day took the view that community service was a success and extended it to the rest of the country. I do not think that it is a good idea to insist that Parliament should have another look at all such experiments within a period of two years. I must confess that I do not find that a convincing argument.
Viscount Brentford: I believe that the principles that the Government want to introduce are very important. I have been looking for some time for an opportunity for restorative or relational justice to be introduced. Like, I believe, all other Members of the Committee, I am very supportive of referral orders. I think that we need a system whereby a report on progress is placed before the House. However, a period of two years is rather short in view of the time that it is likely to take the pilot schemes to report back. Perhaps the period should be three years. I am not sure whether the affirmative resolution is the right procedure, or whether the Government should undertake to report back to the House in, say, three years. The Minister may say that it is up to any Member of the House to raise a question on it. I believe that it is much more important than that and that the Government should inform us of the progress being made. I hope that in time, after the provisions have proved valid for youth cases, these principles will be applied more widely. I hope that we shall see more examples of victims and offenders, by agreement, being brought face to face. We must reconsider this and not just forget all about it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In answer to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pilot schemes will be taking place in a limited number of court areas—petty sessional areas—in England and Wales where such schemes are available for the disposition to be made.
I am happy to give an undertaking once more about our intention to pilot the referral orders. We want to conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot schemes. I am happy to undertake that that will be done. Again, I am happy to undertake that reports of the evaluations will be published and made available for discussion.
Under Clause 3, a referral order may run for not more than 12 months. The noble Lord's amendment would mean that this part of the Bill would entirely cease to have effect two years after coming into force. One could not carry out any sensible or useful evaluation in such a period.
There is another point of principle here. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said. One does not introduce a new form of disposal, a new sentence, and immediately say, "If it doesn't work within two years, it falls", or, "If it is not brought back to Parliament within two years, it falls".
I note the points that have been made. This is an extremely important advance. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for his support for a principle which I know that he has advocated for a very long time. I am trying to meet the Committee's reasonable concerns. An independent evaluation, which I promise will be published in full, is the proper mechanism for raising questions and concerns as and when the pilot schemes are running.
The point is not simply that a period of two years is too short—although plainly it is—but that the public and your Lordships should know exactly how the schemes are working. I do not believe that it is necessary to require the House to consider the procedure afresh after two years. One would be in danger of this extremely bold, effective initiative being followed by a gloomy period of two years of uncertainty. That would not help anyone because we need to ensure that people disposed of in this way understand that they are not being let off. I believe that in many fundamental ways taking part in restorative justice is a much more effective and burdensome disposition: the offender has to recognise the wrong done and do something to remedy it. That is much more difficult and onerous than a simple financial penalty, and it is capable of being more effective and long-lasting.
I hope that the assurances that I have given about an independent evaluation and, more importantly, its publication will satisfy your Lordships' reasonable concerns.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for the promise which the Minister has just given us and the way in which he has expanded it.
In response to remarks by other noble Lords, I am by no means wedded to a period of two years. Indeed, I am quite willing to reconsider that element.

385
However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, poured scorn on affirmative resolutions, partly on the grounds that he did not think they were effectively treated in the other place. I can assure the noble Lord that they are frequently debated there and often lead to votes. Of course, in the nature of things, the Government normally win those votes, but nevertheless that is the case. As far as concerns this Chamber, I agree that it is the habit at present for this place never to vote against orders, whether affirmative or negative. I believe it is unlikely that that particular area of restraint will survive any reform of your Lordships' House. After the Chamber has been changed in its composition, it is likely to exert its powers in that respect much more frequently. I do not think that the agreements of the past on the matter are likely to survive.
However, I also believe that the affirmative resolution procedure is an important brake on the habit which has been growing among governments, none more so than the present Government, of inserting into Bills all sorts of flexibilities, which can be altered later at the whim of the relevant Secretary of State. Indeed, the Bill before us has many parts in it which can be altered by the Secretary of State, including some of the most fundamental provisions. In one sense, I believe that such flexibility can be useful but, in another sense, it makes the law uncertain and, therefore, less desirable. It also makes it much more difficult to consult the law because one reads the Act of Parliament as it was passed and it states throughout that certain provisions may be varied by the Secretary of State. Unless one consults the necessary reference books to find out if any variation has been made or any order passed in that respect, one cannot be sure that that is how the law stands. It makes it much more difficult for people to understand the nature of the law.
Therefore, a brake on such orders, provided by the necessity for affirmative resolutions, would also be useful in that respect. However, the amendment is all about whether or not there should be a review of the matter. We have been promised a fairly full review and I am certainly alive to the danger outlined by the Minister of appearing to put a kind of black spot on what we all hope will be a useful experiment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): Before I call Amendment No. 9, I should point out to Members of the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 10.
Clause 2 [The referral conditions]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, leave out lines 16 to 19.
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. One of the factors which prevents a referral order being made by a court on an offender is if the latter has in the past been
386
bound over to keep the peace. As the Bill stands, if that has happened such an offender cannot be given this new sentence, although I suppose we should refer to it as "this new disposal". I understand that magistrates find the power to bind over useful from time to time. I do not want them to be inhibited from using it by the thought that, whenever they do so, they might be ruling out this disposal for future use.
In any case, it seems to me that the fact that someone has been bound over in the past should not necessarily disbar him altogether from restorative justice, which, after all, is what this Bill is about. In a way, the power to bind over, which is an ancient power as far as I know, was of a similar character to the present experiment that we are implementing with the Bill. It was not restorative justice in the full sense that we now understand it, but thoughts have developed on the matter. Where magistrates thought that a young person had done wrong but might not do so again, they could bind him over in the hope that that would bring him to heel and make him think twice before committing the same offence again, without imposing any actual sentence upon him. If that has happened to someone before the Bill comes into force, or before it comes into force in the area in which the young person resides because of the pilot nature of the earlier schemes which we have already discussed, it seems to me that it should not necessarily rule out the use of youth offender panels in the way provided by the Bill.
I do not think that such measures should be compulsory. However, it would still be within the discretion of the magistrates as to what they did in such circumstances. It seems to me that it would be useful to leave the power in place where an individual had been bound over in the past. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The referral to the YOP is a sentence, but, when speaking to the propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I was seeking to draw a distinction between the nature of the sentence. This takes us back to a slightly different aspect of what we discussed earlier. We want it focused and we want it to be the primary disposal for first-time offenders. We are quite clearly of the view that the most benefit will be directed to those who have not been involved in the youth court earlier, except on the basis of an absolute discharge. The whole ethos is to focus on first-time offenders so that we can break the cycle at the earliest possible opportunity. As I said, this is essentially another reflection of the earlier approach of the noble Lord, Lord Cope; namely, that a wider discretion ought to be left to the magistrates. They do have the discretion in Clause 1(1)(b) and (c). Other than that, we are convinced that we ought to focus as rigidly—and I use that word carefully—as we have intended in the Bill. I regret that I am unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As I said before, it seems to me that some flexibility and discretion is useful for the magistrates. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 32, at beginning insert ("One year or more after the coming into force of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes us slightly in the opposite direction to that of some of our earlier discussions, including some of the points that I made during our probing of the Bill's details. On the other hand, although the flexibility of legislation is desirable in some respects, I have made clear that it represents a difficulty in other respects. Certainty of the law is important.
The words in the amendment seek to delay the power of the Secretary of State to change the types of offender who can be subject to referral orders for at least one year. In that case there will at least be a steady year at the beginning before we start mucking about with this particular part of this law. It seems to me that uncertain law can only be a weak deterrent, because people do not get to know what it is. I think the Secretary of State should wait and be sure that he is right in what he is proposing to Parliament, including any modifications.
One effect of delay for a year—a modest period, it seems to me, in view of what I am trying to achieve—might be that we shall have fewer alterations. That is desirable in itself. As I said a few moments ago, the Bill is littered with orders and if some of them cannot come before us for at least 12 months there will be more stability in the Bill and in the law in this respect. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Subsection (3) of Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State power to alter the primary legislation: in other words, it is a Henry VIII subsection. My noble friend is suggesting that that power should not be used until 12 months have expired. I would have thought that that was reasonable. If we do it rather too often and if we are giving power to Ministers to alter primary legislation, I think it is right that there should be some restraint in terms of not being able to do it soon after the Bill has been given Royal Assent. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister replies, can he give some idea of the kinds of change to which the subsection would apply? It has been suggested that there might be a question of people who are close to the borderline of 18 years of age. What other kinds of changes might be made? If we knew that, we would be able to assess whether this is satisfactory or not.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly. If one looks at Clause 2(3), I think the answer to the noble Baroness's question is to be found there. It says:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section as he considers appropriate".
then the defining words:
"for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the compulsory referral conditions or the discretionary referral conditions tall to be satisfied for the purposes of section 1(2) or (3) (as the case may be)".
What could be done here is to alter the restrictions upon those persons who may or may not be sentenced to the referral order.
388
The noble Lord's amendment says that that cannot be done for a year. I have to say to your Lordships that I think it extremely unlikely for there to be a wish that this power be taken after one year, but I do not see any virtue in forbidding such action by the Secretary of State if in fact it turns out—and it is possible even with this Government's legislation—that something has been got wrong. It is possible, though unlikely, and if it has been got wrong, then one really ought to have the availability of putting it right rather than waiting for a period of time which is purely mechanistic. It has no virtue in principle.
Clause 2(4)(c) states:
"the offence (or offences) of which the offender has been convicted".
I do not see any virtue at all in the amendment. I have given the undertaking that we shall monitor the pilots; I have given the undertaking that we shall have independent evaluation and that we shall publish it. I really do not see the point of saying that you cannot alter something which you may have found to be wrong or misguided and that you have to wait a year to put it right. That seems not entirely consistent with what the noble Lord was asking for earlier: a flexible approach to the administration of the criminal law. I do not think that the power will be needed but I do not see the virtue of stopping it.
Viscount Tenby: Can the Minister say whether the provision entitles a Minister at a future date to go beyond the present restriction which confines referrals entirely to first offenders who have pleaded guilty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the answer to the noble Viscount's question is yes. That is one of the useful purposes of having monitoring, evaluation and published evaluation, so that if the scheme is working well it can depart from its precise focus and be extended to others who might be assisted.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for the assurance of the noble Lord the Minister that it is extremely unlikely that the amendment would actually stop the Secretary of State from doing anything he might otherwise wish to do. However, the intervention of my noble friend Lady Carnegy has drawn attention to the fact that the powers are extremely wide and that the orders could alter anything to do with them. Certainly, they could mean that the provision was not only applied to first offenders and those who have pleaded guilty regardless of previous convictions or how they have previously been dealt with. It could be made compulsory in every case, with the criteria altered in any way. The power to alter or widen the conditions under which it is compulsory on magistrates are just as wide as a result of the clause as the power to widen the discretion was, but in view of the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State, as we have just heard, is going to use the power within the year, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, leave out line 41.
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove the offender's age from matters which the Secretary of State could alter by order. My purpose is partly to probe why the Government think that it might be necessary to alter the offender's age, particularly in the light of the discussion we had earlier about those under and over 18 at certain periods of time. The noble Lord seemed firm about that at the time but here we are asked to give powers to the Secretary of State to vary the offender's age at which these things can apply.
There is absolutely no restriction. We could, for example, delete 18 and insert 19, should the Secretary of State so wish. Certainly, he could insert 25 and widen it very considerably. Maybe that is why other magistrates' courts are to be given these powers as well as youth courts. It did not seem to me that the Minister's explanation regarding the inclusion of other magistrates' courts, giving them powers under this Bill, was very satisfactory. He said words to the effect, if I recall correctly, that that was to show that youth courts were also magistrates' courts. I do not know whether it is necessary for that purpose, but adult magistrates' courts are to have these powers and so presumably that means that at some stage the offender's age is anticipated as probably going to be lifted above 18. Maybe the reason for line 41 on page 2 being included is so that the offender's age can be altered by the Secretary of State in the future. The amendment probes the reason for including this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I said earlier, the referral order is intended to be targeted at the group we think it is most likely to benefit; namely, first time offenders aged 10 to 17 who plead guilty. However, we are aware that in the light of experience of piloting the new arrangements it may become apparent that our description does not precisely catch the group that is most likely to benefit. As we discussed on the previous amendment, Clause 2(3) empowers the Secretary of State to make changes by regulation if we decide in the light of experience to alter the description of those who are eligible for the referral order either on a mandatory or discretionary basis. Clause 2(4) sets out a list of factors that the Secretary of State should particularly consider. I emphasise that point. The noble Lord's amendment would remove the offender's age from the list contained in Clause 2(4) on page 2 of the Bill. It is possible that the youth offender panel approach may be found to be less effective with younger children within the age range of 10 to 17. If that were found to be the case in practice, we would not wish to continue to include them among those for whom a referral order would be mandatory. We need to have a degree of flexibility to respond to experience.
However, I take the noble Lord's point that all his amendment seeks to achieve is to remove age from the list of factors to which the Secretary of State must pay particular regard. It would not however preclude age from being a factor that might be altered by regulation. There is no hidden purpose here. It is simply a matter
390
of offering flexibility in the light of the experience of the pilots. I believe I have dealt with the noble Lord's point on flexibility.
In some circumstances an adult magistrates' court may deal with a juvenile where he is tried with an adult on the same charge or—I concede this is much rarer—where there may be a genuine error as to age. As I said, there is no hidden purpose here. We want to retain a degree of flexibility. The criteria set out in Clause 2(4) are not prescriptive or restrictive criteria. They do not rule out other approaches.
Lord Renton: I for once agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and reassure my noble friend at the same time. It may comfort him to know that if the Secretary of State exercises the powers that have been referred to, they will be subject under Clause 59 to an affirmative resolution in each Chamber, although I wish the time would come when your Lordships would use that power.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing that out. If the age of 90 was to be suggested instead of 18, he would be in a position to object to the great privilege he would be given of being one of the few among us—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: He would be the one who was not about to be subjected to the new provisions. This is an important example of a proper use of the affirmative procedure. As I believe I said not long ago, I too believe that our present restraint as a Chamber with regard to affirmative instruments may not survive reform and probably should not survive reform of this Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 17.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whether it will be possible to increase the age above 18? I understand that it could be limited so that it did not apply to children who were, for the sake of argument, under 14, but I do not see that the powers as they are at present drafted would enable the age of 18—which appears in Clause 1(1)—to be altered so as to increase the age above that level. Therefore the ages of 19 and 25 are completely irrelevant. We are talking only about the area below the age of 18.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe the noble Viscount is correct. Clause 1(1) deals specifically with those under the age of 18. The whole philosophy and spirit of the measure is early intervention, not for those who might be aged 90.
Lord Renton: If I may say so, the Long Title of the Bill makes that clear.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am put right in every direction. I accept the correction. Once again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we discuss the Statement on Kosovo I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Kosovo
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on recent tragic events in Kosovo.
"On Saturday we received reports of a massacre at Racak, south of Pristina. General Drewienkiewicz, the leader of the British team in the Kosovo Verification Mission, visited the site. I spoke to him on Saturday afternoon.
"He reported that the bodies he saw had mostly been shot in the head or neck in what looked like an execution. Those who had been killed appeared to be of all ages, including grey-haired old men. None of the bodies he saw was wearing uniform. He saw no evidence of fighting, such as spent shell-cases. It is simply not credible that those who were killed were the casualties of a military conflict. The eye-witness accounts of international observers make it only too clear that they were murdered. In any common-sense understanding of the term, this was a war crime.
"The past decade of ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia is all too full of such atrocities. Nevertheless, however hardened we are by familiarity to such scenes, every Member must have been shocked and repelled by the cold and calculated character of this massacre.
"Several thousand civilians have since been reported to have fled the area. We once again face a potential humanitarian crisis as the result of Serb repression within Kosovo. Yesterday I spoke with the German, French and Italian Foreign Ministers. I obtained their agreement that our four ambassadors in Belgrade should formally lodge a joint démarche demanding that the officers of the army and police units in Racak last Friday must immediately be removed from duty while these murders are investigated. We also insisted that the International War Crimes Tribunal must be allowed to carry out an investigation in Kosovo.
"Last Wednesday I visited the tribunal in the Hague and met Judge Arbour, the Chief Prosecutor. Both she and Judge MacDonald, the President of the Tribunal, expressed warm appreciation of the strong support this Government have provided to the tribunal in terms of funds, personnel and political commitment. At the time I repeated our support for the demand of the tribunal for access to Kosovo. Earlier this afternoon, Judge Arbour attempted to cross the border into Kosovo, but was turned back by Serb border forces.
"Later today, the Security Council will meet in emergency session to consider the events in Kosovo. The British representative will demand that the Security Council makes clear its support for the war crimes tribunal, which was set up on the authority of the UN, and insists that it must be allowed access to Kosovo.
"If we are to establish peace and stability in Kosovo it is vital that we escape from the relentless cycle of ethnic atrocity followed by reprisal. Those individuals who are responsible for such murders must personally be brought to justice. That would be the most fitting response to this atrocity. It would also send a strong message to all officers serving in Kosovo that they will be held to account for any offence they commit against humanitarian law.
"I wish to salute the courage and commitment of the members of the Kosovo Verification Mission. They operate in circumstances of real risk, as was demonstrated when a British member of the team was shot at and injured last week. I am pleased to tell the House that he is making a good recovery.
"The Kosovo Verification Mission has made a real contribution to stability in Kosovo, in particular by brokering local cease-fires and negotiating refugee returns. The public attacks on it in Belgrade this weekend appear to forget that only last week the verification mission was instrumental in securing the release of eight Serb hostages.
"However, the verification mission can only succeed on the basis of the co-operation to which President Milosevic committed Belgrade in the Holbrooke package. We therefore deplore the fact that yesterday Serb security forces entered Racak, against representations by the verification mission, and opened fire on the village despite the presence in it of verifiers. We have already protested in Belgrade about that event, and tomorrow Generals Clark and Naumann will be demanding full co-operation with the verification mission.
"Those who led the massacre in Racak must bear full responsibility for their actions. Nevertheless, all those who have contributed to the political stalemate in Kosovo must bear their share of responsibility for creating the climate in which the cease-fire has crumbled.
"The Holbrooke package at the end of last year provided Kosovo with the prospect of real autonomy, including control of its own local police force, and free and fair elections supervised by the OSCE. It

393
offered Serbia the opportunity to withdraw from an armed conflict which undermines its economy and isolates it in the world.
"A detailed paper has since been produced by the special representatives of the United States and the European Union. It proposes a three-year period in which Kosovo can develop its own autonomous assembly and democratic local communes. This interim period would then be followed by a review of the final status of Kosovo.
"I deeply regret that three months further on meaningful talks on that paper have not begun. The fault for that lies on both sides. Despite intensive pressure and repeated mediation, it still has not been possible even to get agreement on the composition of the Kosovo negotiating team. The main obstacle has been the refusal of the Kosovo Liberation Army to take part in any team which included Dr. Rugova, the elected leader of the Kosovo Albanians.
"Over the weekend I discussed with Madeleine Albright and other colleagues within the Contact Group how we can restore momentum to the political process. We are proposing an early meeting of the Contact Group, at the level of political directors, which the UK would chair.
"We have also agreed on the key messages to both sides in this conflict.
"President Milosevic must be clear that military action last autumn was only suspended because of his agreements to cease fire, to withdraw part of his military units in Kosovo, and to return the rest to barracks.
"The North Atlantic Council met yesterday and agreed that General Clark and General Naumann, NATO's two most senior generals, should visit Belgrade with a clear message that President Milosevic must comply in full with the agreements he made.
"On its part, the Kosovo Liberation Army has committed more breaches of the cease-fire, and until this weekend was responsible for more deaths, than the security forces. It must stop undermining the cease-fire and blocking political dialogue. Neighbouring countries, in particular Albania, must be more resolute in halting the flow of weapons which fuels the conflict.
"Neither side can win this war. The Kosovo Liberation Army cannot defeat the Yugoslav Army and instead of liberating the people of Kosovo can only prolong their suffering. And Belgrade cannot end the conflict by atrocities such as we saw this weekend, which will only drive more young men into the ranks of the KLA.
"The only way in which stability can be restored in Kosovo is through political dialogue. I urge both sides now to get down to meaningful negotiations on the basis of the Contact Group proposals. That is the best way in which the Kosovo Albanians can honour those who died in this appalling massacre, and in which Belgrade can show real regret at the actions of its
394
security forces. That is also the only way in which we will prevent such atrocities from ever happening again".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. The whole House will share the sense of revulsion and outrage at the shocking events which have taken place in Kosovo over the past three days. We join with the Minister in rejecting the claims by the Serbian authorities that their troops were engaged in a battle with the KLA and that those who died were KLA terrorists. The casualties of this supposed battle were old men, boys, at least one woman and a child, shot in the head at close range. I am certain that your Lordships' House is united in its condemnation of this most flagrant and distressing violation of international humanitarian law.
From these Benches we likewise share the Government's desire that the International Tribunal on War Crimes should be allowed to investigate this war crime and to bring to justice those responsible. However, it remains the case that the tribunal's investigations have been repeatedly obstructed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In November, the Minister of State underlined the importance of Security Council Resolution 1207, which demanded from the FRY authorities full co-operation with the tribunal and said that the Government would ensure that the Security Council considered further action if necessary.
What further action has been taken? What action is now proposed to ensure full compliance, so that those responsible for the massacre are brought to justice and so that immediate and unrestricted access is granted to the chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour, and to international investigators, including Finnish forensic experts?
Even before this atrocity, violence in the province has been simmering over the past few weeks. Repeated ceasefire violations have threatened to unravel the Holbrooke package agreed in October. The interior and military police have not been withdrawn; full protection for civilians has not been secured; the parallel peace negotiations remain stalled, with no prospect of a breakthrough. Can the Minister tell the House what is now the status of the October agreement?
At times it has seemed that Kosovo's harsh winter has frozen the fighting more effectively than the ceasefire. Do the Government accept the prediction of NATO's supreme commander, General Wesley Clark, 10 days ago that the situation is threatening to spiral out of control and that war is likely to resume in the province during the spring, while the Serbs continue to violate their commitments to NATO and to deploy additional regular troops inside Kosovo, making a mockery of President Milosevic's promises to reduce levels of troops to pre-March 1998 levels? Can the Minister also confirm that the economic sanctions which were agreed by the Contact Group last year are still in place? What prospect is there of persuading other countries, including Russia, to impose them?

395
Following yesterday's emergency meeting of NATO ambassadors, to which the Minister referred, we also wish General Wesley Clark and General Klaus Naumann success in their mission to Belgrade to impress upon the Yugoslav authorities the gravity of the situation and their obligation to respect all the commitments to NATO and to the OSCE, based on UN SCR 1199. The NATO statement confirmed that activation orders for air operations remain in effect. However, little has been said today or yesterday about the possibility of military action should the condemnation of the international community once again fall on deaf ears. In October, the Foreign Secretary said that the,
"only way to ensure that Milosevic keeps his promises is to keep the credible threat of force hanging over him".
In November, he said:
"we will react to any substantial breach of the ceasefire by Belgrade by reactivating the order to our military commanders to commence military action".
Can the Minister clarify the current position on the prospect of military action? Has that threat issued by the Foreign Secretary been lifted or is it still in place? If it is still in place, what prospect is there of it being implemented?
In the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in November described as,
"a worryingly patchy observation of the ceasefire, with faults on both sides",
which has culminated in this weekend's horrific events, does the Minister accept that it was premature of the Secretary of State for Defence last month to describe NATO's decision to reduce the number of its combat aircraft pre-deployed in Italy on the grounds of the,
"substantial compliance being made by the former Yugoslavia security forces with UN Security Council resolutions",
as a
"prudent management of assets".
I should also like to praise the courage and professionalism of the members of the OSCE Kosovo verification mission, particularly given the difficulties and unpredictability of the conditions in which they are operating. I should like to pay tribute to the British members of the KVM who led the negotiations which last week secured the release of eight Yugoslav soldiers kidnapped by the KLA. From these Benches, we have repeatedly placed on record our concerns that a civilian monitoring mission might not have effective power to ensure Serbian compliance, particularly given the fact that the OSCE has never carried out a monitoring mission of this scale. Does the Minister agree that this apparent attack on a patrol of the Kosovo verification mission, together with the increase in the level of violence over the past weeks and, finally, Friday's massacre, underlines the difficulty of seeking to restrain violence in this tense and volatile region with unarmed monitors?
On 10th November, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, informed the House that the projected level of 2,000 verifiers, including the full British contingent, was expected to be reached in mid-January. Can the Minister confirm that fewer than 800 monitors are currently deployed in Kosovo, 110 of whom are British? Even with
396
a build up to 1,200 at the end of this month, can the Minister explain why, three months after the ceasefire agreement in October, the OSCE monitoring mission will have only just over half its original planned strength, despite the fact that the situation in the province has been deteriorating over the past few weeks?
In the light of recent events, can the Minister provide more information on the future of the unarmed—I emphasise "unarmed"—monitors, bearing in mind the important points made this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on the issue of what can be termed "unarmed paper tigers", to which the noble Baroness will no doubt refer shortly and with which, if they are in accordance with what she was saying this morning, we have a great deal of sympathy on these Benches?
Finally, can the Minister assure the House that the Government have abandoned their ultimatum-led policy towards Serbia? Just over a year ago the American Secretary of State told the world:
"It must not take us that long to resolve the crisis growing in Kosovo and it does not have to if we apply the lessons of 1991. This time we must act with unity and resolve. This time we must respond before it is too late".
Can the Minister therefore give an assurance that the Government will respond before it is too late, so that when the last snows of the Kosovo winter melt away, the peace does not, thereby ensuring that 1999 does not end in Kosovo as bloodily as it has begun?
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and I wish to say how much we appreciate the strong stand the Government have taken with regard to the war crimes tribunal for the former republic of Yugoslavia and the pressure that Judge Arbour should be allowed to enter Kosovo to investigate for herself the massacre perpetrated in Racak. Having said that, perhaps I may say, as someone who spent a week in Kosovo just before Christmas, how difficult it is, looking at the wrecked villages, the terrified villagers and the refugees fleeing into the forests, not to feel a sense of great apprehension and growing concern at what is happening in Kosovo, with both sides undoubtedly building up for what is likely to be a major confrontation, not perhaps even in the spring but possibly in a very short number of days.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said with regard to the admiration we feel for the verifiers. We spent some time patrolling with them. Their commitment, courage and realism are deeply to be commended. Having said that, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is correct that the projected figure for the verifiers has now been reduced from 2,000 to 1,400 because a number of countries have failed to meet the targets set for them to satisfy the need for verifiers. In this respect, the United Kingdom has an excellent record. Perhaps I may also add that General Drewiemkiewicz, who was present at the investigation into the massacre at Racak, is an outstanding officer, of whom we have every reason to be proud.

397
However, there are some weaknesses in the Statement. I want to ask questions about them, having drawn attention to them. First, it is obviously right, as the Statement says, that officers involved in the massacre should be removed from duty while investigations take place. But it is very difficult to believe, once one has spent time in Kosovo, that these actions would not have been authorised at a very much higher level. Mr. Milosevic is very much in charge of his police and of his army. Perhaps I may therefore ask, first, whether Generals Clark and Naumann, who are visiting President Milosevic tomorrow, will ensure that orders are given to the police and to the Yugoslav army that no civilians should be attacked or put at risk by those military and police forces and insist that they see that such orders are made and carried out.
Secondly, perhaps I may ask a question with regard to the innumerable resolutions that have so far been passed. I shall refer only to two. Resolution 1199 said in so many words that there should be additional measures if the requirements laid down by the UN were not satisfied and another resolution said that failure to make constructive progress would lead to the consideration of additional measures. That reminds me all too much of the remarks by King Lear in the great play of that name:
"I will do such things.
What they are yet I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth".
We now have to make real our resolutions.
I conclude by asking two questions. Will the Control Group consider what punitive actions might be taken against Serb military forces again resuming threats against civilians? Is there any possible use of the threat of force already covered by United Nations resolutions addressed to military bases and to police stations involved in such actions? Secondly, the Statement calls upon Albania to stop the flow of arms across its borders. The Albanian Government are totally incapable of even controlling northern Albania. let alone stopping the supply of arms. Will the Government therefore consider whether some kind of peacekeeping force might be established on the Albanian side of the border to try to prevent the constant flow of weapons which are likely to make this war much more serious when it comes?
We are looking at the prospect of a serious war in the south-eastern region of Europe, one that could begin to involve Macedonia, Greece and possibly even Turkey. I therefore commend the Foreign Secretary's strong stand. However, I plead with him to argue for his colleagues in the Control Group to work out now an alternative policy that can be brought into action if, once again, President Milosevic pays no attention to international opinion.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their supportive and deeply considered interventions on this very serious topic. Even before the tragic events of the weekend, I believe the whole House was aware, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, so eloquently pointed out, of
398
the tremendous dangers of a conflagration arising from the situation in Kosovo which could spread well beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia. That lends added urgency to the situation. I hope that in any case we should act with great urgency when such humanitarian outrages were taking place, especially on the Continent of Europe, but anywhere.
I shall attempt to address as many of the points raised as I can. If I miss any, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of what the Government could do further to help Judge Louise Arbour. As the House has heard, she tried today to enter Kosovo and was refused entry. The ICTY was set up by the United Nations. It is responsible and answers to the United Nations, and it is to the UN that she will make her report. This will undoubtedly be one of the issues to be discussed at the special meeting of the Security Council in New York later today. I assure the House that we shall be energetic in trying to advance the question of what can be done to help. We will certainly co-operate with whatever decision is taken in that regard by the Security Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the status of the October agreement. The agreement is still in place. The fact that the Serbs are not fully compliant is part of the reason why Generals Clark and Naumann are going tomorrow to Belgrade to tell President Milosevic that he accepted the terms of the agreement. They will point out again what those terms should have entailed for him. They will also point out the continuing implication of a military response if the agreement is not honoured.
That answers another question put to me by the noble Lord. The ACTORD for limited air operations remains in place. Noble Lords would not expect me to comment further on when or in what precise situation force would be used. We should act in accordance with international law. I have no doubt that that will be forcefully pointed out to President Milosevic tomorrow.
On the question of sanctions, all the agreed UN, EU and Contact Group financial sanctions are still in place.
The noble Lord mentioned the difficulty regarding unarmed KVM monitors. He referred to the idea of restraining violence. The KVM is not there to restrain violence: its task is to verify and report back to the OSCE on the situation on the ground. That is the rule—not to try to place themselves between two warring factions, and even less to try to disarm them.
Warm words have been used on all sides of the House in relation to the Kosovo Verification Mission, and they are well deserved. We wish to give the monitors our thanks for carrying out an extremely difficult and dangerous job. They are doing that job very well.
Their mission has already demonstrated their ability to make a real difference to the situation on the ground. Ambassador Walker, who heads the mission, and General Drewienkiewicz, who is the British deputy head of mission, were instrumental in negotiating the local cease-fire at Podujevo during the Christmas weekend. Over the whole area they have negotiated a number of less publicised local cease-fires. British personnel

399
played a key role in the negotiations for the safe release of the eight abducted soldiers and, as stated in the press, secured their safe release on 13th January. So they have already demonstrated that they are playing a valuable role. They cannot do everything; they certainly cannot do things that they were not intended to do. Sadly, it is very difficult for international communities and governments, as well as the monitors, to make peace between two groups of people who are determined to go to war with one another.
The strength of the OSCE monitors was raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may clarify the situation. The KVM chief of operations, Major General Drewienkiewicz, expects that 2,000 personnel will eventually be deployed. There are currently 855 personnel deployed. The general has requested a period of consolidation for the staff who are already deployed. He anticipates a total of around 1,200 personnel on the ground by the end of January. Some of the personnel yet to be deployed are specialist staff, including police trainers and election organisers, who will be required following a political settlement rather than at this unhappy stage.
Although we have tended to skirt around the fact, as the noble Baroness observed from her visit, both sides are preparing for war. That can be observed in everything one reads about the situation. That is what we must try to address. Generals Clark and Naumann will take a very strong message to President Milosevic and they will wait to see his reaction after tomorrow. We cannot repeat more strongly, and we take every opportunity to try to get the message across to the KLA, that this is a war that it cannot win. The trouble is, this is a war that neither side can win. The challenge for us all is to get that message across to both sides.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the atrocious incident that gave rise to the Statement occurred after my Question last Thursday and the helpful reply then from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on behalf of the Government. I asked about the unarmed monitors. I now ask: will the safety of those monitors be constantly borne in mind? Many of them are British. Has the NATO force standing by in Macedonia yet reached its proposed numbers, and is it ready to go in and help to bolster the monitors, if necessary? They could be subject to resentment at the international reaction because it is clear that detachments of Serb army and police appear to become completely out of control, as in this latest atrocity. I should be grateful if the Minister could address that point.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for that question. The NATO Extraction Force is now fully staffed and became operational on 15th January, and that is a very relevant factor. The NATO force was put in place because we knew it was necessary, but we should emphasise that the existence of that force and the fact that it is now fully operational does not take away from Belgrade the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of verifiers and all international
400
personnel in Kosovo. It is important to keep the spotlight firmly on President Milosevic and his forces. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, it sometimes appears that these forces become out of control. On the other hand, as the noble Baroness said, she doubts that much is done on the ground that is not sanctioned by the High Command in Belgrade. We do not know where the truth of all that lies; all we know is that we have the right to expect a well disciplined army and police force and that they should protect the safety and security of verifiers and all international personnel. I can at least assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the NATO Extraction Force is now fully manned.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for not having been in my place for the opening phrases of the Statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, suggested that a peacekeeping force should be stationed in northern Albania. I support that suggestion and would even go a stage further. Would it not be a good use for NATO forces—for example, those now in Macedonia—and other rapid reaction groups to establish one or more safe havens within Kosovo? These might be located either on the frontier with Macedonia or the frontier with Albania. Their purpose would be inter alia to enable refugees to return and to enable rehabilitation of the large numbers of the local Kosovan population who have been internally displaced. Will the Baroness and her colleagues consider the size and scale of such safe havens? I envisage that they would he no larger than could be effectively controlled by the forces available for that purpose.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for that suggestion, which we shall consider. Safe havens have pluses and minuses. We have some experience of them in Iraq, which was a special situation. I do not say that this is the case with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but sometimes safe havens are thought of as an easy solution. In fact, they sometimes bring more problems than they solve. However, I shall consider his suggestion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say a little more about British policy on the Security Council resolution to be debated later today and in particular what advance the drafting will make on Resolution 1203, which has already called for the prompt and complete investigation, including international supervision and participation, of all atrocities committed against civilians? Since Milosevic has ignored that demand, do the Government not consider that the Security Council will have to go further in bringing pressure to bear on him to persuade him to comply with that demand, bearing in mind the refusal to admit Mrs. Arbour this afternoon? Will the Government consider, for example, extending the remit of the Extraction Force so that it could go into a place such as Racak and occupy it temporarily so as to permit Mrs. Arbour and other investigators of

401
the international tribunal to carry out the duties prescribed by the Security Council, even if the Serbians try to prevent that?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in reply to the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the new Security Council meeting, I do not wish to anticipate those discussions. We are consulting our partners, and will continue to do so until and during the meeting, on an appropriately robust Security Council response and decision on all aspects, including the question of Judge Arbour and how to make President Milosevic comply with the agreements which he has already made. We are not trying to broker new agreements, as the noble Lord knows.
As to the question of the Extraction Force going into Kosovo, I believe that, if the noble Lord reflects, he will immediately recognise some of the problems of such an action, which would involve crossing borders. The situation is extremely difficult. As I understood it, the noble Lord was talking about occupying a village. I do not believe we are anywhere near considering such a very serious step, and I hope that we may not have to do so.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, have the Minister and her colleagues, and their allies, considered whether the war crimes approach is likely to be an effective one? After all, it is now some nine years since the troubles in the former Yugoslavia began. During that period many war crimes have been committed. We know that, for instance, major war criminals already indicted, such as Mladic and Karadzic, are still at liberty because they are protected by the government of Serbia. Is it not understandable, therefore, that people in Kosovo will hardly be encouraged by an approach which treats these atrocities as the isolated actions of units or individuals? Is it not, therefore, inevitable that the determination of President Milosevic to retain control of as much of Bosnia as he can and the whole of Kosovo is at the core of this situation? I do not know how it is to be faced, but, unless it is faced, is not the war crimes approach simply likely to produce further discouragement?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for that intervention. As always, his point is very valid in many ways. Of course, the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is not a perfect answer and it is not being allowed to be as effective as it could be, but I do not think that means that it has not achieved quite a lot and will not achieve more. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that after all it was clear that everything that happened at local level resulted from policy at the top. That is true. It is also true that that cannot mean that local commanders, whether the police or army, are absolved of responsibility when they act in a way that the international community agrees is outside the bounds of acceptable human behaviour. That is what the ICTY
402
must be about. It is up to the ICTY how high up the scale of responsibility it goes when it indicts people, but one cannot absolve people at local level.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the Minister rightly said that it was most important to proceed to political talks. While it is deplorable that the KLA refuses to take part in anything that includes Dr. Rugova, can she assure the House that no signal is being given to the Kosovan Albanians that the limits of their ambitions should be autonomy and that the review of the final status of Kosovo, which it was envisaged would take place after a three-year period, will be genuinely open to all possibilities, including independence? There has been a feeling in the West that to keep open the prospects of independence for Kosovo is destabilising. The alternative view, which I put forward when I initiated a short debate on this subject in October, is that to rule out Kosovan independence is destabilising and that to allow Milosovic disproportionate leverage, with the instability and resentment that that creates, is unhelpful to any political talks that take place. I realise that we are considering the present crisis, but it is important to the current situation to look forward politically. I put that point in my supplementary to the Question that I asked last Thursday and I do not believe that I received an answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. I should like to have an assurance that we do not rule out Kosovan independence.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the interim settlement that has been negotiated, which is based on the Contact Group paper, provides for substantial self-government for the people of Kosovo with a Kosovan parliament and government, and gives substantial powers to communes and, crucially, control of local police by local authorities. However, the noble Baroness is quite right that that settlement should also preserve the territorial integrity of the FRY. The clear position of the EU Contact Group is that it supports the enhanced status with a large degree of autonomy for Kosovo within the FRY and it must include meaningful self-administration. Whatever happens, the status quo is clearly unsustainable. The US, with the support of the UK, is spearheading Contact Group work on the interim agreement.
If we ever reach a stage where both sides negotiate, they will be free to negotiate whatever they want. I do not believe that in that situation independence would be ruled out. We support any solution that is freely negotiated between the parties, but I do not believe that independence is a likely outcome. It is not a question of completely ruling out or ruling in anything. It is true that, since the problem escalated following the election of President Milosovic, attitudes in Kosovo have hardened considerably. It is undoubtedly the case that many people in Kosovo who then only wanted back the autonomy that had been taken away now want independence. It is a matter of achieving what is fair and can be sustained. If it was freely negotiated by both

403
sides, there would be no reason why independence would not he acceptable to the world community, but I believe that to be a highly unlikely result.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm that the verifiers were kept away from the area of this massacre at the weekend and given access only at the behest of the warring parties? A number of us are exceedingly concerned that the mistakes made in the first peacekeeping operation in Bosnia six years ago are being repeated in Kosovo. Yet again we have an under-equipped, under-supported monitoring force in place. A UN commander in Bosnia once put it that the force was standing around in the middle of somebody else's war. Are there any intentions to protect the monitors appropriately?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I believe that comparisons with UNPROFOR in Bosnia are entirely misleading. Both the OSCE and NATO verification missions have very strong operating mandates with clear and linked objectives. The verifiers are observing and reporting on the ground. The situation is different. I believe that we have already dealt with the question of protection of the verifiers. They are there to do a particular job and are not armed. They know what they have to do and they have a mandate to do it. There is a NATO Extraction Force waiting in the wings which one hopes will not have to be employed. Up until almost the present day they have been doing rather well in the context of their very difficult mandate. One hopes that one is not seeing the whole thing fall apart this weekend. One will know more when Generals Clark and Naumann return from Belgrade after tomorrow.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, may I say how impressed I have been by the comments of the Minister and other noble Lords? I declare an interest. Since 1945 I have worked throughout the former Yugoslavia and established 22 homes and hospitals for the sick and handicapped of all ages out there. The late Marshal Tito told me several times before his death that war was inevitable between the Serbs and Kosovo. During the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s I witnessed and was involved in the fighting. Marshal Tito endeavoured to persuade the fierce, obstinate and strong Serbs to allow Kosovo to become an independent republic but they continuously refused. In my humble opinion, all the strong and excellent efforts made by NATO and others will not change the mind and intentions of Milosovic. I am always an optimist but sadly in this situation both in the past and now, and in the future, I cannot say that I am hopeful, for I know the situation out there only too well and the terrible hatred shown by the Serbs. I wish those who endeavour to create peace all possible success.
Baroness Ramsay of Carvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw,
404
for that intervention, with her wide knowledge and background of such conflicts. We all have to try to stay optimistic.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) treats a conditional discharge as a conviction for the purpose of deciding whether the new sentence of referral to a youth offender panel is to be available to magistrates. In another sense, it decides whether the new sentence is compulsory.
First, I believe that the words are likely to lead to confusion. A discharge, whether or not conditional, is supposed to be a discharge. However, the subsection states that a discharge shall be treated as a conviction; I paraphrase the provision. That seems likely to lead to confusion about the nature of a conditional discharge.
The second reason for moving the amendment is more directly related to the Bill. It is worth discussing whether it is correct to rule out the use of the new sentence for an offender who has been conditionally discharged on a previous occasion. While it is intended that the provision will be used primarily for those who have not been convicted previously, such a context is on the borderline. We know that provisions can be varied. Presumably—I say this hesitantly having been corrected before the break—this provision can be altered by the powers of the Secretary of State that we discussed perviously. At some time in the future perhaps the remit might be extended. If it were a temporary provision I might have less objection to it, but as a permanent provision it is unsatisfactory that a conditional discharge should forever make it impossible for anyone to receive a sentence of referral such as is dealt with in the Bill; and I refer to the confusion of the English used. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We come back to the difference of approach underlying many of the noble Lord's amendments. I repeat that the referral order is intended for use with first time offenders. It is not available for those who have already been through the system, in particular in the context of those who have had a conditional discharge.
It may be of assistance to the noble Lord to bear in mind that in future conditional discharges for first time young offenders will not be available if the compulsory referral conditions have been met. Therefore the problem will not arise when the Act is fully in force.
As regards the amendment of the descriptions which we touched on earlier, Clause 2(4) sets out the descriptions which may be varied subject, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, to Clause 1(1) which

405
limits the availability to those under the age of 18. Those can be changed by regulation, as we find in Clause 2(4)(e). That may reassure the noble Lord that the provision is not set in stone forever. When we have had pilot schemes and have rolled out the scheme in England and Wales, we may well consider that conditionally discharged persons might be available for the new orders. But for the moment we want a precise, defined focus.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand that requirement. It applies not only to England and Wales but to Northern Ireland as well, as I am sure the Minister realises. However, the longer subsection (5) remains in force, the less effect it will have. The provision will wear out, if I understood the Minister correctly. In that sense, it is a matter that the Secretary of State should consider altering sooner rather than later subject to what I said earlier about not fiddling too much with the law immediately one has passed it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert
( ( ) A referral order shall be entered on a young person's criminal record only if the young person is referred back to the appropriate court under section 12(4) of this Act. ).
The noble Earl said: The amendment introduces new words to the Bill about the recording of criminal convictions. It probes the status of a referral order with regard to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and other criminal records which are kept. I hope to argue that there will be merit and incentive in making the referral order an unrecorded disposal in the event of its successful conclusion. The merit would be that a referral order with an active programme of restorative justice designed by a youth offender panel can be seen as sufficiently virtuous as to be exempted from criminal conviction recording; and an incentive to the young person and his or her family to achieve whatever is deemed necessary in the context of restorative justice.
The amendment does not affect the recording of any failed contract. To do so would be wholly wrong. In most cases a failed contract would be evidence of a lack of motivation to make the necessary changes. There is a limited case where that would not be true: when the young person moves home to an area where the youth offender panel system is not yet available. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I support the noble Earl. I had understood that that was the position. I defer to the noble Earl's greater wisdom. It is most important that that is the position.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have sympathy with the amendment. However, I did not quite follow the noble Earl when he stated that the amendment would not affect the recording of a failed contract. I understand that the consequence of a contract failing—by which I
406
believe the noble Earl to mean that the conditions were not fulfilled in some way; that the young person fell short of the requirements of the contract—is that the matter is referred back to the court. Would that not lead to it being entered into the young person's record, under the noble Earl's amendment? If it is a failed contract, I believe that it should be so entered, and I think that it probably would be. However, I am slightly confused about the way in which the noble Earl put the issue. Perhaps I have not appreciated fully the effect of the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I did not make myself clear. I believe that failed contracts would lead to the recording of the referral order. My amendment suggests that a successful contract would not be recorded.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may persist because I share the sympathy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The amendment would stop a referral order from being entered on to a criminal record except on referral back to court following a breach. The amendment is flawed in that as presently drafted it would affect all referrals back to court regardless of whether the court had agreed that a breach had occurred.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that he is right; the referral order will appear on the criminal record. That is important because the order is not an easy way out. Part of restorative justice in its fullest sense means the recognition that a criminal offence has been committed and the understanding by the offender—even though he be a first offender pleading guilty—that he has committed a crime. But when the young person satisfactorily completes the contract the referral order is considered spent by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is found in Schedule 3 paragraph 5(3). Therefore, the Bill as presently drafted meets the concerns which have been rightly expressed and with which I sympathise.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If an offender reoffends and reappears in court will this penalty count as a previous conviction? Will the referral order that has been spent be put before the judge before sentencing?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Spent convictions are contained on criminal records which are put before sentencing tribunals with an annotation at the side that they are spent. After satisfactory completion of the contract the referral order is considered spent. If the young offender breaches the contract the court may re-sentence. If there is a re-sentence for the relevant offence where there has not been a satisfactory completion, the rehabilitation on the re-sentence is the same as that of any other disposal. In other words, there is no saving for the re-sentence for the original offence.
The important point is that if you commit an offence your referral order appears on your criminal record. You have the clear inducement and legitimate protection that if you complete your contract properly by virtue of

407
Schedule 3, paragraph 5(3) it is regarded as spent. I believe that I have met the noble Earl's proper concerns.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This has been a useful micro-debate. I believe that all Members of the Committee are much clearer about the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Making of referral orders: general]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("each, or each of two or more,") and insert ("more than one").
The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment. There are some confusing words at the end of Clause 3(4) and we have attempted to make the provision easier to understand. It reads:
"Subsections (5) to (7) apply where, in dealing with an offender for two or more associated offences, a court makes a referral order in respect of each, or each of two or more, of the offences".
That seems to be a complicated way of saying "more than one", which seems to be simpler language. In an effort to make the Bill as short as possible and the drafting as clear as possible, I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The consequence of the noble Viscount's amendment would be that if there were more than one offence there would be a single referral order for all offences. We do not want to do that. We have thought about the matter and believe that there should be a referral order in respect of each of the offences. That makes plain to the offender that each offence is unacceptable and forms a different basis for the referral. It is the position that however many referral orders are made on a single occasion they cannot exceed 12 months in total. We have done this deliberately and there will be a separate referral order for more than one offence.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Making of referral orders: effect on court's other sentencing powers]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 16, leave out from ("him") to end of line 17.
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. I understand that under Clause 4 a court cannot order discharge for one offence and order a referral in respect of others. I may be wrong, but the court does not appear to have that freedom. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Viscount is right in the context of a conditional discharge. A court could give an absolute discharge together with a referral, but it would not be able to consider the option of a conditional discharge. We say that that is perfectly sensible because there is no virtue in having a referral
408
order with a conditional discharge. All one would do is signal wrongly to the offender that the penalty is in the category of a conditional discharge. It is intended to be much more structured and disciplined than anything which could be provided by a conditional discharge. We see no virtue in being able to give someone a conditional discharge as well as a sentence of referral.
Viscount Astor: I thank the Minister for that reply which clears up my understanding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 22 I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 23.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, leave out lines 18 to 20.
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 63 are government amendments and therefore worthy of the Committee's support. They clarify the position regarding the availability of parenting orders and bind-overs when young offenders are referred back to court having breached the terms of a contract and the court then decides to exercise its power of re-sentence. In many ways, the amendments were triggered by the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, when tabling his amendments. We wish to make it plain that where the parent of the child is responsible for the breach the court should have the option of issuing a parenting order and that a bind-over should also be available in those circumstances.
Having considered the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it is right to say that the Bill as drafted is not sufficiently explicit. We therefore propose amendments to Clause 4 and Schedule 1 to make it plain that the prohibition on the use of those disposals when making a referral order does not affect the ability to use them when the young person is being dealt with by the court. I hope that that response, which I readily concede derives from the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, meets what was sought to be achieved.
Viscount Astor: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Cope, I thank the Minister for the amendments. They meet the point which my noble friend raised in his amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is right about the substance of his amendments. But it is regrettable when we have to have, within a subsection, references to other paragraphs; for example, here we have references to paragraphs 5 and 14. It is a pity that we must have cross-references of that kind.
I know that it is often necessary in order to avoid lengthy repetition, but when it can be avoided, it should be. I do not object to the amendment. I merely say that

409
if one can avoid those cross-references in the Bill, then it becomes much easier for lay people—and many magistrates are lay people—to understand what we are getting at.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the noble Lord's point. I also always bear in mind the contrary view which has been expressed frequently to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that less is better.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (2), (3) and (5) do not affect the exercise of any power to deal with the offender conferred by paragraph 5 (offender referred back to court by panel) or paragraph 14 (powers of a court where offender convicted while subject to referral) of Schedule 1.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 29, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 25 comes from reading the Notes on Clauses. Paragraph 45 states:
"When a referral order is required or considered appropriate the court cannot exercise its usual power to defer sentencing (usually exercised in order that conduct after conviction. or the effect of a change in circumstances, can be assessed) but it may still adjourn for pre-sentence reports",
and the paragraph concludes by quoting the example of where the court is considering a custodial sentence.
I wonder why the court should not be allowed to have that usual power. It seems to me that that is a useful tool for the court and it is used fairly regularly. We have tabled the amendment in order to ask the Government what is their thinking behind that and why they have decided to remove that option from the court. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have deliberately taken away that option from the court. Delay has been the curse of the juvenile justice system. The noble Lord. Lord Cope, rightly observed that the national average is 4½ months and that is half a lifetime to young offenders. We must connect punishment or disposal with rapid court appearances and sentence.
One needs to bear in mind an extremely important difference in relation to the referral order. The referral order itself is the flexible disposal. In itself, it is capable of adapting to the changing circumstances of the young offender as well as underlining the strong element of reparation. Therefore, there is no purpose in delaying sentence for those matters to be taken into account because, by necessary definition, all those matters will be taken into account by the panel.
410
If delay is available to courts, it is notorious that delay controls the process and very often pollutes it. We wish to avoid that and to learn from the lessons of the past. I stress that flexibility is inherent and built into the referral order procedure.
Lord Renton: In relation to subsection (6) of this clause, the Notes on Clauses and the Notes on Sections, which will eventually be provided in order to explain the Act when it becomes an Act, should be helpful.

I have before me the Notes on Clauses for this Bill. Although there is an extremely general statement under paragraph 45 of the Notes on Clauses, which explains subsection (6) up to a point, I believe that when the Bill becomes a statute, the notes on that clause will need to be amplified greatly. There is a great deal of cross-referencing in the Bill. Here we have references to no fewer than six other statutes. I do not say that there should be a great deal of repetition but a slightly more amplified description of the effect of subsection (6) would be extremely helpful.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord said when it comes to the drafting and dissemination of guidance for the magistrates' courts.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I fully support the view which the Minister expressed about the desirability of avoiding delay. That has been the curse of the criminal justice system, the youth justice system and possibly the entire justice system for some time. Any effort to reduce that delay must be supported.
However, I am not quite clear in my own mind as to how the clause referred to in the amendment relates to the situation which the court faces before it reaches a conclusion as to whether or not it is obliged to make a referral order; in other words, when it is considering the question of whether a custodial sentence is appropriate.
At that stage, one would obviously wish the court to have proper time to consider the matter. I assume that subsection (6) does not preclude the court from making the necessary inquiries and also having the necessary adjournment if that should prove essential in order to decide that question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, perhaps I may say how great a personal pleasure it is to see the noble and learned Lord speaking to us. On hearing his voice, I still automatically turn to the left because he was such a notable and gracious incumbent of the Woolsack.
The noble and learned Lord is quite right. Clause 4(6) states:
"Where section 1(2) … requires a court to make a referral order".
Therefore, Clause 1(2) bites only when the compulsory referral conditions are satisfied. It seems to be implicit that if the court is proposing to impose a custodial sentence, it is entitled to have the materials available to reach that conclusion.

411
We wish to avoid what happens sometimes when sentencers really wish to put off what may be regarded as the evil day. The imposition of a referral order is not an evil day. It is a positive benefit to all concerned, not least the young offender.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I may be being somewhat dim about this but I am not absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. Paragraph 45 of the Notes on Clauses states:
"When a referral order is required or considered appropriate the court cannot exercise its usual power to defer sentencing".
It then goes on to state that,
"it may still adjourn for pre-sentence reports (where, for example, it is considering a custodial sentence)".
Is deferring sentence and adjourning the matter something different? I should know that but I do not know the answer. Are they different? Is it that only a custodial sentence is a justification for adjournment? From the Notes on Clauses, it looks as though there may be other situations in which that may be done.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that I have answered the noble Baroness's concern when I answered the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. If one looks at Clause 1, it states that the section applies in certain circumstances and the circumstances are (a), (b) and (c). Adjournment is different from referral as a term of art, as it were, and of practice. If the sentence is not fixed by law, or if the court is not going to impose a custodial sentence, or if it is not going to give an absolute discharge the court must follow the mandatory route set out, which we discussed earlier.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether or not, if a custodial sentence were in prospect—this was echoed by the question of the noble Baroness—a court would be able to adjourn to acquire the usual materials before imposing a custodial sentence. But deferral of sentence is different from adjournment in order to obtain the necessary sentencing materials.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may follow that. Are there instances where adjournment may be justified?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are a number of instances where an adjournment may be necessary. We do not want them to be used in circumstances which simply compound delay. However, adjournments are sometimes necessary because, for instance, the defendant may be ill or does not turn up. There are a large number of circumstances in which adjournments are justified. Equally, there are a large number of circumstances manipulated by those who know the system and/or those who advise them which genuinely put off sentence and therefore take away from the virtue and value of the sentence itself.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Is not the following the correct situation? Looking at Clause 1(1), if an offence fulfils subsection 1(a)—in other words, it is not something like murder or something where the sentence
412
is fixed by law—and it is a serious matter, the court can ask the probation service to produce a pre-sentence report before it decides whether or not to impose a custodial sentence. But if the pre-sentence report suggests that, instead of a custodial sentence there should be a CSO, probation order or something of that sort, even though the rest of the compulsory referral conditions in Clause 2(1) are fulfilled, they are wasting their time and the only consideration is whether or not the young person will be sent into custody. That is the only point in having a pre-sentence report.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Viscount is right again. I was trying to point to the difference between referral and adjournment.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and also to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern who managed to ask a question with such clarity that it enabled the Minister to reply with equal clarity and explain it to those of us who are not of the legal profession. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Making of referral orders: attendance of parents etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 8, leave out first ("a") and insert ("each").
The noble Viscount said: This is a simple amendment and relates to when a court makes a referral order and requires the attendance of a person who is a parent or guardian of the offender. The Bill as drafted in Clause 5(3) says,
"is a person who is a parent or guardian of the offender".
In the case of young people it is important that both parents are part of the process. There may be situations when the child is running out of control, the father has little control and the mother has even less. Indeed, they may even be intimidated by their child. The question is: who will decide who must attend. Will it be the parent most easily manipulated by the child or the parent who can stand up to the child? It is important that where a child has two parents, both should attend; both should take joint responsibility for that child and have a joint view—views may differ from one parent to the other.
It is a pity not to incorporate a situation where both parents have to attend. Of course there will be situations where two parents cannot attend—it may be a lone parent or some other valid reason. But on this side of the Chamber we feel that, where both parents can attend, that is preferable and that is the reason we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not unsympathetic to the thrust behind the amendment. There are many cases where both parents cannot attend for perfectly legitimate reasons; for instance, if there is a lone parent and the other parent has had little contact with the child. In that case it may not be beneficial for the second parent to attend.

413
Clause 7(4)(b) provides the flexibility which ought to mitigate the anxiety of the noble Viscount to some extent. By virtue of Clause 7(4) the panel will allow—I understand the word is "allow"—
"to attend any such meeting…any person who appears to the panel to he someone capable of having a good influence on the offender".
That may well include another parent. However, I take the unspoken point of the noble Viscount that that does not provide the discretion to order both parents to attend. That is an important point. Perhaps I may consider the matter with care at Report stage and produce an amendment to meet absolutely the noble Viscount's point; that is, to give the court the discretion to order both parents to attend where it considers that to be particularly important to the case.
I shall take this matter away because it requires thought. I hope that my willingness to consider a proposed amendment in those terms will be both flexible and useful.
Viscount Astor: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. An amendment along those lines will satisfy us. As he said, the court must have discretion to consider the circumstances of the parent—whether there are two parents; whether it is a lone parent or whatever. But in those cases where the court felt it important for both parents to attend and when they are able to attend, the court should have power to make them attend. I am grateful for the Minister's response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Establishment of panels]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("within three working days").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 27 seeks to set down on the face of the Bill a precise time limit for the first meeting between the young offender and his or her youth offender panel. The targeted time limit is three working days.
After learning that the fast track to conviction for young offenders will in reality continue to remain on the slow lines. I feel that the Bill should inject some urgency into the process at least after conviction. There is only one merit in the current practice of delaying court proceedings and disposals; that is, the opportunity to see what the offender has done since being charged. Has he reoffended? Has he taken note of the crisis of his being charged? Has he avoided further offending behaviour?
Setting that to one side, there is every advantage in making sure that the consequences of offending are rapidly drawn to the offender's attention. It is important to make the connection between offending and the judicial process. A panel meeting within three working days will ensure that the crisis of conviction is kept on the boil. The first meeting of the panel would be mainly for introductions, both of the panel and the expected
414
process. The panel will have to adjourn for reports. That is good because the second meeting will naturally be the more substantive. It will be at that point that the main dialogue about the new and desired behaviour patterns and attitudes will take place. Starting the process quickly will be a boon to the youth offender panels and the young people concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is suggested that with this amendment we discuss also Amendment No. 28, which stands in my name. I am suggesting the same point as the noble Earl, although within a slightly different timescale. What seems important is not the time within which the youth offender panel is established—I take that to mean "appointed"—and the individuals informed that they are members of a particular panel in connection with a particular offender and offences. but the date by which the panel must meet and begin to interview the offender and so settle the contract. That is why I directed my amendment at Clause 6(1)(b)—at the first meeting of the panel rather than at its establishment. That is also why I chose a rather longer timescale14 days rather than three—because it will take a little longer to arrange a meeting of the panel.
I share the noble Earl's desire to ensure that justice is not too long delayed so that the impact of the court appearance has not entirely vanished from the memory of the young person before he or she appears before the panel. The whole process should move swiftly once set in motion but, with respect to the noble Earl, I prefer my amendment. I believe that Magna Carta promised:
"to no man will we sell, deny or delay justice".
We have already discussed the fact that there is a good deal of delay in the justice system which we should all like to minimise as much as possible. However, it is important that this particular new sentence is implemented quickly. That is why I tabled my amendment. I share the noble Earl's sentiments.
Lord Dholakia: I support my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie in his amendment. It may be helpful to have a time limit but I am not sure that the question of whether it should be three or 14 days is important. What is crucial is not only that the panel is set up but that there is a timescale within which it must hold its first meeting so that its work can begin.
Viscount Brentford: We have spoken much about the necessity of speed in the justice system. If the timescale is written into the Bill, that is making a public statement that the first meeting must take place within 14 days. I strongly endorse the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cope, which seems likely to be clearer to the general public, the defendant, his or her parents or guardians, and others involved, as it states that the first meeting should be held within 14 days of the making of the order. That should be perfectly practicable.

415
I am not sure what is involved in establishing the team, but it will take some days of negotiation to put the right people in place. It should be possible to hold the meeting within 14 days. I strongly support that amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the Minister tell us what sort of papers will have to be prepared for the panel when it meets? I am trying to put myself in the shoes of the people who will serve on the panel, who will be asked to attend on a certain date—inevitably at short notice. Whatever the Minister thinks about the amendments, I repeat that it will be at short notice. What preparatory work will have to be done? Will the members of the panel have the papers before them or will they simply respond to verbal discussion?
Lord Warner: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will be considering the work of the youth offender teams. It would be precipitate at this point to commit them to specific deadlines by timetabling their meetings. I am the last person to speak against speed in the system, but this is not about speed in obtaining a decision on what is to be done with the young offender. The important point is that something effective happens as a result of the meeting. Frankly, a meeting held within three working days would simply be a symbolic getting together of people without having done enough work with the young offenders and their families—in some cases, without having gathered enough information about them—to make the meeting productive.
There is a danger that if we specify three days, the first meeting will be merely a ritual meeting. That would send out bad signals to the young offenders and their families. We need to learn more about the way in which youth offender teams work, which is why they are being piloted at the moment, before we commit ourselves to a particular timescale on the face of the Bill. I support the principle of having some guidelines at a later stage on the deadlines for such meetings and on agreeing programmes of intervention with young offenders and their families.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is fairly plain that Amendment No. 27 is not in relation to a meeting but to the appointment of the personnel to form the panel. My noble friend's amendment relates to the first meeting of the panel. A period of 14 days is suggested. I can see that for a while it may be difficult to know how long it may take. I would be the last person to say that it is sufficient to have a formal meeting at which nothing happens. It is quite difficult to establish a youth offender panel without having some idea of when it will meet. Often the people one would expect to serve on the panel will have other things to do, so we need to specify a particular day when the young offender can meet them. I suggest that it is more practical to put a limitation on the period of time before the first meeting, if that is possible, although I can see that there may be some difficulty about being too precise at this stage. At that juncture, speed is also important.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One needs to focus particularly on the terminology of Clause 6. Clause 6(1),
416
as the necessary precursor to the establishment of the youth offender panel and the arrangement of the first meeting, refers to,
"Where a referral order has been made".
Therefore, the point about "immediate speed" relates to bringing a first offender who pleads guilty to court virtually immediately. I must chide the noble Earl a little for talking about delays. That is where the initial delay begins. I repeat that in the case of a straightforward guilty plea, we intend the first appearance to be on the first available court day following charge. One has decision and speed at that stage. The court can then make a referral order, so there is no delay there. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, with his vast experience and chairmanship of the Youth Justice Board pointed out, a certain amount of research is needed.
I feel that three days is too short a period and that 14 days may be too long. I refer to the question of the noble Baroness who asked about the sort of papers that the panel would need and the preparatory work that would need to be carried out. Those questions are extremely important. It is important, if not essential, that in most cases there should first have been contact with the victim. That must be handled with great sensitivity. Indeed, one might well be unable to hold the first meeting within a three-day period because the victim's unease, continuing trauma and sensitivities have to be borne very carefully in mind. But in order to have an effective first meeting, rather than a token one as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Warner, some contact would certainly have been required with the victim and, possibly, a paper report provided for the panel. The panel would need to have the court papers detailing the nature of the offences and it would need to consider who should attend the meeting. Therefore, one needs a certain amount of preparatory work for this first meeting.
My noble friend Lord Warner is right to say that this is precisely the sort of issue one needs to work through in pilot schemes. We shall discuss with all relevant professional groups the sort of guidance we want for such schemes. We shall then evaluate time limits to ascertain what is realistic and what truly takes into account, among other things, the needs of the victim and his or her sensibilities and susceptibilities.
Following that process we would then be looking for national standards to be approved by the Youth Justice Board under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Warner. What one is looking for is as immediate a court hearing as possible, and that can be done in the first available court. The referral can then be made in many cases. Thereafter, one needs to pilot in practice what sort of guideline one requires. At this stage I believe that one is stabbing in the dark: three days is probably too short a period, whereas 14 days would very often be too long. However, I think that we ought to await experience in practice and in evaluation before we set such national targets.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Every time I move an amendment I learn much more than I intended. I have

417
to admit that my commitment to the children's panel system in Scotland has not served me well here, because such panels do not get involved with the victims. At the same time I have certainly attended a children's panel within 24 hours of the commission of the offence. So the system does have some merit in that it can get on with the business.
I made a mistake in the drafting of the amendment. In fact, I intended it to refer to the first meeting within three days. I can now see the merit of not doing so. I am extremely glad to note that the Youth Justice Board is working on the issue. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 6, leave out from ("with") to end of line 7 and insert ("regulations made by the Secretary of State, a draft of which has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 65. It seems odd that the Secretary of State can prescribe who the members of the panel will be in terms of qualifications, and so on, through a statutory instrument—it is restricted at least to that extent, although it is subject to the negative resolution procedure—but that he will prescribe how the panel will be constituted and how its members will go about their business by means of guidance, which appears to be substantially private. It will certainly not have the formal content or form of a statutory instrument, but it will still be statutory guidance; in other words, it is guidance provided for in statute. As Clause 6(2) makes provision for it in that way, I assume that the panels will have to obey it.
Nonetheless, if it is provided in that kind of private way, it will be difficult for other people to know the nature of the guidance, apart from the panel members who will be guided by their clerk or the equivalent adviser. The defendant and any advisers he has may have knowledge of the guidance if they are extremely well informed, but it will be rather difficult for them. Therefore, it might be better if the Secretary of State were to give this statutory guidance a rather more formal effect by putting it into regulations.
Amendment No. 65 is a similar amendment which applies to Clause 14 and also deals with private guidance being given to the panels. In that case too, it seems to me that the guidance would be better set in the form of regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend's amendment is very worthy of consideration. Guidance is to be given by the Secretary of State "from time to time". That means, presumably, that it may vary from time to time. That is a little vague. Surely, it is important that the youth offender panels should be the same all over the country and that their constitution, the number of members and the way they carry out their work should be the subject
418
of ministerial direction rather than mere guidance. If it is to be mere guidance, can the Minister tell us in what way the guidance will he given?
Viscount Brentford: Can the Minister say whether the guidance will in fact be the same throughout the country, as implied by my noble friend Lord Renton? For example, will the make-up of the panels be different depending on the people who live in certain areas? Will the guidance include the ethnic make-up of the panels which I am sure will vary from area to area? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us in that respect.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are two categories involved here, and we should not allow one to muddle over the other. As has rightly been observed, by virtue of Clause 6(2) of the Bill:
"A youth offender panel shall—

(a) be constituted,

(b) conduct its proceedings, and

(c) discharge its functions under this Part (and in particular those arising under section 8),

in accordance with guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State".
Therefore, we are looking for the right people with the right mixture of experience and expertise to serve on these panels. The recruitment criteria are critical. That is why we have placed in the Bill the requirement that the issue should be set out in regulations to be approved by both Houses.
I take the noble Viscount's point. Indeed, if the Secretary of State thinks that it is appropriate, there is no reason at all why the criteria for the panels should not include questions of ethnic origin and perhaps of gender division. Moreover, in certain parts of the country, the ability to speak more than one language may be required. Those requirements ought to be national and we believe that they ought also to be statutory.
We now come to quite a different concept; namely, general guidance on how the panels should operate. As regards the particular point raised, they will incorporate national standards but they will also set out advice on guidance—for example, how one approaches a victim about reparation. There are also mediation skills to be considered, handling a meeting run on group conferencing and lines (which are quite discrete skills that not everyone possesses) and any activities which may be included in a contract.
We propose to draw up comprehensive guidance. Once we have done so in draft, we intend to subject it to a very wide consultation process. Therefore, it will not be a case of private guidance; indeed, it will be the subject of wide consultation. We shall then review the matter in the light of the experience of the pilots and, thereafter, we shall do so on a regular basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, put his finger on the point. The Home Office is determined to proceed on evidence-based practice—the jargon—or, as the Home Secretary prefers, on what works. He is quite right. Such guidance is likely to change and, therefore, it is quite different to the sort of statutory criteria I alluded to earlier. That is why we think that guidance ought to be

419
able to change in the light of changing experience, in the monitoring of experience, and so on. We do not want to set the guidance too rigidly in stone at the outset because it is likely that experience will show either that the guidance is too flexible or too inflexible, and that is why we have made the division in this way, which I commend to your Lordships as being a perfectly rational and justifiable practical difference.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord the Minister always answers a debate with precision and candour, but I think on this occasion he has not quite matched the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton: namely, what is the point of the guidance? We now get it very frequently in statutes. My recollection is that it originated in planning, but now it seems it is obviously something less than regulation. Indeed in a Bill that we shall consider tomorrow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is enjoined to make regulations as to X and then in the next paragraph to give guidance as to Y. Another formula also comes up, saying that a body to whom instructions, or possibly guidance, are given must take it into account. I confess I have never understood what exactly that means. Does the body to whom guidance is given have to take something into account or does it merely read what has been given and then throw it into the wastepaper basket? In other words, what exactly is the sanction?
The noble Lord the Minister, I think, suggested that if the guidance was not accepted alternative guidance would be given, but what happens if that is not accepted? Do we then move on to regulation? As I say, this extends beyond this particular provision, but I think it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some assistance on that matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is quite right of course. One has guidance documents of different sorts in different contexts. He is right in saying that they have a particular importance in the planning regime. I believe that the planning guidance notes are quite different in their consequence from the kind of guidance one will set out to these panels. One does not need to think in terms of sanctions because people who are put on panels, in the nature of things, will be chosen for their willingness to follow the guidance which will be available. It is quite different from planning guidance notes, which are really of much greater legal consequence to those who are applicants or appellants in the planning context, and indeed to local authorities who have to adjudicate and determine those matters.
After all, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs frequently sends out guidance to chief constables about how to disseminate material concerning convicted sex offenders who may need to be resettled in a particular area. He sends out material for the guidance of chief probation officers, but one does not immediately reach for one's revolver and wonder what happens if they do not obey it. There are a range of sanctions of course. There is further advice and in the end, I suppose, legal action if the breach is so gross or if the panel actually did not obey or adhere to any of the guidance. I do not think that "taking account of" is as limited a concept of the human mind as simply to read a document and throw it in the bin.
420
I would be happy myself to submit to the noble and learned Lord judicially that that could not actually in law be regarded as "taking account of". This is not intended to be rigidly binding but it does have a place in public law, and if a public authority entirely departed from guidance without justification it could be impugned on the basis of irrationality. But one is, I stress, looking here for a co-operative concept, and most people in this kind of position—chief officers of police, chief officers of probation, probation committees and the whole gamut of this type of organisation—generally are found to abide by the guidance if the guidance is sensible. And the noble and learned Lord will know that the guidance that comes from the Home Office—or which has done since May 1997—has always been perfectly helpful, rational and wholly to be applauded.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I hesitate to prolong this rather interesting discussion, but I think one must regard this in the light of what is said in Clause 8. We have not come to it yet but we have to bear it in mind—and not only Clause 8, but Clauses 9, 10 and 11 as well. We find there that these youth offender panels can virtually impose codes of conduct upon possible offenders which govern the whole of their lives, going into great detail. If one looks at page 7 at subsection (2)—I will not read it out because your Lordships can see it for yourselves—it is a tremendously comprehensive way of governing a person's life.
One wonders if the Home Secretary will give guidance and, if so, what the guidance will consist of. The Home Secretary will not be able to depart from what is in the Bill as to what the panel has to do. One wonders therefore what guidance he will be giving. Will it be simply as to the way in which they may conduct their meetings? The Bill has already said quite a lot about that. I think we really do need to get a comprehensive view of the functions of the panel and the functions of the Home Secretary. There must be a division of functions here, and we do not want any of them overlapping.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is nothing unusual in concept about this. After all, the noble Lord will have sentenced people to probation and he will have had to explain in ordinary language appropriate to the offender trembling before him that he will be subject to all reasonable and lawful requirements given to him by his supervising probation officer and the probation officer has a very large margin of discretion. What we are doing here—and this is entirely the point of this legislation—is to give these powers to the youth offender panel precisely to control an unruly life which has not had parental stability or family discipline and which does need some focused and quite strict guidance very often about how that young person's life is to be guided, not overlooking the fact—since the noble Lord asked me to look at Clause 8—that the words of Clause 8 are these:
"At the first meeting … the panel shall seek to reach agreement with the offender …".
So all these matters are subject to the agreement of the offender. Of course they are wide ranging because

421
quite a number of people actually need to be told, alas, and directed, unfortunately, along the lines of "You've got to go to school or you've got to go to work, and if you do not you are in breach." It is true that most decent parents will have ensured that that hardly needs to be said, because the example is there and it is more eloquent than direction, but there are a great many young offenders who become the recidivists that we all know so well in their teens and early twenties and thirties, who need to be told "This is the order that your life must follow."
There is no difficulty at all in the Home Secretary giving guidance to panels: not "What conclusion do you come to in a particular case", but "These are the sorts of indicators you may need to look at; these are the mediation skills you need to know." I come back to the point that I made earlier. We are going to put the consultative proposals out for public discussion and to allow input from anyone who wishes to take part in the debate. One does not need to be too prescriptive; one wants to have general guidance and one trusts the panels with the very important functions entrusted to them. Of course this is wide ranging—that is why it is there—but it is all subject to the agreement of the offender, as one sees in the second sentence of Clause 8(1).
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Some amendments give rise—as this one has done—to much more interesting and wider debates than one anticipates. We have debated the difference between guidance and regulations. As I said, this has been an interesting debate which has given us something to reflect on before the subsequent stages of the Bill. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("(za) one magistrate appointed by the court which made the referral order;").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we should discuss Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 with which it is grouped. The amendments are related in that they concern the question of who should serve on the panels. Amendment No. 30 suggests that the panels should include at least,
"one magistrate appointed by the court which made the referral order".
Amendment No. 33 suggests that a magistrate appointed under that provision should,
"preside over each meeting of the panel".
The origin of the amendment lies in the White Paper which discusses youth panels at paragraph 9.35 on page 33. It states,
"The youth panel would contain a mix of youth justice practitioners—a magistrate (if possible one of the magistrates responsible for the referral) a Youth Offending Team member, and perhaps a police officer".
422
The White Paper describes the training of members of the panels and the servicing of the panels. However, the Bill does not provide that a magistrate will necessarily be on a panel. I believe it is important that there should be a magistrate on the panel and indeed that that magistrate—or one of the magistrates, as there could be more than one—should preside over it. I do not think it quite right that a magistrate should sit as a junior member of a panel under the chairmanship of someone else. I also believe that to have a magistrate both as a member of, and presiding over, a panel helps to emphasise that the panel operates through an order of the court and will in due course report back to the court as regards what has happened; namely, either that the contract has been agreed and has been carried out satisfactorily or that it has not been either agreed or carried out. The court will then initiate another procedure. In that sense the panel acts as a sub-committee of the judicial process.
However, the panel also decides what I was given permission earlier today to call the sentence; that is to say, a financial penalty, restrictions on movement and all the other penalties which can be prescribed. Therefore it seems right that a magistrate should be not only involved but should be seen to be presiding over those proceedings. We all know that those who preside over matters are not necessarily those who take the biggest part in making the decisions. However, they are in control of the process and that seems to me the right role for the magistrate in this instance.
Since tabling the amendment I have realised that there is a difficulty with the matter. The organisation, Justice, has commented on the Bill. It is unhappy that youth offender contracts are attaining the characteristics of a sentence as they result from a court order. Justice would prefer—as I read its comments on the matter—police or prosecuting authorities to refer offenders to youth offender panels and to establish the conditions of a contract before the young person comes to court. Justice feels that such a way of dealing with young people avoids stigma and facilitates their co-operation in the whole process.
However, the Government have not chosen that course. They have chosen the course whereby the offender goes to court and the court refers him or her to a panel. I believe that the Government are right. However, as Justice has said, that makes the procedure a judicial process. Justice draws attention to a snag; namely, that such a process may trigger provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to Articles 1 and 3 and the right to legal assistance. That makes one cautious about going down that road. However, according to Justice, we are already a long way down that road without the amendment. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reaction.
Amendment No. 32 takes up the suggestion in the White Paper that a police officer should be a member of the panel. That is a sensible suggestion. After all the police will need to know what is in the contract because it is they who are likely to notice if a breach of the contract occurs. If a young offender discovers that he can flout a contract under the nose of a policeman without the latter being aware of it, the contract will

423
soon be brought into disrepute in the locality concerned. I believe that the police will inevitably be involved in helping to ensure that the terms of a contract are being met. That does not apply to every provision in a contract—obviously the financial aspects will be monitored by other people—but I refer to restrictions on movement, for example, which may be incorporated in some but not all contracts.
Therefore I believe it is sensible that a police officer should be a member of a panel. It is also important that the policeman concerned should be appointed to the panel by the chief constable rather than by the youth team. I do not say that because I lack confidence in the youth team. I merely believe that the chief constable is the right person to decide how his policemen spend their time and which policeman carries out which duty.
As I said, Amendment No. 30 states that a panel must include at least one magistrate appointed by a court. We could also adopt the suggestion in the White Paper and insist that a police officer should also be a member of a panel. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support Amendments Nos. 30 and 33. It is important that the youth offender panels should make decisions which are consistent with the responsibilities that the magistrates themselves have. There can be no harm whatever in having a magistrate on such a panel. Indeed, it could have the advantage of the panel receiving guidance which would result in there being a consistent attitude. Therefore I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
In mentioning this matter, perhaps I may draw attention to Clause 6(4), which states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring persons appointed as members of a youth offender panel to have such qualifications, or satisfy such other criteria, as are specified in the regulations".
It is relevant to the amendments moved by my noble friend to inquire of the Minister what the Government have in mind concerning the provision to be made by the Secretary of State under such regulations. Will the Secretary of State say "Well, there must be a magistrate"? If that is so, then the point made by my noble friend would be met. But there is no indication in subsection (4) or elsewhere that that should be so. My noble friend has made a very important point and I warmly support it.
I have to say, however—although I shall keep an open mind for the time being—that I am not quite so certain that it would be right to have a police officer on such a panel, from the point of view of public relations. One must bear in mind that, although the public mostly respect the police, many members of the public feel that the police are never on their side. As this is an impartial panel—just as magistrates are impartial—I very much doubt there is an advantage in having a police officer serving on it.
7 p.m.
Lord Warner: I suggest that this amendment—while well-intentioned—is slightly wide of the mark in terms of achieving our objectives in this area of change. The
424
court will have made its decision, through a referral order, to put this matter to the panel to agree a programme, enshrined in a contract with the young offender, which will change his behaviour. Youth offending teams have access to the kind of resources, programmes and interventions which are likely to he effective in that particular area. They also have links with a large number of other people who work with and have knowledge of young people and who can be extremely effective in effecting changes in behaviour. I am thinking of people such as teachers and those in voluntary organisations, who have a depth of experience but who may well not be police officers or magistrates.
If we take the line that we must always have a magistrate and a police officer, we will restrict the capacity of communities to bring in people who would be very effective in the work of the youth offender panels. It would limit the creativity and effectiveness of the programmes and contracts which emerge.
The issue raised by Justice would make the panels look much more like sentencing type bodies. We should not rule out the possibility of magistrates serving on the panels, but they should not serve on the panels because they are magistrates but because they are people who are likely to negotiate the effective contracts which will change offending behaviour by these youngsters. That is the objective of this whole exercise. We should keep these matters open. As I recall the White Paper, this particular proposal was put out to consultation rather than being written in stone.
Lord Dholakia: I support the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Magistrates make a large number of orders in the courts—probation orders, community service orders and attendance centre orders—and no one in their right mind would expect magistrates to be part of the teams which implement this scheme. There is a danger that, if magistrates are seen as part of these panels the offenders who appear before the panels may see them as judge and jury. That would be wrong in principle. Ideally, magistrates and police ought to keep out of this. People who are well qualified in dealing with young offenders should serve on these panels.
Lord Hylton: Following what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, perhaps I may suggest that the police could well be represented by one of their civilian employees rather than by a police constable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a very interesting discussion. It is opening our eyes. Gradually we are beginning to see how the system is likely to work. That is extremely helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, opened my eyes a good deal.
When the type of people who will he on the panel is decided, it must be borne in mind that what they decide in relation to the young person will very much affect families, schools, youth organisations and voluntary organisations. Families will face problems as a result of the contract. There will be difficult relationships if young people have to stay at home in the evenings. It will not be easy for the families of some young people.

425
The members of the panel must have the respect of the community and the people involved. That means that they must be seen to be people who know what they are talking about. That does not mean that they have to be magistrates. If there is a teacher there, or a representative of a reputable voluntary organisation which is respected in the community, and so on, they must be seen to understand what they are doing. That is extremely important. The people on the panel may be rather good, but if they are not recognised by the community as such, they will not find it very easy. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Viscount Brentford: I am not happy with these two amendments, for two reasons. First, there needs to be more flexibility about who should be on the panel without carving out too many spaces in advance. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, they must all be experts on young people and young people's needs. A magistrate will not necessarily be the best person for that purpose. I would prefer the statute to be much more flexible, without defining the membership beyond what is already provided.
My second concern about these amendments relates to their impact on a young person. This is particularly true of a policeman. Sadly, many of our young people do not look favourably on the police. I am not sure that it will necessarily create the right atmosphere to have a police officer there. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has suggested an alternative but, from the point of view of flexibility, I would prefer not to see that written into this statute either.
The demarcation between the youth panel and the court is such that the involvement of a magistrate will not necessarily be helpful from the point of view of the restorative, rehabilitation and behaviour-changing aspects required of a young person. I would prefer to leave the membership of the panel flexible.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Viscount's observation is of critical importance. It is important to bear in mind that the people who serve on these panels are not there to represent anything apart from their commitment to the rehabilitation of the offender. They are not there as delegates, as it were. Certainly a civilian employed by the police could be there, but not to represent the police service. A police officer could be there, or a magistrate, but not to represent the police service or the magistracy.
It seems to me that it is not possible to dispute the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. What one wants to do is to have a formal fast-track procedure of charge and attendance at the first available court. That is the formalised criminal justice system. Thereafter, we have to be a good deal more imaginative and reflective about how we deal with individual young offenders, who will be extremely unhappy and distressed people whatever their outward show of bravado may be.
It is true that in the White Paper we suggested that the youth panel would consist of a mix of practitioners: a magistrate—if possible one of the magistrates
426
responsible for the referral—and perhaps a police officer. We put that out to consultation. It was genuine consultation. The inclusion of magistrates generated the most comment, both from individual magistrates and youth benches. The majority of respondents were wholly opposed to the idea. After all, magistrates are volunteers. One cannot direct them always to give up even more of their private time to serve on panels. There was a good deal of objection to that. The Association of Chief Police Officers also expressed reservations about the involvement of police officers. It is quite right to say that it was in the White Paper as a proposal but we decided against it, having had informed consultation.
The question of the approach of Justice was raised. I do not believe that there is any difficulty in the ECHR context, which is why I placed on the Bill my certificate about convention compliance, because this is not a court. As far as I am aware, it has never been suggested that if a young person were on probation he or she would have to be legally represented in discussing the precise terms of the supervision or probation order with the supervising probation officer. What one wants to avoid is over-legalism. Legal representation will be available at the court but not at the panel. It is not that kind of occasion. One does not want an adversarial system in front of the panel; one wants a co-operative working together between the members of the panel, who are there for their personal qualities as well as their expertise, and the parents and the young people concerned. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has got it right. We need to have a certain amount of flexibility in these panels.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked what criteria might be denominated by the Secretary of State. Where a young girl is sent to the panel, it may be that there should be a minimum requirement for at least one or a number of women on the panel. If there is an offender under 16, it may be that there should be someone on the panel with a particular knowledge of education in the locality. It may be that there should be a minimum requirement about local knowledge and residence. Those are the kind of points that the Secretary of State might wish to consider. It seems to me that, these days, the questions of feminine representation on the panel or ethnic minority representation on the panel might be the kind of questions that the Secretary of State would wish to consider. I do stress—I think that the experience of the White Paper and what followed the consultation demonstrates this—that we want to get the best possible outcome and not be shackled by dogma.
I do not think that there is any contravention of the ECHR in having a panel without legal representation. In fact the very last thing one wants with a panel is legal representation and the adversarial system. I can speak plainly, being retired from that line of work.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I realise that the White Paper was for consultation. In that sense it was not perhaps a White Paper, but, in the jargon, a slightly greener document. Nevertheless, I thought it right to draw attention to the departure from the White Paper which the magistrates suggested.

427
I am not entirely persuaded by the noble Lord's arguments but I shall not press the matter today. With regard to the police, I realise that some of these young people will see the police in a very poor light. Seeing them in the context of arriving at the contract and so on might help young offenders to see the police in a more accurate light. With regard to knowledge, the police force in Avon and Somerset, where I live, has done a great deal with young offenders. There is an excellent scheme of motor car repair for those involved in car crime which has proved extremely effective and has changed the attitude of the young people concerned towards the police.
The Minister teased us several times with "may be". He said that this "may be" in the guidance and that "may be" in the guidance. He led us on a little. Is there any chance that we might see before the Report stage a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes in this respect? That would be most helpful to us and might avoid our having to have similar discussions at later stages of the Bill. Is there any likelihood of that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall certainly bear that in mind and will do my best. I cannot give any guarantee as I am not sure when the Report stage is. However, even if the regulations are not available, I hope to be able to give your Lordships a little more detail.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That would be most helpful. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 9, after ("member") insert (", who shall not be the supervisor of the young person,").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 64 is grouped with Amendment No. 31. Both amendments have the purpose of ensuring that the member of the youth offending team who will supervise the young offender during the contract period is not also the member of the youth offending team who is to be on the youth offender panel. I believe that it would be an offence at least against natural justice to have the same person reporting to the youth offender panel and carrying out its instructions and also making the panel's decision. We should not be considering a situation where a youth offender team worker will make a report to the panel about progress, or a lack of it, and then say, "Now that we have heard this shocking report, we must…" I appreciate that this restriction will bring an additional person into the process, but I see no harm in having a fourth adult taking a benevolent interest in the young person's life. Furthermore, any criticism that the panel might not be independent is removed by detaching the supervisor from the panel.
These amendments create a useful role for the senior members of the youth offender team and enable them to monitor almost all the youth offender panels and contracts as well as the performance of their junior colleagues as supervisors. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the doubts expressed by the noble Earl very much to heart. The Bill does not prevent a member of a panel acting as a supervisor, although it does not require it either. We think that it is better to leave the options open. In many cases it might be that the circumstance mentioned by the noble Earl would be inappropriate. In some cases it might well be that it would be a good outcome for the particular offender, bearing in mind any relationship he might have with the kind of person identified by the noble Earl.
I do not think that this would be a breach of natural justice. What we are trying to do is look for informality but also for successful outcomes. In some cases it may well be that the sort of relationship that is deprecated in principle by the noble Earl is the most productive and fruitful in practice. To echo the words of the noble Viscount, one ought to leave a certain amount of flexibility here. If there are practical problems—which I am not sure would arise—as we see how the pilots work, we ought to be able to detect them. I am not as gloomy as the noble Earl, although I recognise that in some cases the relationship he describes might well be thoroughly inappropriate. But one has the rest of the panel to look to in those circumstances to protect the interests of the young offender.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I waited to intervene until the Minister had replied. I was disappointed when he did so—I believe it was he who replied at the meeting that he and his officials held recently on this part of the Bill. It seems to me that account is not being taken here of experience in Scotland. The noble Earl knows precisely how matters work in Scotland; I do not. However, I am told that the separation of the two functions is critical. I hope the Minister will make a few inquiries about that point. There is a certain vagueness and woolliness in the point of view taken by the Minister. It has now been said to us twice—perhaps it was at Second Reading. I may be making a mistake; I seem to have heard the Minister make that reply previously. It is not very convincing. It would be a great pity if a mistake were made in setting up the scheme. Therefore I hope the Minister will think hard about this matter and perhaps refer to experience north of the Border on this single point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall certainly do that. I think that at the briefing meeting it was not I who made any unsatisfactory answer, although I have probably given unsatisfactory answers on other occasions. I regard the noble Earl's point as legitimate. The only issue between us is whether one ought to be absolutely prescriptive or allow a certain amount of discretion. I do not think there is any other issue between us.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am now happy that this might happen only occasionally, and for good

429
reason. That is probably better than strangling myself with some complicated rule. I am generally happy with the answers given by the Minister. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 6, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision requiring that the ethnic composition of the local population shall be taken into account in the appointment of members of youth offender panels.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 66. I speak to both amendments. The amendment would require those appointing members of the youth offender panel to take into account the ethnic composition of the local population in making such appointments. This provision is designed to avoid the situation that has occurred all too often in the past where Asian and black defendants have been dealt with in courts where the setting has been predominantly white. When they have appeared, the situation has tended to be that those taking decisions on their behalf are predominantly from the indigenous community. That can damage the confidence in the fairness of the process of those appearing before courts and panels. That would tend to happen even if every single person in a court situation was scrupulously anti-racist in his approach.
Achieving a racial balance in the new panels is therefore important if we are to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done by young people and their families, thereby increasing the confidence of a whole section of the community in the new and imaginative process of youth referral panels established under the Bill. From time to time the justice system fails people from ethnic minority communities. This amendment is designed to build that confidence. I hope the Minister will see fit to accept it.
Amendment No. 66 would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the ethnic monitoring of young people referred to youth offender panels, and of decisions made by the panels and by the courts when the panels refer the young people back to them.
There is a disturbing body of evidence that decisions made at different stages of the criminal justice process often contain a discriminatory element—including decisions made by the police to stop and search young people on the street, decisions to prosecute or caution offenders, and the bail and sentencing decisions made by some courts.
Where a discriminatory element in such decisions exists, or where members of racial minority groups suspect it but there is no firm evidence based on monitoring to prove or disprove the matter conclusively, the result is often suspicion, hostility and the regrettable alienation of many black and Asian people from the process of law enforcement and criminal justice.
If the confidence of all sections of the community in the criminal justice process is to be sustained, there must be comprehensive racial monitoring of all aspects of
430
decision-making. The results of that monitoring must be systematically referred back to the decision-makers so that any ideas of discrimination can be identified and action can be taken to put the matter right. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have sympathy with both these amendments, although the first, regarding the ethnic composition of the panels, could be taken into account in the guidance and regulations referred to earlier. It might be better if it were included in the regulations with the other requirements as opposed to being separately stated on the face of the Bill. It is important that the matter is included in some form. Clearly, monitoring of the result in ethnic terms is also important.
Viscount Brentford: I raised the point referred to in the first amendment earlier. I certainly received the impression from the Minister that the matter would be included in regulations. Provided it is included in one or the other, I should be satisfied. It is probably an appropriate matter for the regulations.
The second provision suggested would be quite a complicated and expensive arrangement to work. There would certainly be value in it, and I have a lot of sympathy for the proposal. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This amendment goes in part to the question raised by Clause 6(4) already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Under that provision, the Home Secretary has to set criteria. I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to matters relating to ensuring that panels fairly represent the communities they serve. That will cover ethnicity, but also important factors such as gender. I am happy to repeat that the qualification criteria will be laid down in regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I entirely accept that it is essential that the operation of referral orders should be subject to ethnic monitoring. I believe that that can be dealt with under Section 96 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which obliges the Secretary of State to publish, such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of facilitating the performance of those persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice of their duty to avoid discriminating against any person on the ground of race.
The guidance that will go out in support of these proposals will underline the importance of complying with that requirement. When we pilot the new provisions, evaluators will be required to look specifically at the impact on ethnic minorities. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that there is a significant appearance of injustice in the way that significant sections of our communities are dealt with in the court process. I hope that he will accept

431
that we regard this matter with due importance. I believe that Section 96, the guidance and the criteria ought to deliver the outcome that both he and I wish for.
Lord Dholakia: I believe it is Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, not Section 96.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thought it was Section 95, but I thought I had misremembered.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. I know what he is saying with regard to Section 95. I look forward to the implementation of that Act in relation to these panels. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Attendance at panel meetings]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 6, at beginning insert ("The offender may request and the panel may allow").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. The purpose of Amendment No. 35 is to underline the authority of the panel. At present under Clause 7(3) the accompanying individual,
"with the agreement of the panel, shall be entitled to accompany the offender".
In the amendment it is suggested that that wording should be strengthened as follows:
"The offender may request and the panel may allow",
thereby establishing without question the sanction of the panel to allow the witnesses. Amendment No. 37 is consequential upon that.
Turning to Amendment No. 36, I am aware of the remarks previously made about the White Paper, but perhaps I may refer the Committee to paragraph 9.37 on page 33:
"There would be no legal representation at the youth panel stage";
and:
"Legal representation would put an obstacle in the way of the panel dealing directly with the defendant".
I suggest that it is very much in the spirit of the Bill that at this stage the offender has no legal representation in his dealings with the panel. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have already discussed the crucial role that can be played by a family member. That may be a parent, but not always. There may be family members who have a positive influence on the young offender but who are not parents or guardians in the way that we have discussed in the past. There may be other influential adults, such as teachers or social workers, who could usefully play a constructive part by attending. It is important that the young person should be able to nominate an adult of choice. We believe that Clause 7(3) gives the panel abundant authority to exclude those who would be unsuitable, perhaps because they are disruptive or have the wrong motivation. We believe that Clause 7(3) is sufficient.
432
I cannot accept, nor advise your Lordships to accept, expressly forbidding an adult's attendance if that adult happens to be a legal representative. Some solicitors do have children. A chosen trusted adult, perhaps a neighbour or an uncle, someone who has known the child for a while, may well be legal representatives, as well. They are not to be there as legal representatives in the sense of counsel or solicitor, but they ought not to be excluded if they can be of benefit. I believe that the present drafting is about right. The panel has discretion to exclude because it has to agree to allow the adult's attendance and it would not be right, in these days of non-discrimination, to exclude solicitors and barristers from attending.
Viscount Brentford: I endorse what the Minister said concerning Amendment No. 36 because I have myself done what he describes. When I was a practising solicitor I went into a claims court as the next friend of my daughter. It could have been argued that I was the legal representative. Therefore I entirely endorse what the noble Lord said.
Viscount Bledisloe: Surely the Minister's answer is not right. A lawyer who is a parent or a friend is not on that occasion a legal representative. A person who is a legal representative is someone who is in trade as a lawyer and attends in that capacity. Surely it is desirable to express the view that legal representatives are not allowed. One would not thereby debar a lawyer or a solicitor who attends, unpaid, as a parent and not in a legal capacity. To say that a lawyer, who is a father, is there as a legal representative is surely entirely inaccurate.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman: In view of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 10, after ("attend") insert ("part or all of").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 38 I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 39. The purpose of these two amendments is to increase the effectiveness of the panel. Amendment No. 38 makes provision for the individual to attend for part only of the session. There will be occasions when attendance for the whole of the hearing could be embarrassing or inappropriate. The amendment gives the panel the power to have the accompanying individual attend for only the relevant part. Amendment No. 39 makes provision to allow the panel to withdraw for private consultation during the course of a hearing. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the noble Lord's point that a victim, in particular, might find it oppressive to have to attend the whole of the meeting, and it may be that it would not be of assistance if others had to be there throughout. We do not believe that this needs to be further spelt out. The panel has the discretion. It has a permissive power to allow attendance and that power

433
can be exercised without requiring an individual—the victim or someone whose assistance is only required for part of the meeting—to be there throughout. I hope I can reassure the noble Viscount on that point.
As to the question of a private meeting, we do not believe that that is necessary. The referral order provisions are set out in some detail in Part I. The arrangements for the meetings of the panel for the young offender are clearly set out. The arrangements are defined by virtue of Clause 6(7). Meetings of the panel which require the young offender to be there are clearly expressed. Meetings of the panel which do not require the offender's presence are quite different and fall outside Clause 6(7). We do not see any reason why the panel should not meet in private on those occasions, but I can confirm that these issues are intended to be covered by guidance and I do not believe it is necessary to put in statute the fact that a panel might want to withdraw to discuss matters in private. I believe that ought to give reasonable satisfaction on both counts.
Viscount Bledisloe: Is it intended that the panel should be entitled to tell everyone to withdraw except, let us say, the victim or the parent and to talk to them on their own in the absence of the offender and of everyone else?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In theory, I do not see why that should not happen. I do not see any qualitative difference between representations made in writing, perhaps by a victim, and representations made at second hand on behalf of a victim. I will give some further thought to that question. My instinctive reaction—it may be wrong—is that I do not see why material of that kind should not be obtained in the absence of the offender as long as the offender's interests are properly safeguarded by due consultation with him. Many victims would perhaps find it difficult to speak freely in the presence of the offender. I think this requires a little refinement and thought. I will think about the matter, take further guidance and write to the noble Viscount about it.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances and consideration of this point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [First meeting: agreement of contract with offender]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 40;
Page 7, line 21, after ("programme") insert ("shall include an obligation to make an act or acts in reparation for the offence or offences, and").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I may refer your Lordships once again to the White Paper. Clause 9.29 on page 32 states:
"The contract would always include an obligation to make reparation".
434
We consider this essential to the panel process. This gives prominence to that condition in Clause 8. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that again there is any real difference in approach between the noble Viscount and myself. He wants to ensure that an element of reparation is included in every programme, and I share that view. It was always our intention that reparation in the widest sense should be a key element of every contract. Unfortunately, reparation carries with it connotations that are narrower than the range of activity we envisage. We do not want panels to believe that they must make arrangements for the young person in question to make financial amends directly to the victim. Many victims would find that abhorrent. That is one way of making reparation but it is not the only one. It will not even be an option if the victim is unwilling.
Another problem is that Section 85(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains a statutory definition of "reparation" that expressly excludes financial compensation. There would be a good deal of scope for confusion if one had a free-standing definition for the purposes of this Bill. I believe that the provision for reparation is sufficiently made. After all, Clause 8(2)(a) on page 7 puts right at the forefront of the provision,
"financial or other reparation to any person who appears to the panel to be a victim of, or otherwise affected by, the offence".
It seems to me that the prominence given to this matter in that provision will require every relevant panel to focus first on financial or other reparation. One must bear in mind that some victims are extremely reluctant to engage in these matters. One must pay regard to decent susceptibilities. If it is right at the forefront the panel must have at the top of the list of considerations what is first in the Act.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is it not strange to say that the panel may include the provision of reparation, financial or otherwise? The panel may or may not include reparation under the Bill. If there is confusion with the other Act and there is difficulty about the wording, should it not be sorted out? I would have thought there might have been objections to the proposal. If no reparations of any kind were required and the panel pointed out that that was what the legislation said, what the Minister said would not be correct. If the Bill departs from the White Paper is it not better to say so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that a Bill can say that it is departing from a White Paper. Reparation can include a number of different concepts in practice. It does not have to be reparation to the victim. As I understood the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, it would include an obligation to make an act or acts of reparation to the victim. A good deal of reparative work can be done that is not focused on the victim. It may well be unpaid work in the community, which means that the offender makes

435
reparation or amends to the wider community. I repeat that a good number of victims do not want personally focused reparation. The elderly widow who lives alone does not necessarily want the offender to work in her garden or paint the house which, a fortnight earlier, he burgled. She may be quite pleased if the offender must do reparative work in the playground of a school or something of that kind within the community. I believe that we have got it right here. The panel must focus on that as the first question. I believe that to be pretty clear.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for his clarification of these points. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert (", for which he may be refunded out-of-pocket expenses").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 41 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 42 to 44. All of these amendments refer to the provisions of the programme in Clause 8. The first amendment provides that an offender who is doing community service may be refunded his out-of-pocket expenses. Amendment No. 42 refers to an exclusion order imposed on an offender as to place. The amendment extends the provision to specified times and places.
Amendment No. 43 makes references to electronic tagging which has been a great success in those places where it has been introduced. I believe I am right in saying that last week it was extended under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act. I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in a debate last week. As to Amendment No. 44, the noble Lord has just made reference to the matter. At the moment the consent of the victim is required under Clause 8(2)(a) if financial or other reparation is to be made. The amendment would mean that under Clause 8(2)(b) the agreement of the victim would also be required in any mediation sessions attended by the offender.
Lord Hylton: I support Amendment No. 41. This may be particularly appropriate and necessary in the case of a young person between 16 and 18 who is not employed or in full-time education and is not entitled to any benefits.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am afraid that my ear was distracted for a moment. Perhaps I may confirm with the noble Viscount the amendments to which he spoke. I believe that he spoke to Amendments Nos. 41, 43 and 44. Did the noble Viscount speak also to Amendment No. 42?
Viscount Bridgeman: I spoke also to Amendment No. 42 which is concerned with specified times and places.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was entirely my fault. I was being asked when we would be likely to conclude the business this evening. I understand that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall finish our discussion on the Bill this evening at eight o'clock. I was aware that the noble Viscount had an interest in that matter and therefore my mind was slightly distracted. I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 41 to 44. I agree that as to Amendment No. 41, which relates to expenses unless the contract included an agreement to make some form of financial reparation, it would not be appropriate for a young person to be out of pocket as a result of this kind of activity. One would expect the volunteer organisations to ensure that. The issue must be addressed and I am happy to give the assurance that that will be done in the guidance.
The list in Clause 8 as to particular places or persons is not intended to be prescriptive or exhaustive. There will be variations in the elements in Clause 8. I believe that the noble Viscount seeks a specific reference to the fact that this element of the programme of behaviour may be applied at certain times or all the time. There is nothing in the Bill to stop the panel and the young person seeking such agreement. I believe that this should be covered in guidance, which is likely to change as experience changes, rather than on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 43 deals with electronic tagging. The youth offender panel is not a court and there will not be any legal representation. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the panel to have the option of agreeing anything that amounted to a physical restriction on liberty by virtue of tagging or otherwise. I believe that as a matter of principle that is something that should be done judicially in open court rather than by a panel. If the young person's offending is serious enough to warrant the restriction contemplated by the noble Viscount, that should be done by a court with the opportunity of legal representation.
On Amendment No. 44, I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the provision relates to the victim's right to refuse to participate in mediation as well as in any other form of reparation. I entirely agree. That is what I believe we have achieved by Clause 8(4): that nothing may be done to or with any such victim without his or her express consent. I am happy to reiterate that that covers reparation and mediation. I hope that I have put the noble Viscount's doubts to rest.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for those helpful comments on that group of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 13, after ("offender,") insert—
("( ) by each appropriate person (as defined in section 5(3)),").
The noble Viscount said: The amendment provides that the parents or, where appropriate, the local authority which plays such a large part in the concept of the Bill, are involved in the signature of the record. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the importance of the involvement of the parent, guardian or local authority. Essentially we think that this provision would water down the seriousness and importance of the contract from the point of view of the young offender. It is he or she who is the offender; it is he or she alone who is the subject of the referral order and who alone must comply with the terms of the contract. In many cases parents may volunteer to assist. Some parents are derelict in their duties and may simply refuse to sign. We would not want that as a block if the young person himself or herself were willing. The provision is designed to bring home to the offender moral and legal responsibility. We think that the provision is better kept intact.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister for that convincing reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("or sent").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 46, I speak also to Amendment No. 55.
We suggest that attendance on all the occasions when the offender is required to be present is important. Any excuse for him or her not to attend the court and, for instance, to be sent the record by post would be an invitation to absent himself or herself. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Viscount rightly observed, Clause 8(6) requires the panel to cause a copy of the record to be "given or sent" to the offender. Clause 11(7) makes similar provisions in respect of a record of any variation.
This gives the panel a degree of flexibility. If it cannot have a typed copy on the specific occasion, let us say a Monday, we simply require that it should be sent to the young person as soon as possible. Obviously many panels will give the record immediately to the offender, but if that cannot be done we simply give the flexible opportunity that it should be sent. I think that that should be available as an alternative.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful and accept the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 17, at end insert ("and sent to the court").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 47, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 to 58. It is a similar provision: that the record be sent to the court. I suggest that it is a matter of good practice as regards information. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The responsibility of the court is to make the referral order for the appropriate period, and to notify the youth offending team that the order has been made so that a panel may be convened. However, the responsibility for agreeing the terms of the contract—it is again the critical difference which has developed as we have had these most helpful discussions—is with the panel. At that stage the court has no further role to play unless the panel thinks that there has been a serious breach of the contract. We do not therefore think that the details of the contract, or any variation, should go back to the court. I think that it muddies the clear distinction between the court's sentence—referral—and the panel's work which is not judicial in that sense; it is carrying out the direction of the court but on an independent basis. Again, that is an important distinction which needs to be maintained.
Viscount Bridgeman: In view of the Minister's helpful comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [First meeting: duration of contract]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 8, line 20, leave out from third ("the") to end of line 21 and insert ("day on which it was signed by the offender").
The noble Lord said: I am unclear as to when the contract should start. It seems to me that it should start on the day that the contract is signed by the offender, and that the period during which the contract runs should commence on the day on which it is signed. Any gap seems undesirable; and hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that that is covered by the Bill. Clause 9 provides that the point at which the period of time—the length of referral—commences is the moment the contract takes effect. We find that in Clause 8 the contract takes effect when the young person and a member of the panel sign the record of the contract. Therefore the Bill contains the remedy which the noble Lord wishes to be provided. It is there.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I must study a little more carefully Clause 8 in conjunction with Clause 9. However, it achieves what I wish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [First meeting: failure to agree contract]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Progress meetings]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 39, at beginning insert ("consider or").
The noble Lord said: We have discussed this matter substantially on Amendment No. 39. It is intended to ensure that the panel can consult not only with the offender present but also among themselves. I think that the Minister made that clear. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: When a young offender has breached the terms of the contract, the Bill requires the panel to discuss it with the young person. The purpose of the discussion is to decide whether there has been a breach; and what action to take. That may mean that the young offender is allowed to continue to be required to comply with the contract, possibly varied; or that the panel may possibly refer the young offender back to the court. I appreciate the motivation of the amendment. It is important that the panel gives careful consideration to the action it takes in response.
If one has to discuss the issue with the young offender and then come to a conclusion, it is inevitable that the panel would have to consider the relevant matters. I hope that that assurance satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, indeed. It sounded a satisfactory explanation which I shall study carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Final meeting]:
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as consideration on the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill has been concluded, the Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour which would have been allowed in the dinner break. The one and a half hour
440
limit now applies. This will allow all speakers five minutes each rather than the three minutes specified on the speakers' list.

Citizenship and Democracy
8 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudburyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to implement the recommendations of the final report of the Crick Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing this Unstarred Question. It is extremely gratifying that so many noble Lords are present and that so many wish to speak. It is a cause for frustration therefore that the time available to speak is only five minutes—but that is better than three. I wish to refer to the involvement of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in putting the Motion forward. Furthermore, I welcome the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, whose Commission on Citizenship was such a signal landmark in the development of interest in the subject in recent years. I should also declare an interest as chairman of a charity called the Citizenship Foundation which was established 10 years ago and of which I am chairman. As its name implies. it has a complete identification with citizenship.
Democracy is a word never far from our lips, even in this place. Yet democracy is about substance and not form; heart as much as head; and common values and attitudes even more than about rules and regulations, vital though they are. As the Americans say, democracy should be of the people, by the people and for the people. The trouble is that in Britain today it is not, it is not and it is not. The democratic deficit, widely talked about in relation to the European Union, is a major problem here as well.
In 1948, Lord Beveridge said:
"Educating for citizenship is one of the most vital conditions of success in democracy".
Even then, it was clear that Mark Twain's recipe for success that,
"all you need is ignorance and confidence",
was losing its charm. One question to which all of us need to address an answer is why there is a pressing need for structured citizenship education.
Last summer, MORI did some research for the Institute of Citizenship, one of the excellent bodies in the citizenship field, together with NatWest and with a scientifically constructed sample of 900 people aged 16 and over. It makes vividly clear that most people are concerned about citizenship but mainly in a passive, domestic, local way—not breaking the law, not kicking the neighbour's cat and being nice to one's children.
By contrast, knowing their formal rights and responsibilities as citizens was way down the list, as was voting at elections. I do not need to remind the

441
House that in 1997 the 71 per cent. turnout was the worst since 1935 and that was in the age of uniquely advanced education. This was counterbalanced by one striking finding of the MORI research: almost everyone agreed that schools should teach about citizenship.
I wish to mention too the depressing findings of the Essex University/University of North Carolina survey about the making of citizens in Britain and the United States. It involved fieldwork in both countries during a three-year period in three different types of community in each country. It showed that one third of those questioned here did not engage in any voluntary or civic activity, even as bland a kind as joining a club or informally helping neighbours. That compared with only 6 per cent. of Americans who were not so engaged. Furthermore, nearly 80 per cent. of pupils aged 15 to 16 in Britain claimed to have engaged in very little or no discussion of public issues whether at home or at school. As Professor Ivor Crewe concluded:
"British school students have not yet absorbed the practice of public discussion, but they have absorbed the norms which discourage it."
Of course, life is changing dramatically. When I was a boy growing up in the settled market town of my title, people's identification with their local community and institutions was innate and natural. Today we inhabit a rootless, classless, mobile world in which everything is possible for ill as well as good. Work is more pressurised and insecure and there has developed a privatisation of life in a highly complicated world in which there are few common causes or places where a sense of citizenship can be learnt, shared and developed. A bias to Christianity has shifted in 50 years to a bias to materialism, which can hardly be said to succour the values of the involved, contributive citizen.
Yet enabling every young adult to contribute is what Professor Crick's committee rightly cherish. In order to be able to contribute, however, one needs knowledge, skills and the will. An increasing minority of our fellow citizens feel wholly inadequate in all three dimensions. However, would the right kind of citizenship education—and I urge noble Lords who have not yet done so to read the Crick proposals—make much difference where it most counts? Consider the early results from the Social Exclusion Unit. They show that 13,000 pupils are being excluded from schools every year and another 100,000 are excluded temporarily; 1 million are truanting; 40 per cent. of all robberies and 25 per cent. of all burglaries are being committed by 10 to 16 year-olds; and 7 million offences are caused by young people annually at an estimated cost of £13 billion to society. By definition, these youngsters are both problem people and disadvantaged people, the prospects for whom, and indeed the prospects for society, are on present prognosis bleak.
Yet we know from the chalkface that good citizenship education can turn round some of the most difficult and disaffected pupils when confronted with
442
real life dilemmas, moral, legal and social. Listen to these unsolicited comments recently received by the Citizenship Foundation from schools using its moral education materials with 12 to 16 year-olds. After a lesson on the role of the state with regard to family welfare, the teacher said:
"It was a lesson that most students felt passionately about and led to an unprompted and long discussion about ideal families and society's attitude towards them".
After a lesson with 12 year-olds on recognising moral issues the teacher said:
"A great opportunity for discussion and people recognised the value of talking as a means of learning".
Were there time I could go on. Those proposals are intentionally open textured, setting objectives for learning outcomes at the four key stages of schooling (seven, 11, 14 and 16) but leaving schools to plot their own pathways. This light touch is consistent with the nature of the subject itself, which would be damaged by a centralised, prescriptive hand.
The crying need now is for a modicum of courage and the resources to get on and implement the report. Of course there are anxieties among teachers, and for good reason. They will need help in developing programmes as well as appropriate training. Schools will need time and resources for a gradual phasing in of the new regime.
As for curriculum time, at primary level it is proposed that citizenship will be part of a mix and match of related subjects such as religious education. At secondary level, however, it needs discrete space and designated curriculum time which will of course need negotiation and careful planning. For too long, citizenship education has been pushed to the margins of education by its failure to count for anything in the league tables and its lack of coherence, requirement and resources.
Some, naturally perhaps, are worried by the danger of biased and value-prescriptive teaching. Bias is already outlawed by Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996. But generally we should have confidence in school staff and their governors to be professionals. The in-depth research carried out by a university a few years ago provides firm reassurance that pupils are sufficiently shrewd and robust to see through a maverick teacher's bias.
Above all, I hope that this House will plump for certainty rather than for what is largely phantasmagorical. The certainty is that unless we really grasp the thistle of citizenship education now, the dry rot of disassociation and disillusionment in our society will spread and spread rapidly.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how much we appreciate the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in introducing the debate this evening. Also, I wish to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for the part which he has played in bringing this matter before the House.

443
Any committee headed by the irrepressible and imaginative Professor Crick, with the distinguished colleagues whom he gathered around him, coupled with allies like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is a powerful alliance. We have already seen the power of that alliance because it has increased by 50 per cent. this evening the amount of time allocated for the debate and we have seen the Government galloping through their business in order to accommodate these important deliberations.
There are really three points that I wish to make in the time available. First, we have a Government who are deeply committed to the regeneration of democracy by appropriate changes in our constitution. But we must all remember that any structure is inanimate. No structure makes anything happen. What is important is the quality of the human material, the imagination and the drive which is there within the structure.
I am sure that in our own experiences, we have all seen imperfect structures where very exciting things were happening because there was a lot of imagination and drive. We have seen perfected structures where absolutely nothing happened because everything was dead from the neck upwards. Therefore, if we are serious about the regeneration of democracy, education and preparation for citizenship is all important.
Secondly, at a time when we are preoccupied with the measurement of the basics in education—and no one denies their importance—and when we are preoccupied with reading, writing, arithmetic and equipping people for the techniques of living, if we are serious about the regeneration of democracy, an equal commitment to preparing people in the education system to come out of their schools and to move forward into life as critical, questioning, self-confident individuals is every bit as important.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke about social exclusion. I hope he will agree with me when I say that I wish we did not talk so often about social exclusion but talked more about social inclusion. If we are serious in our determination to achieve an inclusive society, a great deal of effort and concentration will have to go into providing resources, space and facilities to enable those who live in the most deprived social situations in our country to compensate for that in terms of the self-confidence which can be generated among them as young people during the years when they are enjoying their primary and secondary education.
The difficulty there is that the very pressures about which I spoke in terms of leagues and so on, with their highly quantitative approach to education, present real difficulties for teachers operating in precisely that situation. We must look at that.
The second point I wish to make is that if there is one reality about the age in which we live which has struck me repeatedly in the course of my life it is that we are moving into an age when all the major strategic issues which will affect the young people of today in the course of their lives require an
444
international approach. I can think of hardly any single major issue which will affect my grandson which can be resolved within the context of the nation state alone. Therefore, if we are speaking about preparation for citizenship, it is absolutely crucial that central to that preparation for citizenship is an understanding of global interdependence and an understanding that we cannot separate ourselves from the interests of the global community as a whole. The art of the success of democracy and governance in our society lies in how we manage to work out a place for ourselves as a community in the United Kingdom which is a constructive and dynamic part of global society as a whole.
Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, she will deal with the issue of special assistance for areas of deprivation; that she will deal with the issue of how we can assist in the regeneration of democracy by the policies which Professor Crick and others have advocated; but that she will deal also with the issue of the importance of a global approach to citizenship in the education in our schools.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is obviously an important report. Citizenship education as defined in it is a much larger issue than teaching about the British constitution or what may be described loosely as civic education, which is normally taught in schools. It is a far-ranging and far-reaching concept touching on both politics and morality. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to whom we are grateful for introducing this debate, made much of that in his remarks. I only regret that an Unstarred Question offers far too short a time in which to discuss the report adequately. One is conscious that one is merely touching on a few points in an extremely detailed and far-reaching report.
There is much in the report with which we all agree—the stress on the importance of understanding how a system of government works, the system in Europe and the system in the Commonwealth. Although I am not quite certain what is meant by the global part of that, nevertheless, I can see that that is an issue.
I was struck in particular by the analysis in paragraph 3.5 and the following paragraphs—again, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned it—giving clear figures to show that at present, young people are not voting; they are not interested in politics; and they appear to be turned off the subject altogether. That confirms what was said to me quite recently. I have just completed my term of office as Chancellor of the University of Greenwich. A leading figure in the university said that what he most regretted was that students were no longer interested at all in political affairs. I do not know that that would necessarily be a view shared by all but I was very struck by the statement that he made. I believe that all of us here this evening would agree with the statement that politics is not a spectator sport.

445
In my opinion and experience, many young people, and in particular the most able young people, are far more interested in going into the media world whether newspapers, radio or television. And, after all, why not? The media exercise real and immediate power. I am sorry to say that from my experience I believe that it is far easier to comment than to take part in and make up one's mind about the really difficult decisions which governments have to take whether locally, nationally or anywhere else.
But we need to keep a balance in the argument. Many young people in schools spend a lot of time undertaking community work of one sort or another. I am struck by the numbers of people going in for the Duke of Edinburgh Award Schemes. Before we write off all the young people as not contributing anything, we need to maintain a sense of balance.
Having said that, I have many concerns about the report. Some are quite practical, and no doubt other noble Lords will comment on them. Can schools really give up 5 per cent. of their time to teach that subject? For example, when I looked at the tables on page 44, it looks to me as though what is being proposed is fit for a university degree, if not followed by a D.Phil. before one has understood it all.
Many questions are raised. For instance, under the column headed "Values and Dispositions", it says,
"judging and acting by a moral code".
That begs almost as many questions as it is possible to ask. And I feel an underlying concern that what is being proposed is in part a substitution for religious education of training in citizenship and the extension of a whole secular world into a spiritual world; giving up the spiritual side of education for a general secularisation. Perhaps I misinterpreted that and someone will correct me, but it needs to be made clear. I have always believed that education is about the intellect, the physical development of life through sport and the spiritual development of a child or adult. Secular education, no matter how good, cannot be a substitute. Therefore a good deal of that side of the matter is bound to be controversial.
Finally, there is much to be debated about the establishment of a commission—who is on it, what its powers would be and how far teachers could be expected to accept what a commission says as to what they should teach. Those are many and serious questions, to which no doubt we can return on another occasion.
8.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for initiating this debate.
Your Lordships may remember that during the 1980s there were recurring allegations that the curriculum in some institutes of higher education and some schools had become politicised, more specifically, that left wing propaganda was being inculcated under the guise of education. It was argued
446
by those who believed that this was happening that what we want in colleges and schools is education, not propaganda. I agree. But we should not make the mistake—as I believe they did—of thinking that education is somehow value free or that there are no political assumptions in our education system.
The fact is that nothing in this life is value free. There are no neutral zones evacuated of all political assumptions. The point is to be aware of the values and assumptions in our political system and its institution; to articulate them and subject them to scrutiny. I believe that the educational system in this country is integrally related to the political system in which it is set—namely, liberal democracy—and that the same values of respect for the facts, rational argument, checks and balances and decision-making by the majority of voting imbue both. I believe that those values, at once political and moral, not only are, but should be, at the heart of our educational process. People should be made aware of them and learn to argue critically in relation to them. They should, in the words of the Crick Report—whose publication I value—be politically literate. Liberal democracy, and the educational system which goes with it, is a precious inheritance. But I stress that it is not neutral or value free. It represents a particular understanding of what it means to be a human being in society, derived from our history. But that is nothing to be ashamed about. On the contrary, it can and should be championed.
There is another reason why I believe that the central concerns of the Crick Report are so crucial. The profession of politics today is held in low regard. Those voting, particularly in local elections, are too few. In contrast to this is the old Greek ideal that it was a privilege for everyone (sadly, at that point, excluding slaves and women) to come together to share in the ordering of the common life. It belongs to the dignity of being a citizen to share with others in the shaping of society, whether locally or nationally. At school pupils should be encouraged to share this vision, to know something of how the system works, to reflect on its philosophical basis and to express its values in voluntary service for the wider community. That is why I am so grateful to the Crick Report. I am not going to comment on its provisions in detail except to emphasise the importance of recommendation 4.1 that,
"citizenship education be a statutory entitlement in the curriculum and that all schools should be required to show that they are fulfilling the obligation that this places upon them".
The report quotes a speech by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor:
"We should not, must not, dare not, be complacent about the health and future of British democracy. Unless we become a nation of engaged citizens, our democracy is not secure".
The recommendations of the Crick Report, if carried through, will do more than has ever been done before to bring about those engaged citizens.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—and also to

447
the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford—for initiating this debate. I do not recollect an Unstarred Question at this time of night which attracted so many Memhers of your Lordships' House and I commend your Lordships for that. It was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to mention my involvement with the Institute for Citizenship. I also commend his work in the Citizenship Foundation.
The Institute for Citizenship Report was published by HMSO in 1990. I was privileged to chair that committee and a member of the commission at the time was the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Among our recommendations—many of which were incorporated in the party manifestos in 1992—was that young people in our country were as likely to become good citizens just by chance, as they were to become good doctors, nurses or engineers; that citizenship needed to be taught. I am pleased to note that the recommendation of Professor Crick's report was that good citizenship should be taught, despite the difficulties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I hope that on this occasion those recommendations will not be pigeon-holed as being too difficult, but will be acted upon. My reason for stressing that—the point has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, including the right reverend Prelate—is that, sadly, politics in our country is in low repute. In a democracy that is a serious matter. As a former Member of the other place and a Speaker, it is a matter which greatly concerned me.
The Institute for Citizenship recently commissioned a survey by MORI which produced some disturbing findings. The first was that 95 per cent. of those participating in the survey thought that they were good citizens, though only 67 per cent. thought that their neighbours were good citizens. However, 70 per cent. of those who participated claimed to know very little about their local council or the European Parliament, or even that the European elections were to be held on 10th June. The institute has been carrying out a series of seminars entitled, "Get the vote out", in order to encourage interest and participation in the European elections. It is to be hoped that our recent debates in the House on the open and closed list systems may have drawn attention to the fact that there will be a European election on 10th June.
This is a matter of concern because in a democracy there is no "them" and "us". We are all in it together. A country that claims to be the mother of parliaments should have active citizens among its electorate. That will happen only if the citizens of our country are knowledgeable about our parliamentary and local government systems and the issues involved.
In 1991, I represented the House of Commons at the 2,500th anniversary of the birth of democracy in Athens. On that dramatic occasion, many tributes were paid to our country for our contributions over the centuries to the principles of democracy. Tributes were paid to other countries also, but specifically to the United Kingdom.
448
Then I turned to the last page and found a quotation from Plato. Let these be my last words tonight and I had better make them politically correct:
"The penalty that good men"—
and women—
"pay for failing to participate in public affairs is to be governed by others worse than themselves".
8.32 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am chairman of the Further Education Funding Council, which in 1996 produced a report, Enrichment of the Curriculum, which advocated certain aspects present in the Crick Report. The chief executive also gave evidence to the Crick Committee. I hasten to add that that was before my time as chairman.
This evening I do not want to focus on the post-16 position, although the evidence is quite clear that one could not expect to spread notions of good citizenship among the post-16 generation unless the essential building blocks had been adequately established by schools. That is the main purpose of this debate.
I also want to declare a second interest as a former student of Professor Crick. He might not want to own up to that, but might attest to the fact that I was enormously grateful for his seminal work of the time, In Defence of Politics.
Like other noble Lords who were also active in higher education at the time, I was beset by the rather ideological challenge which denied the concept of democratic debate by the certainties that were being put forward by students, who had the great merit of being active but fewer merits in terms of democratic discourse. There is no doubt that had that challenge been presented with the more liberal-minded politics of Professor Crick, the nation would have advanced considerably at that time.
I maintain that the reason good citizenship is an important concept in education is that I am all too well aware that all education practitioners recognise how crowded the curriculum is. Even the modest request in this report that 5 per cent. of school time should be devoted to this essential subject imposes great difficulties on the education system.
We need to recognise three aspects of our present society which need to be addressed in schools on the basis of the principles behind this report. I refer first to the apathy among the younger generation. The very low participation rates at the last general election have already been quoted. The group that participated least comprised 18 to 24 year-olds. There is a real concern about the development of an alienated response to the fundamental duties of democracy. That concerns us all. The point has already been alluded to.
Secondly, what has been considered only tangentially this evening is the nature of our present society. I am thinking more in terms of those issues which the Americans have addressed more successfully. We all know why the American education system pays such real regard to the issues of citizenship and why, for

449
instance, the American flag flies in every classroom. It is because Americans have been aware of the fact that their society is composed of people who come from diverse backgrounds and that they need to understand the fundamental values of power in their society and how they have recently effected changes in the concept of democracy. We need that too. We should not underestimate the extent to which our society comprises people from many different traditions in which the automatic assumptions of British education in the past did not obtain. If those fellow citizens—often from the most deprived sectors of our community—are to grow up to play their part, they need to know how to act democratically and effectively in defence of their interests.
Thirdly, the IT revolution will give enormous opportunities to some. However, the great danger is that it will create further imbalances in our society unless people are educated effectively in its opportunities and, above all, in the recognition of the significant importance of the media in this day and age. I am referring not only to the printed word, which we all respected in the past, but also to television and to the opportunities of the computer-driven media revolution. It is essential that young people gain an understanding of how to make judgments of the message being put across and that they have the effective critical faculties for doing so. We all agree that that is at the heart of democracy. The report is suffused with those principles. That is why I have the greatest pleasure in commending it to the House.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I was very glad to serve on the Crick Committee. I should like to pay tribute to Bernard Crick for the excellent way in which he chaired the committee and produced the report within 12 months.
Our association on citizenship goes back over 20 years. I remember joining Bernard Crick many decades ago in trying to persuade the then Shirley Williams, Secretary of State for Education and Science, to include something about citizenship in the curriculum. In those days, Ministers were not allowed to trample in the sacred vineyard of the curriculum. I changed all that.
The essence of our report comes on page nine, which states specifically:
"for pupils—an entitlement in schools that will empower them to participate in society effectively as active, informed, critical and responsible citizens".
We were quite specific about how that should be achieved. There should be three areas of study. One should be moral and social responsibility, which almost happens automatically when a child goes to primary school and realises that he or she is a member of a society that is bigger than the family and that in that society there has to be give and take, fair play and resistance to bullying.
The second element is community involvement. A lot of that happens in schools, as my noble friend Lady Young said earlier. I refer to the involvement of
450
pupils in improving their immediate environment, such as the estates on which they live—in many cases, miserable estates indeed; in planning better and safer routes to school; and in helping elderly and disabled people. Much of that is done through Community Service Volunteers. Indeed, Elisabeth Hoodless served on the committee. Such work should be encouraged.
The third element is political literacy. There is the rub. That goes far beyond a knowledge of the British constitution—important as that is. Political literacy is not political indoctrination. I am perfectly aware that many young people say, "We are not interested in politics or religion"; yet those young people will go home tonight, turn on their televisions and watch "News at Ten"—if it is still on at 10 o'clock—and they will be presented with a series of acute, fascinating political dilemmas: the rights of foster parents as opposed to natural parents; whether other countries have a right to do something about a great crime that occurs in another country and, if so, how and with what consequences; and whether heads of state should be immune from the consequences of the activities for which they are responsible. Those are fascinating political problems which obtrude on everybody's consciousness. They are not only political but also moral problems.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is very difficult to say that education can be value free; indeed, I do not think that it can be. I am proud to be associated with some of the values that are mentioned on page 44 of the report. For example, one wants to inculcate in young children a belief in human dignity and equality. Mention is also made of the,
"concern to resolve conflicts [and the] practice of tolerance".
Faced with militant Islam, I should have thought that the practice of tolerance today was a very necessary and important quality to ingrain into a child. The report also talks about,
"courage to defend a point of view…civility and respect for the rule of law…concern for human rights [and] concern for the environment".
The report also recommends how that can be achieved.
However, the question is how it can be achieved, because there is immense pressure on the curriculum. We are ambitious in recommending a statutory entitlement for a time. Perhaps I may make some helpful suggestions to the Minister as to how this can be accommodated in the curriculum. At present, the Government are examining the content of the curriculum. There is a great move to make it more flexible. I would advise the Government to resist that word and to resist the move. Flexibility often means watering down.
One of my successors in the Department of Education made the huge mistake of allowing children to give up the study of history at the age of 14. As a result, the phasing out of history is beginning in our schools. Indeed, 5 per cent. fewer students take GCSE examinations in history each year. We are the only country in Europe, apart from Albania, to allow children to drop history at the age of 14. Therefore, I am not for flexibility.
However, what I am for is the notion that the Government should look most carefully at the amount of teaching time in English schools. If they do so, they will see that the average teaching time in our schools is 23 hours a week. In the Scottish schools it is 26 hours a week. How does Scotland do so much better? In a Continental school the teaching hours are about 33 a week, and in a Far Eastern school the number is in the high 30s each week. There are some English schools where the teaching time is much higher than the average 23 hours a week.
I have one great regret regarding my time as Secretary of State for Education, which relates to something that I did not do. I make no apology for the things that I did; indeed, noble Lords would not expect me to do so. My regret is that I did not manage to extend the teaching day by one period. I know how controversial that is, having settled the teachers' strike and having secured the teachers' agreement on the numbers of hours to be taught in schools. However, if one had an extra lesson a day one could accommodate this, and many other things, in the curriculum. But if we are to ask teachers to teach more, then they should administer less. The quid pro quo is to give substantial extra administrative help to schools so as to reduce the administrative burden on teachers and thereby free them to do what they do best; namely, standing up in front of a class and teaching the children sitting before them.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will be imaginative. A great deal could be done by managing the system better and making it more effective. I hope that they will do so and that they will not miss this very great opportunity to improve the awareness of children of the greater society in which they live. The arguments that that is beneficial for our society, not for the children only, are both manifest and clear.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, democracy is above all, as Carl Popper put it, a method by which citizens can remove governments without violence. To be sure, governments have to be allowed to pursue the policies for which they were elected in the first place; but if they fail, or when their energies are spent, peaceful change must be possible. In that sense, the underlying principle is one of trial and error, and it is the citizens who have the right to determine both.
There are, as this century has shown in abundance, many threats to democracy in this sense. Leaders can initiate necessary changes but they can also mislead, sometimes disastrously so. Many a pied piper has induced citizens to sacrifice their rights on the altars of false gods. The waves of violent nationalism—tribalism perhaps—which are sweeping the Balkans and parts of Africa today are but the most recent examples. It is therefore necessary that citizens are prepared to guard against such threats, which may sound alluring at first but often end in murder and mayhem.
In our own part of the world there is, however, another risk; it is that of creeping authoritarianism. Governments have a tendency to arrogate more and more powers to the executive. In addition,
452
internationalisation generally means a loss in democratic control. Who will ever remove the UN Security Council, the G7 or even the European Commission without violence? This is a new challenge to citizenship. Yet, in view of such changes, we are faced with a serious threat—with citizens who are not trying and who therefore let governments get away with, if not murder, then unfettered power.
Civic ignorance and apathy can destroy democracy as effectively as brutal leadership. Citizens have to know their rights and make use of them for democracy to live. That is why the report by the Crick Advisory Group is so important, and why my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is so right to press the Government for early action. I hope that the result of today's debate will be a sense that many of us strongly endorse the proposals of the Crick Advisory Group for the education of active citizens through a statutory entitlement in the school curriculum. Like the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, I have looked with great interest at the overview of essential elements of such teaching and have my own preferences as regards the values which I believe should inform such education: courage to defend a point of view; individual initiative and effort; and commitment to active citizenship.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in joining with all those who have contributed to the debate thus far, perhaps I may welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in drawing this matter to our attention tonight and giving us the opportunity of this short debate. I should also declare my interest in that I hold the chair in citizenship at the Liverpool John Moores University. In so doing, perhaps I may also refer to Professor Peter Toyne, the Vice-Chancellor of that university, whose brainchild it was two years ago to establish both the chair in citizenship (the first of its kind in the country) and also the creation of a foundation in citizenship.
It is drawing on that experience that I venture to address your Lordships on this subject tonight. During the intervening two years we have been successful in extending into 500 of the 600 schools on Merseyside good citizenship award schemes supported by local companies in the area. I passionately believe that citizenship has to be experienced as well as learnt. We have also been able to highlight examples of many youngsters who are already engaged and involved in acts of good citizenship. This has been sponsored by a local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo. Telling these stories again and again, and night after night, has helped to create a culture of good citizenship.
However, in addition to that and in trying to address the intellectual questions, we have initiated a series of town and gown lectures. Indeed, some Members of your Lordships' House have been good enough to take part in some of those lectures. Coming in the next few weeks we have the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Mr. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary Mr. Jack Straw and Ann Widdecombe. During the past few months we have had contributors such as the Chief

453
Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks. It has been a way of drawing many people—in fact, hundreds of people. Over 900 people heard the President of the Irish Republic, Mary McAleese, deliver her lecture on citizenship just a month or so ago.
The latter has triggered widespread discussion in a community which needs to express real concern about dis-affection in our civic institutions. In one local government by-election, for instance, within the last 12 months the turnout was a mere 6 per cent. In the face of such widespread alienation and, if you like, the collapse of human ecology, it is urgent that we deal with the matters that are being addressed here tonight. Professor Bernard Crick was good enough to describe the initiatives that I have outlined as
"a good deed in a naughty world".
He would know as well as I that these things are not in themselves enough. We need to underline in our schools, through the National Curriculum, the teaching of civic virtues and a love of democracy. That has to be nurtured in the classroom as well as in the home, and we have to create a widespread debate in the country about the need to re-address the imbalance between claimed rights and entitlements and the need to emphasise duties and responsibilities. There has been some very flaccid language about rights and entitlements.
Given the plethora of competing demands being faced in schools, unless these questions are properly resourced and, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has already mentioned, unless teachers are trained appropriately and a mandatory requirement placed on schools to address these proper civic concerns, it simply will not happen. Education is about more than league tables and academic achievement, important though these matters are.
In July 1997 the Government in their White Paper, Excellence in Schools, recognised this when they said,
"schools can help to ensure that young people have a stake in our society and the community in which they live by teaching them the nature of democracy and duties, responsibilities and rights of citizens".
The issue now is how to turn those excellent sentiments into reality. Recently too much of the debate about education has centred on methods of assessment. Too little has been said about the kind of citizen we are producing. This is not a plea to teach political ideology: quite the reverse. In his book, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis said that value-neutral education produces "men without chests". He wrote,
"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful".
The Government's White Paper and Professor Crick's report were about making men "with chests". Perhaps we should extend the metaphor and say "with hearts and heads as well". We have the unique opportunity now to create a civic culture and environment in which we can encourage participation in our structures, where people will take their responsibilities and duties seriously again.
454
I hope that the Government will seize that opportunity, and again I strongly welcome the opportunity for debating these matters tonight.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, perhaps I may add my welcome, in a slightly croaky voice, to those which have already been expressed for the opportunity to debate the Crick Report, which is a very important piece of work. The Secretary of State for Education and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are considering revisions to the curriculum right now, and looking particularly at this very important area of the curriculum. There will be input from a whole range of advisory groups, of which the Crick Committee is only one. There are groups on personal, social and health education, spiritual, moral and cultural values, on creative and cultural education and, of course, on sustainable development. It is this latter aspect to which I should like to draw attention tonight, because there is also an excellent report, a companion to the Crick Report, on education for sustainable development in the schools sector by the panel led by Sir Geoffrey Holland.
I should like to make three points on how these two reports combine in the area of citizenship. Citizenship and sustainable development are closely interlinked, and being a citizen for the future means understanding the interdependence of society, the economy and the environment, and the fact that one cannot have objectives for one without the other. Citizenship for the future needs to bring on board an understanding of the needs and the rights of a future generation and not simply of current generations in the political and social arena. Citizenship needs to bring an understanding that the quality of life includes environmental quality. We need to look at a broader definition of citizenship that takes on this very important element of sustainable development.
The second point I should like to make has already been raised by several speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, commented on the apathy and lack of engagement in young people over citizenship and public life. One of the areas where I think young people are more engaged than most is in the area of the environment and sustainable development. Unfortunately, involvement and engagement in some respects means living in tree houses at Newbury or lying in front of bulldozers at Manchester airport. But there are real signs of engagement there. I would hope that we shall see environmental and sustainability issues used as a conduit to help to bring our young people into the area of citizenship for the future.
My last point concerns the fact that practically every issue in this country is jostling for space in the curriculum at the moment. There are the Crick Report, the Home Report and reports from other groups. There is a plethora of advice to Ministers and to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. I ask the Minister tonight to give an assurance that in this jostling vital education on sustainable development and sustainable citizenship will be the centrepiece.
8.55 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too am very grateful for the introduction of this short debate. It has been a most interesting discussion and I do not propose to go over again the contents of the report. However interesting the debate has been, to me the most interesting part of it will be the answer of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she tells us exactly what are the Government's plans for implementing the recommendations of the report. It is all very well talking about a wonderful report; what we actually need is for Her Majesty's Government to implement it. That is what I shall find the most interesting part of the debate. I hope that the response will be thoroughly positive.
I was certainly intending to raise the question of how to carve out 5 per cent. from the national curriculum in order to bring forward implementation. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has provided one solution. Whether that will be acceptable to the Government, I do not know.
I feel there is a lot of "aggro" out in the country at the present time, not against democracy but against political parties. As well as the education process that is required for democracy, I hope that we shall over the course of the next few years be able to put a much more healthy view of practical politics before the nation generally, and particularly the younger generation. The report seems to me excellent. There is a recommendation for a DfEE order setting out the need for values and practices of participative democracy, the development of pupils into citizens and involvement in the local and wider community. That could extend to the global context, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There is a great deal that needs to be done; the report's proposals would he highly beneficial.
Education is to develop the whole person, not just the intellect. The 1988 Education Act began with an important rubric that schools were to attend to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils as well as the cognitive. I believe that we need a broad and balanced education covering all these aspects. It needs to be cross-curricular, not just ousting religious education. as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It must be relevant and practical for students. I certainly believe that citizenship and a curriculum covering personal, social and health education will give those opportunities.
I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply. I hope that all the different aspects can be addressed. I shall be grateful if she can tell us whether it is true that we are the only country in Europe that does not educate our young people to be politically aware and to participate in the community. We must do it: it is a vital part of the whole of education. I very much hope that that aspect can be strengthened.
9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I too greatly welcome the report. Citizenship education has an important part to play in preparing young people for the responsibilities and opportunities of adult life. It can be a way to overcome the sense of frustration, powerlessness and exclusion from which a considerable tranche of our young people today suffer.
456
There are two aspects of the report that I particularly like. One is its emphasis on "learning outcomes" rather than on the syllabus. The other is its emphasis on learning about democracy by experience through involvement in community projects and volunteering, and in particular through democracy in schools. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Elton Report. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not present as he might have told us more about it. That report drew attention to the multiple advantages which derive from democracy in schools. It discovered that democracy in schools was linked to good behaviour. Therefore there is a pay off for the school itself. Children learn through experience and they have a sense of ownership of the rules if they have at least been involved in discussing the rules and the behaviour policy of the school. That sense of ownership may well be an important paradigm for the adult community too. Do people in this country have a sense of ownership?
However, there is a caveat. Citizenship education will not be effective unless the Government practise what they preach. Children are quick to spot insincerity. I do not think that the spectacle of a Conservative government which over an enormous number of years continuously transferred power from local government to Whitehall was a good way to demonstrate the power of local democracy. As I am a fair and equal-minded Cross-Bencher I must also say that nor do I think that the spectacle of the new Labour Government transferring power from Parliament to Brussels and from Parliament to the party machine is a good example for young people of parliamentary democracy.
I wish to make one rather more negative comment about the report. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has already referred to the pressure on the curriculum. I suggest that this report is not really written in context. It is as if it believes that citizenship education is the only thing that matters. Of course citizenship education matters but there are a great many other things that matter too. There are a great many subjects jockeying for a place in the new curriculum. Many of them to some extent overlap as regards the disciplines, skills and knowledge which they seek to transfer to children. At this moment the Government have five groups working on issues connected with personal development. There is education for sustainable development, citizenship education, personal, social and health education. There is a group concerned with creativity and culture and, finally, the National Forum on Shared Values. In addition to those—perhaps this somehow meshes in with them—there is sex and relationships education. In my view that is tremendously important. There is also careers education and parenting education. That is also tremendously important in my view.
Therefore there is a need for more joined-up thinking. Fortunately the Government, in the form of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, have foreseen this. I understand that they have set up a co-ordinating group, the PAL group, which is the Preparation for Adult Life Group. Has the PAL group reported yet and, if so, do the Government propose to disclose its findings and recommendations to Parliament? It seems to me that

457
if they do not do so that will once again send the wrong message to young people as regards a lack of respect for parliamentary democracy. Therefore I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of the group's conclusions when she replies to the debate this evening.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to speak in a debate where there has been almost unanimous agreement on all sides of the House that we need to do something urgently with regard to implementing the recommendations of this excellent report.
As a Liberal Democrat, it is difficult for me not to agree with the report. It is one of our core beliefs that Britain should become an active democracy in which as many citizens as possible take part. That is part of the wider belief we have that every citizen should be given the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. We have failed to give our citizens the best chance to achieve both those aims. That has been obvious to me throughout most of my adult life. It became even more obvious to me when I was an elected member of a city authority for nine years and then a Member of Parliament for four years. My surgery workload could have been more than halved if we had been more successful in educating our citizens in the widest sense. I remember enabling people to take part in public inquiries and to speak about what concerned them in their local areas. I perhaps occasionally saved young people from becoming homeless and I certainly gave advice to families who were in danger of having their homes repossessed.
As I said, I believe we are in agreement on the principles of this matter, but we appear to be rather worried as regards reaching agreement on the way forward and where we go from here. Listening to the debate tonight I was relieved to discover that we have done away with the idea that somehow education for citizenship involves political indoctrination. The report does much to encourage belief in that change and emphasises how important it is to involve a wide range of bodies and individuals from outside schools in the process of citizenship education. Today, of course, information technology enables a wide range of views, opinions and practice to be made available in our schools. I believe this will be helpful for teachers, who will perhaps be the key people responsible for enabling this wide programme to become an integral part of the present curriculum.
Originally I thought my speech would be limited to three minutes. I am pleased to be able to spend just a little time talking about the role of the teacher, which has not been much touched on tonight. Teachers will be a little relieved. I congratulate the Crick Report on recommending that the statutory entitlement should be established by specific learning outcomes rather than the spelling out of detailed programmes of study. We on these Benches believe that the professionalism of teachers should be respected when it comes to how these outcomes should be reached.
458
There has been very understandable anxiety amongst teachers on an issue discussed here tonight. Many noble Lords have spoken about further crowding of the curriculum. Part of the answer, as set out in the document, is surely a modular approach. No one is saying that citizenship education needs to go on every week at the same time. Blocks of time, visiting speakers and trips to see democracy at work will probably have a much more lasting impact. It is important for us to recognise the professionalism of teachers and to allow them to decide what best suits their way of working.
Summing up, citizenship education is not only a matter of understanding our democratic processes; our young people need to understand how to function in the adult world. They need to gain access to all the opportunities that are open to them. We all want a society of responsible citizens who understand about coping with their personal finances, taxation and the duty they have to make our society a decent place to live.
We on these Benches urge the Government to make a reality of the recommendations in this Report. We all recognise that this cannot be done at once, as it says in paragraph 4.9. There is the tale of a French general at a frontier post in the desert urging that trees should be planted to provide shade. He was told that only one species of tree would grow there and that it took 80 years to mature. "My God", he said, "we have not got a moment to lose". I suggest that neither have we. This year we shall see in Britain elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly with a new proportional electoral system; we will elect our members of the European Parliament under a new proportional electoral system; we shall also see this year the beginning of the reform of this House. We do not have a moment to lose.
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for this opportunity.
To be suggesting compulsory implementation of the recommendations in the final report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship is disturbing. in that there is considerable uncertainty on some aspects of the Report. I have time only to flag one or two practical concerns and to pose some questions. However, let me preface my specific remarks by recognising the importance of young people growing up with an understanding of how our democratic institutions work within the context of national and international institutions, with an understanding of democratic processes and a developing commitment to participate in those processes, and with the capacity to address the issue of rights with responsibilities, together with the vexed issue of values.
However, it is somewhat of an indictment to be proposing a specific and compulsory subject within the curriculum which is to be measured and inspected by Ofsted. It has always been the case that good schools and effective parenting make good citizens. It is implicit in the way a good school operates. Voluntary activity is very real in this country. My right honourable friend John Major initiated the "make a difference" initiative. All the work done on that has shown that this country has

459
a higher development of voluntary commitment among its people, including its young, than almost any other country in the world.
I am conscious too that reference in paragraph 3.17 to the low number of responses expressed a variety of views about what programmes the work should cover. There was absolutely no consensus on the aims and purposes—or even what citizenship education was. Can I ask the Minister, if another 5 per cent. of the curriculum is to be used up, what must be sacrificed? Who will fund the teacher training, the additional inspection hours, the curriculum materials and so forth? It is true that my right honourable friend has proposed a rather radical solution to this. It will be a brave Minister who adds to the school day at no cost to the taxpayer.
If we are not careful, curriculum overload will be the result. For example, how can outside agencies be forced to co-operate or, indeed, held to account? Will there be an opportunity for parents to exercise an opt-out for their own children, especially as controversial subjects are to be addressed? For example, will religious education in the curriculum be protected as a core subject available to all children, subject, of course, to the opt-out clause? What safeguards will the Government put in place to guard against undue political bias and/or propaganda in the classroom? Whose values will be taught and whose moral code will children be required to accept?
Sadly, we live in times when it is common for politicians to regard abortion, extra-marital sex as long as the individuals wear protection, and the lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex as acceptable. Are we therefore to expect government diktat on these matters? Will those who hold Christian values be protected? Will Christian values be at the heart of the implementation of this report? The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made reference to the move away from Christian values. Is the noble Lord advocating a return to them? If that is the case, I shall support him. If there is to be no control over the content of the subject but outcomes are to be measured, how will that be achieved and how can the safeguards for which I have asked be delivered?
America has been held up as a good example. I do not know how many noble Lords have visited America in recent years. All I can say is that turnouts for elections are lamentable. There is an extremely poor turnout of citizens to vote for their judges, their education boards and politicians. I would not look to America for an example of citizenship.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. Education is not value free. I believe strongly—I believe that children should be taught this—that marriage is the cornerstone of our communities. However, not all schools and not all teachers believe in that. A sense of right and wrong is very important and Christian values are very important, but that is not always agreed by others in education.
Finally, if the Government are to press ahead with implementation, will they guard against the reintroduction of political correctness into our schools? Time prevents us all from doing justice to this subject. I hope that we shall be able to return to it when more time is provided for debate.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for giving me the opportunity to speak about the Government's plans for citizenship education. For many years he has been a powerful advocate for effective citizenship, both in a personal capacity and through the work of the organisation which he chairs, the Citizenship Foundation. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we have had too little time to give the report the attention it deserves. With the notable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who is something of a sceptic, every other speaker in the debate has endorsed Professor Crick's report.
The Government see citizenship education as central to our drive to create a modern and inclusive society where everyone has a stake in its future and the opportunity to contribute. It will help us to give our young people the understanding and motivation needed to survive in community life, to fulfil their responsibilities and to make political and economic decisions. Most importantly, it will help them to understand that in a democracy there are different points of view which should be respected; it will help them to appreciate that their actions have effects on others and that they should care about the consequences of their actions; and it will also help them to recognise the essential value of democracy as a means of resolving the competing interests which exist in all complex societies.
I wish to confirm to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that we are alone among our European partners and a great many other developed countries in not having formal citizenship education in the curriculum. Yet promoting liberal democratic, plural values and stimulating moral, critical thinking are essential to building a healthy society. In the UK there are worrying indicators of a democratic deficit which none of us can afford to ignore.
In the local elections last May, many people did not vote—as many as 90 per cent. in one or two of the most disadvantaged areas of the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned, some 80 per cent. of the British school pupils surveyed for research by Professor Ivor Crewe of Essex University in 1996 said that they engaged in very little discussion of public issues and only 10 per cent. mentioned voting or exercising political rights as an example of good citizenship. That should concern us all.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham referred to abstentions among young people at general elections, which are now running at over 30 per cent.—again a matter for concern. A Demos survey of 18 to 34 year-olds in Britain showed distrust of core institutions and a third taking pride in being outside the mainstream, identifying only with their own sub-cultures.
To be citizens in any meaningful way, all young people, and especially those who are struggling with disadvantage, need to be able to exploit opportunities to learn throughout their lives and develop the knowledge, skills and aptitudes to participate fully in society, including exercising their right to vote in elections. There is an important role for schools in helping young people to understand their rights and duties as citizens.

461
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment set up the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools under the "irrepressible" Professor Bernard Crick—that was the very good adjective used by my noble friend Lord Judd to describe him—to help us develop an effective framework for teaching citizenship in schools. The group was fortunate to have been able to benefit from the significant and helpful work of the Speaker's Commission set up by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which reported in 1990. I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and I am sure all noble Lords would agree that we are indebted to him and to the commission for raising the profile of citizenship education and encouraging the activities of a number of organisations in this field.
The citizenship advisory group's final report, published in September, makes a powerful and persuasive case for citizenship education. I am pleased that it has been widely welcomed in this debate. The Government understand well why the group recommended that education for citizenship should be an entitlement for all pupils and welcome its view of that entitlement as comprising the three interlinked strands mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, of social and moral responsibility; community involvement; and political literacy. All three are important if we are to give our young people an education that is relevant to their lives and equips them to be responsible citizens.
It is not enough to tell young people about Parliament and political parties. We must help them to develop their formal knowledge of politics together with an appreciation of its value as a means of bringing about change through negotiation, the law and government. We must help young people to develop the skills of inquiry, reflection and debate—so that they are then able to make their voices heard. That is of little use, of course, unless we also help them to reason, to distinguish between facts and values and to exercise social and moral responsibility. And it has no practical effect unless we give young people opportunities to take responsibility and action in their own communities to change things for the better.
The citizenship advisory group's report is a major input into the review of the national curriculum. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which is carrying out the review, is also considering advice from the advisory groups for personal, social and health education; sustainable development; and creative and cultural education; and its own work on spiritual, moral and cultural development.
I want to make absolutely clear that citizenship will not replace other areas such as history, religious education or personal, social and health education. It will complement them. Each has a contribution to make, underpinned by spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would support as important, not least in encouraging and informing the exploration of values and moral issues.
462
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also spoke of the moral basis for citizenship, and that is reflected in the important and timely work that he and his Foundation for Citizenship have been doing, including the Good Citizenship awards in Merseyside.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned the importance of learning from experience and giving young people a sense of ownership of their own learning. He asked about the PAL group. The work of that group has informed the QCA in drawing up its advice. The Government will consider the QCA's advice and later on, when we have settled on firm proposals, we shall consult on them.
The fruitful connections to be made with all the areas I have mentioned and others highlighted in the citizenship advisory report must be developed. We want to help schools make the most of them. But the important thing will be to ensure that there is coherent provision across the curriculum. We are determined, above all, that citizenship is introduced in a way which supports our drive to raise overall standards and does not cause unnecessary disruption in schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, a distinguished and valued member of the citizenship advisory group, have spoken about our shared commitment to education for citizenship. They rightly draw attention to the need to ensure that schools have both time and resources to deliver it. I appreciate those concerns and can assure their Lordships that we shall consider them very carefully with the advice that we shall receive from the QCA. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said about the number of hours taught each week—not, I think, a longer school day, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested.
Much can be done in the classroom. But we need to give young people wider opportunities to become involved in making things happen. Study support—the name which we give to out-of-school learning activities—can offer these opportunities and help us to create well-motivated, independent young people who will become lifelong learners, something which is dear to my heart. Giving young people responsibility for their own development and enabling them to take part in decision-making is crucial to active citizenship.
Study support creates opportunities for young people to get involved with their school as a community. As a Government, we are committed to creating more opportunities in this respect. That is why we are making £180 million of lottery money available across the UK to fund high-quality study support programmes.
Millennium volunteers, which we shall launch in England shortly and in the rest of the UK separately, will encourage community involvement beyond schools. It will support young people aged 16 to 24 in making a sustained commitment to volunteering as regards activities which benefit the community.
My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone mentioned the importance of environmental education. Towards the end of last year the Government launched the Children's Parliament on the Environment, which will be for

463
11 year-olds. I believe that that will be important in stimulating pupils' commitment to having good environmental policies.
The youth services, voluntary groups and the further and higher education sectors also play their part, often in partnership with the various citizenship education groups. I can mention here the Common Purpose "Your Turn" project and the Council for Education in World Citizenship, of which my noble friend Lord Judd is honorary vice-president. He mentioned the importance of young people understanding interdependence in the global world, a view which the advisory group shares. There are also the community service volunteers, changemakers, the Institute for Citizenship and, of course, the Hansard Society, to mention a few. We shall want to draw on the expertise of all these different groups.
The citizenship advisory group's report shows how schools already help their pupils to learn about democratic institutions. We are not starting with a blank sheet. There are many different practical activities that take place in schools and in their communities. I can give many examples but unfortunately I do not have time this evening.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying a few words about next steps. We shall establish a framework that builds on good practice and extends it nationally. We shall make connections with the good work that is taking place up and down the country through youth work and in further
464
education, HE and in our schools. Undoubtedly, there will be some anxieties about how the development of citizenship education across all schools will work. There are bound to be training and resource issues and legitimate concerns and questions about the demands upon, and the capacity of, teachers and schools in any changes to the curriculum. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we shall consider all of those issues carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said quite rightly that citizenship education was not about indoctrination. We shall seek to reassure those who have any worries about that. I am more optimistic about it than the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This has always been an issue in other areas such as history and English, but teachers are aware of the potential difficulties and, as other speakers have said, are professional in dealing with them. There are also safeguards in law to guard against biased and unbalanced teaching. We should not be afraid of teaching about controversial issues. It is essential in a democracy to understanding citizenship.
I assure all those who have taken part in the debate that the Government will give education for citizenship and democracy a high profile in the reshaped curriculum from the year 2000. We shall certainly not pigeonhole it but shall support its development within and beyond the curriculum in the years to come.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.