Sitting of 20 January 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Martin Redmond Esq., Member for Don Valley. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and his friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is public expenditure in Wales per head of population as a percentage of the figure for England [9907]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): In 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available, identifiable general Government expenditure in Wales per head was 116 per cent. of that in England.
    Mr. Jenkin: Although a representative of an English constituency and a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Scottish Office Minister, may I nevertheless offer my right hon. Friend congratulations to Wales on the result of the rugby international on Saturday?
    If the Government were promising to increase spending on health and pensions—and promising sabbaticals for teachers—while promising to hold the level of taxation at the level set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would that not be deeply dishonest and misleading to the British people?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend's comments about Saturday's match will be welcomed by all Welsh Members in the House. It was a magnificent advertisement for the game of rugby—the beginning of what we hope will be a magnificent run-up to the rugby world cup at Cardiff in 1999. Opposition Members should reflect that it just goes to show that teams that are written off at the beginning of the season can soon come back and win.
    My hon. Friend is right: it would be an example of extraordinary double standards and double-speak to vote against every measure to control public spending, against the reduction in benefits for asylum seekers and against
    602
    the Jobseekers Bill, while maintaining that one agreed with the total plans for public spending. That extraordinary double-speak raises the question: if the public spending plans are agreed by all, how would Opposition Members finance the time-wasting and self-defeating load of hot air that they call an assembly?
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Secretary of State recall his announcement, just a few months ago, on public expenditure in Wales, when he said that the national health service in Wales would receive a year-on-year real terms increase in expenditure? Can he therefore explain why Dyfed-Powys health authority announced on 20 December that, because of its financial crisis, it planned possibly to close eight community hospitals, to change the role of another six out of the total of 19, and to make cuts at all four district general hospitals? The hospital in my constituency has revealed that that would mean the closure of one acute ward. How does the right hon. Gentleman square those two statements, which were made just a few weeks apart? Does he agree that the Dyfed-Powys health authority is significantly underfunded by the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Hague: No. I have made it clear that the NHS was the principal beneficiary of the public spending decisions that I announced in November. In every year of the coming Parliament, a Conservative Government will ensure that spending on the NHS in Wales is increased over and above inflation—a commitment that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has refused to match. It will not have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) that there are many demands on the health service, and that health service managers must choose between priorities. The proposals by Dyfed-Powys health authority to which the hon. Gentleman referred are for consultation; they are not being implemented at this moment. It must choose between priorities, but it and all other parts of the NHS in Wales will continue to benefit from the increased resources that we have delivered, which we have promised for the future, but which Opposition Members fail to guarantee.
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a level of public expenditure that is so high that the shadow Chancellor says that there is no need to increase it. How does the shadow Chancellor square that with the request of individual Labour Members to increase every item of public expenditure? Does my right hon. Friend think that that is because the shadow Chancellor is wise enough not to read his colleagues' speeches, or sufficiently innumerate not to be able to add up the sums?
    Mr. Hague: Not only does the shadow Chancellor evidently not agree with many Opposition Members, who persistently call for higher spending: he does not agree with himself and the way he has voted over the past few years in this Parliament. The people of Wales need to worry about whether changes to our constitutional arrangements would result in significantly and permanently lower public spending per head in Wales. If there were to be a Welsh Assembly, there could be no guarantee that the public spending formula would be

    603
    preserved. Those who would rip up our constitutional arrangements show a reckless disregard for the true interests of Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State was shouting for Wales on Saturday; I wonder whether he will be doing that when Wales plays England on 15 March.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that what he has described as identifiable public expenditure does not include large tracts of public spending, such as defence? Wales gets only 1.5 per cent. of defence procurement, while 55 per cent. goes to south-east England. Compared with Ireland, Wales does poorly out of the European Union: Ireland receives £478 a head whereas Wales receives £45 a head. If Wales had a Parliament of its own, with a voice in Europe, we would be doing much better than we do under the right hon. Gentleman's regime.
    Mr. Hague: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be cheering for Wales in any rugby match against anybody, including England—although I might stay out of a cricket match between Glamorgan and Yorkshire. I shall, however, be cheering for Wales against England.
    Defence is not included in identifiable Government expenditure, which was the basis of my answer to the question. If the hon. Gentleman honestly believes that we should swap our economic circumstances with those of Ireland, where unemployment is dramatically higher than in Wales and when Wales is benefiting from record inward investment, he must be out of his mind.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: My right hon. Friend has mentioned a Welsh Assembly twice. Will he explain the difference between a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly? Will he also—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That point does not relate to the question.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Jenkins that the Opposition would welcome in the House today is not the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), but Neil, who scored 19 of our points on Saturday in Edinburgh? Does he agree that the Opposition and the bulk of the Welsh nation also look forward to the day in June 1999 when there will not only be a Welsh Assembly, but Wales will be playing New Zealand, or possibly South Africa, in the final of the rugby world cup in Cardiff?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have had enough of this knockabout: let us get on with the questions.
    Mr. Morgan: In the meantime, should we not concentrate on eliminating the waste and inefficiency in the Welsh Office, and the excess bureaucracy in the national health service, nursery vouchers and such nonsensical paper-chase schemes?
    Mr. Hague: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening sentiments about the rugby world cup final. I also agree about reducing waste in government. That is why I am reducing, in cash terms, the running costs of non-departmental public bodies in Wales and of the
    604
    Welsh Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all waste is being rooted out of the administration in Wales, but that still leaves the question how he and his colleagues would hope to finance their assembly.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authority (a) high schools and (b) primary schools he has visited to discuss education provision; and if he will make a statement. [9908]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): In the LEA-maintained sector, my right hon. Friend has visited eight high schools and six primary schools since July 1995. Since my appointment in June, I have visited four high schools and six primary schools. We have both discussed a range of education issues on those occasions. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), has also visited a number of schools. In fact, all three Welsh Office Ministers visited schools last week.
    Mr. Jones: Has not teacher morale nose-dived since the publication of the new pension arrangements? Is it not true that there has been a flood of applications for early retirement from teachers in Wales? Does he agree that schools now find it hard to employ mature teachers and that LEAs are strapped for cash?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to correct much of the misinformation relating to the Government's proposals that has been spread, not least by some Labour Members. Some 80 per cent. of teachers retire before the age of 60, and widespread concerns have been expressed about that, not least by the Government Actuary and the Public Accounts Committee, which have led to the consultation recently launched by the Department for Education and Employment. It is not the Government's aim in any way to do away with early retirement for teachers, as has been claimed. In fact, in the current settlement for the next financial year, we have funded on the basis of 75 per cent. of current retirement levels. I am bound to make the point, however, that four out of five teachers retiring before 60 means too much expertise being lost from our schools.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh Office Ministers have visited schools, have they noticed the size of classes, especially in primary schools? Is he satisfied with the share of the Welsh Office budget that goes to local authorities for education purposes which, this year, has increased by less than the rate of inflation? Can he explain why there are more than 5,000 more children in primary school classes of more than 30 children than there were at the beginning of the 1990s?
    Mr. Evans: When Welsh Office Ministers visit schools, we believe in being frank with teachers and I shall be frank with the hon. Gentleman. Since 1979, class sizes have not increased considerably—they are certainly slightly larger, but there is no greatly measurable difference. The point that I must make is that the Labour

    605
    party controls many of the local education authorities in Wales, and figures that I released last week show that the areas of Wales in which there are the largest class sizes are those that are controlled by the Labour party. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would be better employed directing his strictures to his friends in local government.

    Welsh Language
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the Welsh Language Act 1993. [9909]
    Mr. Hague: Excellent progress has been made in the three years since the Act became law. The Welsh Language Board has approved the Welsh language schemes of 21 public sector bodies and been active and successful in encouraging greater use of the language in the private and voluntary sectors. Late last year, the board published its "Strategy for the Welsh Language" which sets out clear priorities to build on recent advances and ensure that the language continues to prosper.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on emulating that eximious performance on Saturday, which we can no longer mention? His has been the first Government Department to produce an acceptable—indeed, splendid—scheme under the Welsh Language Act, and it has encouraged other Government Departments and public bodies in Wales to produce similar schemes, which will be of great benefit to the language. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that all that has been achieved at no unreasonable or inordinate cost?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. The Welsh Office scheme was approved by the Welsh Language Board last November. It took effect last week, and it has certainly been implemented without inordinate or significant cost. It is a sign of the tremendous commitment to the Welsh language of the present Government, who have done more for the Welsh language than any previous Government, largely thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend. We shall continue with our policies to secure the place of the Welsh language, not only in this country's heritage and culture, but in its future as well.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to attract inward investment to north Wales. [9910]
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of inward investment to Wales in 1996. [9911]
    Mr. Hague: More than 150 inward investment projects were recorded in 1996, promising about 15,000 new jobs and investment of more than £2.5 billion. Those exceptional results show that our policies are working well. North Wales is sharing in the success story, as projects by companies such as JCB and Toyo Seal clearly show. There is further good news today for north Wales.
    606
    I am pleased to announce that British Aerospace will be investing a further £45 million at Broughton in a project that will create 100 new jobs and safeguard a further 60.
    Mr. Richards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, in particular the welcome news of further inward investment to north Wales. I am sure that everyone will greet it with enthusiasm. It will reassure the people of north Wales that, under a Conservative Government, fair play is guaranteed.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour's proposed assembly in Cardiff, which would be dominated by the south Wales mafia, would discriminate against north Wales and deprive it of further much-needed inward investment? In short—new Labour, no new jobs.
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his reference to today's announcement by British Aerospace, which is a triumph for the Broughton work force. That plant plays a key part in an extremely successful European collaboration. It further enhances the reputation of Wales as a country that delivers world-class products. We should all be delighted by the news.
    My hon. Friend was also right to draw attention to the danger to future job programmes and the creation of more jobs of establishing an assembly. That is not the only danger represented by the Labour party—minimum wages, social chapters and all the other job-destroying nonsense in which it believes represent a danger to the growth of jobs in the country.
    Mr. Spring: Is not the Lucky Goldstar investment in south Wales the largest investment ever undertaken in Europe? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that Wales has been an important beneficiary of the massive investment flows into the United Kingdom that have been so successfully secured by this Conservative Government?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right—LG was not only the most spectacular success for Wales last year: it was the most spectacular success in securing investment anywhere in Europe in modern times. The benefits of that investment will flow to Wales for many years. None of the inward investment flowing into Wales on such a scale over the past 10 to 15 years would have happened if we had not secured low inflation through economic discipline and good industrial relations through changes in trade union law, or if we were still spending millions of pounds on grants to nationalised industries rather than on bringing investing firms into Britain.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a growing danger that inward investment is getting out of kilter in terms both of geography and of the nature of the investment? He will know that, in the area from Bridgend to Llanelli, there is a concentration of car component firms and manufacturing engineering skills. Is not it now time for the Welsh Office actively to pursue investment in a car assembly plant in that area, which could take advantage of those skills?
    Mr. Hague: Of course we would welcome a car assembly plant in Wales. It is something that we want to work on over the coming months and years. However, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the flow

    607
    of inward investment to Wales has helped to bring about the diversification of the Welsh economy, rather than its concentration. Now, it is an economy strong in automotive components but also in aerospace, electronics and medical devices. We want that diversification to continue. If ever it were to include a car assembly plant, I would be delighted.
    Mr. Llwyd: Welcome as today's announcement is, it is noteworthy that, once again, it is investment in the east of Wales. Just before Christmas, the Minister gave me an encouraging reply about dealing with the imbalance between investment in the east and in the west of Wales. Precisely what steps are being taken to redress that imbalance?
    Mr. Hague: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will not be churlish about investment going to the eastern parts—in this case, the north-eastern parts—of Wales, because it brings benefits to the whole of Wales and puts the whole of Wales on the map for international companies around the world. He is of course right to highlight the need to ensure that investment goes to the west of Wales as well. That is why I have asked the Development Board for Rural Wales to move 50 per cent. of its activity to the west. It is also why I set the Welsh Development Agency targets for investment outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. It is also why I have included in the WDA's budget for the forthcoming year money for the development of strategic sites, which must include sites in the west and north-west of Wales. We shall make every effort to ensure that all parts of Wales benefit from future investment.
    Mr. Sweeney: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how the Vale of Glamorgan has benefited hugely from inward investment and the provision of new, well-paid, high-tech jobs? In particular, can he tell the House about how more alternators are made by Bosch in Wales than at the parent plant in Stuttgart; and about how that plant supplies a great deal of the European motor industry? Can he further tell the House about Ford's successes at Bridgend, where the new V8 engine is being produced for the Jaguar sports car, which is selling brilliantly all over the world? Can he tell the House about the success of the development by Associated British Ports of the docks area; and about the help given by the Welsh Development Agency? Will he tell the House about the success of the British Airways maintenance base at Cardiff international airport, and about the several chemical plants—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apply to me for an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Hague: I would have told the House about those successes, but my hon. Friend has done it for me. I have seen many of them for myself—including the British Airways maintenance centre at Cardiff airport, the Dow Corning plant and other places in my hon. Friend's constituency. I wish that some of the publicity given in the past week to Ford's difficulties had been balanced by references in the national media to the tremendous investment and expansion undertaken by Ford at Bridgend.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I first ask you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on the wisdom of the Secretary of State's choosing to link these two questions? They seem quite distinct and better dealt with independently.
    608
    I extend a welcome to the news the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon about British Aerospace at Broughton. I had the pleasure of visiting that site late last year with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and the Leader of the Opposition. We were all impressed with the work of the trade unions, the management and other local interests in putting together that package, and its success is welcome news.
    Undoubtedly 1996 was a good year for inward investment. I assure the Secretary of State that the Welsh Development Agency will remain a very high priority under the revised spending programmes of any future Labour Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, however, that there is resentment among his colleagues in Cabinet at the devolution to the Welsh Office of the power to hid for outside projects? Will he therefore assure us that he will veto the suggestion being canvassed in the Conservative party that that power be stripped from the Welsh Office and centralised in Whitehall if his party is returned to power after the election?
    Mr. Hague: There is no question whatever of any such change in the powers of the Welsh Office.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that policies such as the minimum wage, the social chapter and more integration with Europe would damage inward investment, threaten our economic success and harm our sovereignty?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Employment in Wales has grown by 95,000 over the past 10 years, in large measure due to inward investment. It is greatly to the credit of the people of Wales that such investment has been made in Wales—and greatly to the credit of the Government. It will not continue at the same pace and in the same way under any other Government.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit Catalonia to examine the system of government. [9912]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): None.
    Mr. Mackinlay: While I recognise the big difference between the Government and the Opposition about the future governance of the United Kingdom, would it not be prudent for a Minister to investigate and explore the full domestic devolved government in Catalonia as a model for both Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree that the devolved government of Catalonia has not only strengthened Spanish democracy but is a model of subsidiarity that has enhanced the Catalan culture and language? No Catalan of great repute has any difficulty in identifying with Catalonia as well as Spain.
    Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend has led a trade mission to Catalonia, and met President Pujol. I too met President Pujol when he visited the Welsh Office and I formally received him. We are very familiar with the situation in Catalonia. I note that the Catalan national

    609
    party fared badly in the last elections because of its association with the Spanish equivalent of the Labour party. In an important poll recently undertaken in Wales among 3,000 electors, the Labour party's version of a Welsh Assembly was supported by only 12.2 per cent.; those who supported some form of assembly for Wales amounted to only 28.7 per cent.; and the largest number, who wanted no truck with it at all that, amounted to some 44.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, dismissive, but those 3,000 electors are important to me as they come from the Cardiff, North constituency.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the assisted places scheme on Welsh comprehensive schools. [9913]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have made no assessment. The assisted places scheme enhances parental choice and has proved popular with parents who could not otherwise have had their child educated in the independent sector.
    Mr. Flynn: Do not standards in all teams—in education and elsewhere—fall when high flyers are removed, and are not those standards restored when the stars return? Do not our schools need brilliant pupils in the same way as they need brilliant teachers? Are not our schools impoverished by the loss of high flyers and stars—those who set the pace, such as the Quinnells and the Gibbs? Would not school standards be restored if such pupils were allowed to continue to act as school leaders and pupils whom all other pupils seek to emulate? Why do the Government persist with a scheme that robs all our schools of their most brilliant pupils?
    Mr. Evans: Most assessments that I have heard of last Saturday's match say that Scott Gibbs, Scott Quinnell and Allan Bateman gained from the experience of rugby league and that that was what gave the extra edge to their play. The Government's policy increases choice and opportunity. At least the hon. Gentleman has the merit of consistency: he has always opposed choice in education. At the weekend, his local newspaper quoted him as saying that schemes such as the assisted place scheme rob council schools of pupils.
    The same could be said about the grant-maintained system, the independent system and the rest. His policy is to ensure that there is no choice or opportunity. Moreover, he is out of step with his own supporters. He may have noticed the MORI poll in The Times today, which shows that 64 per cent. of those who profess support for the Liberal Democrats and 55 per cent. of those who profess support for the Labour party approve of the assisted places scheme—so we shall no doubt see the Labour party's policy change tomorrow.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals, which he may have seen, to abolish the assisted places scheme are not properly costed, as they do not allow for those who would have to return to the state system if it were abolished? Will he also confirm that Labour's scheme is real, old, unreconstructed socialism, levelling everybody down to the lowest common denominator, instead of allowing those from poor families to rise to the limit of their abilities?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right; the Opposition's proposals are a fraud on the electorate. He is also right to
    610
    say that pupils will need to be educated, and cost is attached to that. The assisted places scheme budget is 0.27 per cent. of the total LEA schools budget in Wales, and we shall not revisit the subject for three years because the contractual obligation between the Government and the schools that are part of the scheme provides that the scheme should remain in operation for three years in any event. The Opposition claim that there would be additional money for education, but where would it come from?
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that the Education Bill, including provision for the assisted places scheme, is irrelevant to the needs of Wales and that if it were implemented it could be damaging? Does he accept that we need legislation in Wales to create a rational and effective education system targeted to our needs, and that that legislation should be devised and enacted in Wales? Is not a Parliament for Wales with legislative power urgently needed?
    Mr. Evans: I accept that the majority of children in Wales will continue to be educated in local education authority schools. The hon. Gentleman and the Opposition parties are hostile to the choice and opportunity presented by parents and governors choosing to go down the grant-maintained route, by the existence of the independent sector and by the promotion of opportunities for a limited number of children to participate in the assisted places scheme. I do not understand how a well-meaning person like the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate such hostility to the choice and opportunity available to young people in Wales.

    Welsh Assembly
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on a referendum for a Welsh Assembly. [9914]
    Mr. Hague: Three.
    Mr. Hendry: That is an unbelievable reply. Does not my right hon. Friend find it astonishing that only one person in a million in Wales has bothered to make representations on that centrepiece of Labour party policy? Does not that show that the people of Wales are not prepared to put inward investment and their new jobs at risk by going down that line? Does it not show also that they know that they would end up paying more in taxes to pay for a Welsh Assembly, and that a Labour Government in Wales would end in tears there, as it would in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend's suspicions may be right. In any referendum, the people of Wales would not vote for such a time-wasting and self-defeating charade. The encouraging news for the people of Wales is that an increasing number of Opposition Members would not vote for such a time-wasting and self-defeating charade. Two more Opposition Members announced last week that they would oppose the policy of the Labour party in any referendum—the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell). That news was greeted, ludicrously, by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) with the statement, "We shall be

    611
    fighting a united campaign." I am pleased that an increasing number of Opposition Members will join us in arguing at the general election against a referendum on an assembly, against an assembly and against the construction of a body that would be against the true interests of Wales.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the fact that only three people bothered to write to the Secretary of State suggest, rather, that people see no relevance in writing to a lame-duck leader of a lame-duck Government?
    Mr. Hague: There is a lot of quacking to come from us yet. The number of representations shows that the people of Wales regard the subject of devolution as an utter irrelevance to their future. They know that the real way to ensure the continuation of the jobs that have been flowing into Wales in recent years is to continue with the policies and constitutional arrangements that have been in place for many years.
    Mr. Robathan: When my right hon. Friend considers those three representations, will he bear in mind the fact that Wales is a nation, and that that is important in considering a separate assembly or parliament? Will he consider carefully who should be able to vote? Will people who live in England but who were born in Wales be allowed to vote? Surely they are members of that nation. Will those who live in Wales, such as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who comes from South Africa, be allowed to vote? Should not—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman get the question off his chest, and do so rapidly? We have many questions to get through, and I have a lot of Welsh Members to call.
    Mr. Robathan: Madam Speaker, I shall be applying for an Adjournment debate, of course.
    Will my right hon. Friend consider whether all citizens of the United Kingdom should be allowed to determine whether Wales has a separate assembly?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend raises some interesting questions about whether everyone in the United Kingdom should vote on something that affects the whole United Kingdom—and certainly whether all Welsh people should have a vote rather than only those who are resident in Wales at the time. If we were to witness the tragedy of a Labour Government, Labour Members would have to resolve that question, as well as the question whether their colleagues would be allowed to say what they think in a referendum rather than swallowing the party line that they do not believe is in the true interests of Wales.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Madam Speaker, I must protest: the Secretary of State is attempting to answer questions about Labour party policy, and I put it to you that that is quite improper. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman gets so hot under the collar about the prospects of our having a say in our own affairs.
    According to the latest independent polls in Wales, 78 per cent. of Welsh people from all walks of life support Labour's plan for a referendum about our proposals for constitutional change. Does the Secretary of State know
    612
    that last week a group of prominent business men and women in Wales declared their determination to campaign for a yes vote in any future referendum? They understand—presumably the Secretary of State will consider the matter—that a stronger voice in Europe, a distinctive marketing identity and strong public-private partnerships in an open and democratic framework offer a unique opportunity to improve the performance of the Welsh economy. Why does he want to deny us the right to have a say about our destiny? Is it because he enjoys his powers of patronage on behalf of the Conservative party or because he thinks we get better government under the quango state?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman criticises me for answering questions about Labour party policy, but someone has to answer such questions. The last time we asked the hon. Gentleman about Labour party policy regarding an electoral system, he took months to answer and, when he did, two Labour Members joined the opposite camp immediately. That is the kind of answer that we get from the hon. Gentleman.
    As for the opinions of business people regarding an assembly, a recent Confederation of British Industry survey found that two out of three businesses believe that an assembly would have a negative economic impact on Wales—and they are right. According to the Institute of Directors, three quarters of businesses surveyed did not want an assembly—and they are right also.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Wales, relative to that in (a) the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [9915]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: For like-for-like comparison purposes, the labour force survey in autumn 1996 found that the unemployment rate in Wales was 8.2 per cent. compared with 7.9 per cent. in the United Kingdom. The European Union average rate in October 1996 was 10.9 per cent.
    Mr. Coombs: Is not unemployment now far higher in Germany than in Wales? Is that not a consequence of the fact that more and more German firms are relocating their investment to Wales because they recognise the advantages of doing so? Is it not also a fact that, for every German who will lose his job as a consequence, there is another who is beginning to wish that Germany had never signed up to the social chapter and the other high social costs with which the German economy is now burdened?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) will explain in the Adjournment debate that you have offered him, Madam Speaker, Bosch is achieving far greater productivity in the manufacture of alternators in Vale of Glamorgan than in its plants in Germany. The labour force survey is but a snapshot: the official figures, which were announced last week,

    613
    show that Wales is doing better still. Unemployment is falling fast in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and is down to 7.4 per cent. and 6.7 per cent. respectively. That compares with the expanding European figure, which increased by another 0.3 per cent. in the last quarter.
    Mr. Hain: Nobody believes the Government's unemployment figures, because they are fiddled. Britain's unemployment situation looks as good as it does in comparison with that of European countries because the figures have been fiddled downwards. Why does the Minister not recognise other figures that reflect the economic inactivity rate? They show that economic inactivity among men of working age is higher in Wales than anywhere else in mainland Britain. What will he do about the hidden joblessness rate in Wales?
    Mr. Jones: It is plain that the hon. Gentleman and his party are bereft of arguments when all that they can trot out is the lame claim that the unemployment figures are fiddled. On any comparison, two facts are self-evident: unemployment in Wales and the United Kingdom generally is falling fast, although it remains too high. That is why I cannot understand Labour's slavish devotion to the minimum wage, the social chapter and—to the particular disadvantage of Wales—the imposition of a Welsh Assembly, with all that that would do to deter the inward investment that we have won until now.

    School Financial Procedures
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures exist to allow him to assist a school that finds itself in financial difficulties; and how often he has aided a school by use of such procedures in each of the past three years. [9916]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Responsibility for the funding of local education authority maintained schools rests with unitary authorities. It is open to LEAs to include in their local management of schools schemes arrangements to defer recovery of any overspends until subsequent financial years.
    Mr. Touhig: Cwmcarn school in my constituency had a cumulative deficit of £116,000 in the three-year period 1992–95. Accounts published by the school appear to show that the deficit has not been carried forward, but has been written off. Have those debts been written off? If so, did the Secretary of State agree to that, and will he be as generous with other schools in my constituency that are facing similar problems?
    Mr. Evans: My earlier reply related to the LEA-maintained sector. As for grant-maintained schools, it is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a loan to any school that finds itself in financial difficulties. To date, it has not been necessary to use that power.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [9938]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The key to effective and efficient prosecutions is close co-operation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Both services are tackling this together through joint performance management to provide early advice to police officers, to improve the timeliness and quality of police files and to reduce paperwork and speed up communications by the increased use of information technology.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service is doing a good job, but there are concerns about the fact that many cases referred to it by the police are not pursued. That causes concern and bitterness in the minds and hearts of the victims of crime, because they fear that they are not getting support from the CPS. The same is true of lenient sentences—the CPS seems to have a weakness of not appealing against them. Will the Attorney-General assure me that those issues will be followed up and that there will be greater efficiency in the CPS on the points that I have raised?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition that, generally, the CPS does a good job. It gets many brickbats and it deserves a bit of praise. He says that some cases brought by the police are not pursued by the CPS. I invite him to write to me with any details that he has on that. He will have heard me say before in the House that I have looked into such claims time and again. Very seldom are those worries—sincere though they are—borne out by the facts. The CPS keeps in close touch with the police. In 75 per cent. of cases, it discusses the issue with the police before dropping a case. In only 4 per cent. of cases that are discussed do they disagree—a tiny proportion.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned unduly lenient sentences. He should completely acquit the CPS of any suggestion that it has failed to deal with unduly lenient sentences. The majority of sentences that I, as Attorney-General, refer are brought to my attention by the CPS, which keeps a close watch on the issue, as well as on cases brought by members of the public and by Members. I am glad to have an opportunity to make that clear.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist all calls, made in the name of efficiency, to give the Crown Prosecution Service the right of audience in the higher courts? That would seriously undermine the strength of the junior Bar and lead inevitably to the abolition of the separation between solicitors and barristers, which is one of the strengths of our criminal justice system.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. He will know that an application by the Law Society on behalf of employed

    615
    solicitors, both generally and in the CPS, is currently before the four senior judges of England and Wales. As for my personal position, I see a case for the CPS to have some power to go into the Crown courts, but on a limited basis. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I stand four square with him on the importance of the independent Bar, and the importance of doing nothing to weaken its long-term position, which is vital to the proper administration of justice.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General satisfied with the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and the investigators in the war crimes case of Regina v. Serafinowicz? What did the case cost, and what action does the Attorney-General now propose for other cases that are in the pipeline?
    More generally—not with reference to those cases—what is the Attorney-General's view of the expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the organisation of the CPS, the setting up of which I continue to support? In particular, what is his opinion of the MORI poll commissioned by the First Division Association of civil servants, which reported that 90 per cent. of its member respondents believed that the CPS had become worse since they joined it, and that those who spoke up when they disagreed with senior managers could damage their career prospects? Is it not time that an inquiry was conducted?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me a fistful of questions, which I shall try to answer succinctly. First, let me answer his question about the war crimes case against Semion Serafinowicz, which stopped on Friday when a jury found him unfit to plead and I issued a nolle prosequi. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman definitely that the case was skilfully, carefully and scrupulously investigated and prosecuted by the police and the CPS. The matter came before the chief metropolitan magistrate last year, and he was perfectly satisfied that there was abundant evidence to commit to trial. All legal arguments were carried out at the end of last year before the trial judge, who was also satisfied that there was a proper case to go to trial; but, of course, when the defendant was unfit to plead it was absolutely proper to bring it to a close, as I did. That is what a nolle prosequi does.
    The total costs of the war crimes investigations to the end of last year—to date, effectively—are approximately £6 million for the Metropolitan police and £2 million for the CPS, but that covers not only the Serafinowicz case but 369 other cases that were investigated, some very briefly because people were soon found to be dead and there was nothing further to pursue, and others in greater detail. There remain five cases in regard to which investigations continue.
    Let me turn to the wider question of the MORI poll on the organisation of the CPS, which we have discussed before. I believe that the CPS, in which people work extremely hard, is very well organised. Only a small sample replied to the poll, which was conducted only within members of the FDA. About 12 per cent. of the entire CPS responded, which did not give a balanced picture. A much more balanced picture was given by the
    616
    CPS's own poll, which was carried out on a much wider basis and which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Sweeney: Has a pilot study of the CPS in Wales been conducted and, if so, with what result?
    The Attorney-General: Yes. A pilot study of the CPS monitoring system has been conducted in Wales—the system whereby its own inspectorate has carried out its first pilot project in Wales. I have not yet seen a report, but I believe that the House will greatly welcome the establishment of the inspectorate, which will ensure high and consistent standards throughout the country.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has for further deregulation proposals within his office. [9939]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible have no regulatory functions to which the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 applies. However, the Crown Prosecution Service continues to work with the police to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens in the prosecution of crime.
    Mr. Flynn: Rational deregulation is to be welcomed, but has not the ideologically inspired deregulation of the Crown Prosecution Service left it in a sad position? Morale is at rock bottom and public confidence is at a low ebb. The CPS is thought to pursue trivial offenders when it has a strong case, whereas serious offenders are allowed to run free if the case is weaker. Is not the result of the CPS's conviction-at-all-costs policy that trivial offenders are convicted, whereas many serious offenders get away with it?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's criticisms are entirely misplaced. He talks about morale, but if he and certain of his hon. Friends visited the CPS more often and looked at what it does, they would launch into ill-judged criticism less frequently. The best way in which to help the CPS with morale is to stop criticising it unfairly.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to remove the obligation from the Crown Prosecution Service and the prosecuting authorities to prosecute cases under the War Crimes Act 1991 if there is adequate evidence?
    The Solicitor-General: I appeared in front of Mr. Justice Potts in Sheffield for three days between 17 and 19 December. He heard arguments that the case amounted to an abuse of process, in part based on the lapse of time since the events took place. After he had heard all the arguments, he concluded that there was no abuse of process and that the case was fit to proceed. The case came to an end last week only because a jury found that the defendant's mental state, which had declined rapidly in the past six months, did not allow him to be tried. The principle, however, is plain: if there is

    617
    evidence—and there was in that case—and if the defendant is fit to be tried, we will prosecute firmly and resolutely.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to announce the results of his review of public interest immunity certificates. [9940]
    The Attorney-General: I made a statement to the House on the Government's new approach to public interest immunity on 18 December 1996. A paper setting out the Government's conclusions was placed in the Library.
    Mr. Cohen: Does not the announced reform of the public interest immunity certificate system amount to a success for Lord Justice Scott? Would not the Government still have used it, even under the new system, to thwart justice in the Matrix Churchill case? Is the Attorney-General able to confirm that the blanket ban will go, and that real harm and damage to the public interest will have to be proved to a judge in every case? Will not that new system still facilitate cover-ups, especially in cases involving breaches of arms embargoes, the Prison Service and the police?
    The Attorney-General: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I emphasise very strongly that there were no cover-ups through public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case. It is about time that he realised that.
    We consulted widely and paid great attention to the advice of Sir Richard Scott and the many others who responded. As I told the House on 18 December, the new test—that a certificate will be issued only if the documents or information in question, if disclosed, would be likely to cause real harm or real damage—was recommended by the Lord Chief Justice and adopted by the Government.
    As I also told the House, many of the problems were put aside when the House of Lords, in the case of ex parte Wiley in 1994—two years after the Matrix Churchill case—changed the system and gave Ministers much more discretion. The hon. Gentleman will want to have those three important points well in mind.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem with the Matrix Churchill
    618
    and other arms-to-Iraq cases involving public interest immunity certificates was that Ministers did not have discretion about whether to use them? Will he confirm that the new system will allow such discretion and will permit Ministers to attach notes describing the exact problem in each case?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, my hon. Friend is right that one of the reasons for such wide misconceptions about the use of certificates in the Matrix Churchill case was that Ministers had little discretion and it was necessary to have more certificates than would now be the case. My hon. Friend will also realise that the matter was distorted out of proportion. Those who have followed it carefully will realise that.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the current success rate of the Crown Prosecution Service in the north-west. [9941]
    The Solicitor-General: The north-west area of the Crown Prosecution Service makes a strong contribution to the overall success of the service. The number and proportion of cases discontinued has been reduced to below the national average and conviction rates in the magistrates and Crown courts are 98.5 per cent. and 91.6 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Thurnham: What are the Law Officers doing to increase the number of convictions of child sex offenders, in view of the low conviction rates, which are currently estimated at below 5 per cent., and mounting public concern about scandals in child care homes in the north-west?
    The Solicitor-General: The law has been changed a number of times in recent years. Normally, a child complainant in such a case will make the original complaint to a social worker, and it will be recorded on video tape. At the hearing, that video tape will stand as the child's evidence-in-chief and cross-examination will be by means of a live video link, with the child in a separate room. The methods that we now adopt in the courts to try to get at the truth in paedophile cases are a great advance on the methods that were in use 10 or 15 years ago.

Orders of the Day
  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
    New clause 2

      INFORMATION CONCERNING JURORS
      '.—(1) Section 85 of the 1995 Act (citation and attendance of jurors) shall be amended as follows.

      (2) In subsection (1), the words from "but" to the end shall cease to have effect.

      (3) For subsection (2), there shall be substituted the following subsections—

      "(2) A list of jurors shall—

      (a) contain not less than 30 names;

      (b) be prepared under the directions of the clerk of the court before which the trial is to take place;

      (c) be kept at the office of the sheriff clerk of the district in which the court of the trial diet is situated; and

      (d) be headed "List of Assize for the sitting of the High Court of Justiciary (or the sheriff court of … at … ) on the … of…".

      (2A) The clerk of the court before which the trial is take place shall, on an application made to him by or on behalf of an accused, supply the accused, free of charge, on the day on which the trial diet is called, and before the oath has been administered to the jurors for the trial of the accused, with a copy of a list of jurors prepared under subsection (2) above.

      (2B) Where an accused has been supplied under subsection (2A) above with a list of jurors—

      (a) neither he nor any person acting on his behalf shall make a copy of that list, or any part thereof; and

      (b) he or his representative shall return the list to the clerk of the court after the oath has been administered to the jurors for his trial.

      (2C) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2B) above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.31 pm
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would introduce a minor but welcome change to the procedure for handling the list of assize, which gives details concerning the jurors who are to be empanelled in a trial. We think that in a small way the new clause would contribute towards making it more difficult to threaten or intimidate jurors and it is therefore welcome.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 3

      PRECOGNITIONS
      '.—(1) After section 67 of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Failure of witness to attend for, or give evidence on, precognition

      67A.—(l) This section applies where a prosecutor has obtained a warrant to cite a witness for precognition and has served a citation for precognition on the witness.

      (2) Where this section applies, a witness who—

      (a) fails without reasonable excuse, after receiving at least 48 hours notice, to attend for precognition by a prosecutor at the time and place mentioned in the citation served on him; or

      (b) refuses when so cited to give information within his knowledge regarding any matter relative to the commission of the offence in relation to which such precognition is taken,

      shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 21 days.".

      (2) In section 140 of the 1995 Act (citation)—

      (a) in subsection (1), after the words "for" there shall be inserted the words "—

      (a) the citation of witnesses for precognition by the prosecutor, whether or not any person has been charged with the offence in relation to which the precognition is taken; and

      (b)"; and

      (b) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would introduce some useful procedures to assist the operation of the courts in relation to precognitions.
      Mr. John McAllion: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on belonging to a family with such sound political judgment. I understand that his big brother the duke attacked the Tory party this morning and I am sure that that was welcome news throughout Scotland. Even better news was that his younger brother is a member of Scotland United and a strong supporter of a Scottish Parliament.
      The Minister has stated that he sent a letter to hon. Members explaining that, because of the changes brought about by the legislation, there were likely to be more precognitions under summary proceedings and that, as a result, some witnesses would fail to attend. He wrote that it was therefore important that the prosecutor should be able to impose fines on those who failed to attend. Why has the defence not been given the same facility as the prosecutor?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If a serious crime is being heard and key Crown witnesses fail to attend, the prosecutor has a right to ask the police to collect them and those people have to explain their non-attendance to the court. That practice has operated for years. The new clause deals with the fact that there is no direct statutory punishment for failing to attend a citation for precognition under solemn procedure. Under summary procedure—

      621
      where there are few precognitions—a provision for punishment exists. That is an anomaly, and we feel that there should be consistency between summary and solemn procedure in such cases. The new clause would make it an offence to fail to attend for precognition in solemn procedure.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was that this right is not available to the defence. Very often during the preparation of a proper defence, solicitors charged with that responsibility have great difficulty in persuading witnesses to make themselves available for precognition. The very sensible point put by the hon. Member for Dundee, East is that if one can go to court to get a warrant on behalf of the prosecution in relation to a witness who will not present himself for precognition, why should not a similar right be available to the defence?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had served on the Committee and tabled an amendment, I would have been only too happy to consider it. It is necessary to consult the judges on such issues and to come to a considered view, and there may be time for the matter to be considered during further debates on the Bill. In a serious case—such as a murder case—the prosecutor has the right to make such a request to the court if any key witnesses do not turn up.
      Mr. McAllion: Nobody is questioning the right of the prosecution to seek such a warrant. We are asking about the right of the defence. I take it from the Minister's last answer that it will be possible to table an amendment during the Lords' consideration of the Bill to give the same right to the defence, and that the Government will accept it.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Section 291 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 already contains the procedure for defence witnesses. I recommend that the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East study that section. If they are dissatisfied with its terms, we can consider the matter further.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 4

      SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN SENTENCES PENDING DETERMINATION OF APPEAL
      '.—(1) After section 121 of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Suspension of certain sentences pending determination of appeal

      121A.—(1) Where an intimation of intention to appeal or, in the case of an appeal under section 106(1)(b) to (e), 108 or 108A of this Act, a note of appeal is lodged, the court may on the application of the appellant direct that the whole, or any remaining part, of a relevant sentence shall be suspended until the appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined.

      (2) Where the court has directed the suspension of the whole or any remaining part of a person's relevant sentence, the person shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, appear personally in court on the day or days fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

      622

      (3) Where a person fails to appear personally in court as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the court may—

      (a) if he is the appellant—

      (i) decline to consider the appeal; and

      (ii) dismiss it summarily; or

      (b) whether or not he is the appellant—

      (i) consider and determine the appeal; or

      (ii) make such other order as the court thinks fit.

      (4) In this section "relevant sentence" means any one or more of the following

      (a) a probation order;

      (b) a supervised attendance order made under section 236(6) of this Act;

      (c) a community service order;

      (d) a restriction of liberty order.".

      (2) After section 193 of the 1995 Act, there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Suspension of certain sentences pending determination of appeal

      193A.—(1) Where a convicted person or the prosecutor appeals to the High Court under section 175 of this Act, the court may on the application of the appellant direct that the whole, or any remaining part, of a relevant sentence shall be suspended until the appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined.

      (2) Where the court has directed the suspension of the whole or any remaining part of a person's relevant sentence, the person shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, appear personally in court on the day or days fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

      (3) Where a person fails to appear personally in court as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the court may—

      (a) if he is the appellant—

      (i) decline to consider the appeal; and

      (ii) dismiss it summarily; or

      (b) whether or not he is the appellant—

      (i) consider and determine the appeal; or

      (ii) make such other order as the court thinks fit.

      (4) In this section "relevant sentence" means any one or more of the following—

      (a) a probation order;

      (b) a supervised attendance order made under section 236(6) of this Act;

      (c) a community service order;

      (d) a restriction of liberty order.".'.—[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 4 would deal with a problem that has been encountered in the application of the Crown's right of appeal against certain disposals of the court by providing a useful procedure in relation to appeals against non-custodial disposals.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      POWERS OF THE COURT ON REMAND OR COMMITTAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
      '.—(1) Section 51 of the 1995 Act (remand or committal of children and young persons) shall be amended in accordance with this section.

      (2) In subsection (1)—

      (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "in whose area the court is situated" there shall be substituted the words "which it considers appropriate";

      (b) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

      "(aa) if the person is over 16 years of age and subject to a supervision requirement, the court may, instead of committing him to prison, commit him to the local authority which it considers appropriate to be detained as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) of paragraph (a) above;" and

      (c) in paragraph (b), after the "age", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "to whom paragraph (aa) above does not apply".

      (3) In subsection (4), for the words "in whose area the court is situated" there shall be substituted the words "which he considers appropriate".

      (4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(4A) The local authority which may be appropriate in relation to a power to commit a person under paragraphs (a) or (aa) of subsection (1) or subsection (4) above may. without prejudice to the generality of those powers, be—

      (a) the local authority for the area in which the court is situated;

      (b) if the person is usually resident in Scotland, the local authority for the area in which he is usually resident;

      (c) if the person is subject to a supervision requirement, the relevant local authority within the meaning of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to that requirement.".'.[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 99.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 5 is similar to an Opposition amendment tabled in Committee concerning the committal of a child to local authority care. At that time, I expressed sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, but suggested that it unnecessarily fettered the discretion of the court in making a disposal to the most appropriate local authority. On that basis, I undertook to table a Government amendment on Report. Amendment No. 99 is a technical one.
      Madam Speaker: I call Dr. Norman Godman.
      Mr. Norman Hogg: He will be brief, Madam Speaker.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am always brief, Madam Speaker.
      624
      [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I try to be brief. I shall be very brief today. How does the Minister define an "appropriate local authority"?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That depends on a number of factors. It may be the local authority in which the child is living, or in which the child is being looked after, but it is not necessarily the authority where the child's permanent residence has been. The new clause would allow the court—in dealing with cases where a young person under 16 years of age is charged with or is convicted of an offence and remanded for trial or for sentence—to commit that young person to a local authority that it considers appropriate. Such a local authority could be the authority in which the court is situated, the authority in which the young person is usually resident or the authority that is already responsible for the young person where he is subject to a supervision requirement.
      The amendment replaces the current obligation on the court to commit to the local authority in which it is situated. It gives the court greater flexibility and discretion, which is I am sure what the hon. Gentleman would like and was the tenor of the representations made in Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 6

      INCREASED RIGHTS OF APPEAL OF PROSECUTOR
      '.—(1) For section 108 of the 1995 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
      "Lord Advocate's right of appeal against disposal

      108.—(1) Where a person has been convicted on indictment, the Lord Advocate may, in accordance with subsection (2) below, appeal against any of the following disposals, namely—

      (a) a sentence passed on conviction;

      (b) a decision under section 209(1)(b) of this Act not to make a supervised release order;

      (c) a decision under section 234A(2) of this Act not to make a non—harassment order:

      (d) a probation order;

      (e) a community service order;

      (f) a decision to remit to the Principal Reporter made under section 49(1)(a) of this Act;

      (g) an order deferring sentence;

      (h) an admonition; or

      (i) an absolute discharge.

      (2) An appeal under subsection (1) above may be made—

      (a) on a point of law;

      (b) where it appears to the Lord Advocate, in relation to an appeal under—

      (i) paragraph (a), (h) or (i) of that subsection, that the disposal was unduly lenient;

      (ii) paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, that the decision not to make the order in question was inappropriate;

      (iii) paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection, that the making of the order concerned was unduly lenient or was on unduly lenient terms;

      (iv) under paragraph (f) of that subsection, that the decision to remit was inappropriate;

      625

      (v) under paragraph (g) of that subsection, that the deferment of sentence was inappropriate or was on unduly lenient conditions.".

      (2) For subsection (4) of section 175 of the 1995 Act there shall be substituted the following subsections—

      "(4) The prosecutor in summary proceedings, in any class of case specified by order made by the Secretary of State, may, in accordance with subsection (4A) below, appeal to the High Court against any of the following disposals, namely—

      (a) a sentence passed on conviction;

      (b) a decision under section 209(1)(b) of this Act not to make a supervised release order;

      (c) a decision under section 234A(2) of this Act not to make a non—harassment order;

      (d) a probation order;

      (e) a community service order;

      (f) a decision to remit to the Principal Reporter made under section 49(1)(a) or (7)(b) of this Act;

      (g) an order deferring sentence;

      (h) an admonition; or

      (i) an absolute discharge.

      (4A) An appeal under subsection (4) above may be made—

      (a) on a point of law;

      (b) where it appears to the Lord Advocate, in relation to an appeal under—

      (i) paragraph (a), (h) or (i) of that subsection, that the disposal was unduly lenient;

      (ii) paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, that the decision not to make the order in question was inappropriate;

      (iii) paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection, that the making of the order concerned was unduly lenient or was on unduly lenient terms;

      (iv) under paragraph (0 of that subsection, that the decision to remit was inappropriate;

      (v) under paragraph (g) of that subsection, that the deferment of sentence was inappropriate or was on unduly lenient conditions.".'—[Lord James Douglas—Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 to 36, 86 and 90.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 6 is intended to clarify the provisions concerning the Crown's right of appeal against sentences and other disposals. Since the power was first introduced in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, there have been various additions to the Lord Advocate's powers. The Bill will make further changes. The original structure of the provisions could helpfully be updated to accommodate the various proposals. New clause 6 and the consequential amendments achieve that by clarifying the legislative structure.
      Some minor amendments are also made to the provisions dealing with appeals against a court's decision not to make a non-harassment or a supervised release order. We consider it preferable for the Crown to have to argue that the fact that the court did not make such an order in the specific circumstances of a case was inappropriate.
      Mr. James Wallace: It would be helpful for the House to know on how many occasions
      626
      the Lord Advocate has used the powers that are available to him to appeal against sentences. Had the new clause appeared in the original Bill, the Government might have been obliged to give some indication of the financial implications, so can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the effect of these wider powers on the work load of the criminal appeal court?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The appeals unit considers that the new clause will provide a better basis for arguing an appeal before the court. We do not think that it will have a considerable effect on expenses.
      There has been a relatively small number of appeals by the Lord Advocate and law officers. A few have been successful, but not all. The power has been used, however, and on the last occasion that I was asked, the number was less than 25, which is relatively few, but it may since have increased.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 11

      EVIDENCE OF VULNERABLE PERSONS: SPECIAL PROVISIONS
      '. For section 271 of the 1995 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
      "Evidence of vulnerable persons: special provisions

      271.—(1) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable person has been or could be cited to give evidence in a trial the court may appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of that person if—

      (a) in solemn proceedings, at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;

      (b) in summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn;

      (c) in exceptional circumstances in either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial, application is made in that regard; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.

      (2) Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.

      (3) An accused shall not, except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.

      (4) Subsections (2) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 272 of this Act shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed under that subsection as those subsections apply to an application under subsection (1) of that section and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.

      (5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable person has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by that person by means of a live television link.

      (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable person has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of that person while that person is present to give evidence; but arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear as the evidence is given by the vulnerable person.

      (7) The court may grant an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

      627

      (a) the possible effect on the vulnerable person if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted;

      (b) whether it is likely that the vulnerable person would be better able to give evidence if such an application were granted; and

      (c) the views of the vulnerable person.

      (8) In considering whether to grant an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

      (a) the nature of the alleged offence;

      (b) the nature of the evidence which the vulnerable person is likely to be called upon to give;

      (c) the relationship, if any, between the person and the accused; and

      (d) where the person is a child, his age and maturity.

      (9) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.

      (10) The sheriff court to which a case has been transferred under subsection (9) above shall be deemed to have granted an application under, as the case may be, subsection (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to the case.

      (11) Where a court has or is deemed to have granted an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to a vulnerable person, and the vulnerable person gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the vulnerable person prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.

      (12) In this section—

      'child' means a person under the age of 16 years;

      'court' means the High Court or the sheriff court;

      'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure; and

      'vulnerable person' means—

      (a) any child; and

      (b) any person of or over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Protection of mentally disordered witnesses—
      '—After section 271 of the 1995 Act (evidence of children) there shall be inserted the following section:
      "Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses

      271A—(1) subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness could be or has been cited to give evidence in a trial the court may appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of the vulnerable witness if—

      (a) in solemn proceedings at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;

      (b) in summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn;

      (c) in exceptional circumstances in either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial,
      628
      application is made to the court in that regard; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of at least five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.

      (2) Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.

      (3) An accused shall not except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.

      (4) Subsections (2) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 272 of this Act shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.

      (5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the vulnerable witness by means of a live television link.

      (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial the court may on application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of the vulnerable witness while the vulnerable witness is present to give evidence; but arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear as the evidence is given by the vulnerable witness.

      (7) The court may grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

      (a) the possible effect on the vulnerable witness if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted;

      (b) whether it is likely that the vulnerable witness would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted; and

      (c) the views of the vulnerable witness.

      (8) In considering whether to grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

      (a) the age and maturity and degree of disorder of the witness:

      (b) the nature of the alleged offence;

      (c) the nature of the evidence which the vulnerable witness is likely to be called on to give; and

      (d) the relationship, if any, between the vulnerable witness and the accused.

      (9) Where a Sheriff to whom an application has been made under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any Sheriff Court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a Sheriff Court in the same Sheriffdom.

      (10) The Sheriff Court to which a case is transferred under subsection (9) above shall be deemed to have granted an application under, as the case may be, subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to the case.

      (11) Where a court has or is deemed to have granted an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to a vulnerable witness and the vulnerable witness gives evidence that he recalls having identified prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the vulnerable witness prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.

      (12) In this section—

      'vulnerable witness' means a witness aged 16 years or over whom the court determines to be suffering from mental disorder as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984;

      629

      'court' means the High Court or the sheriff court; and

      'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure".'.

      New clause 10—Evidence of vulnerable witness: special provisions—
      'After section 271 of the 1995 Act (evidence of children) there shall be inserted the following section:—
      'Evidence of vulnerable witness: special provision—

      '271A-(1) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness could be or has been cited to give evidence in a trial the court may appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of the vulnerable witness if—

      (a) in solemn proceedings, at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;

      (b) in summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn;

      (c) in exceptional circumstances in either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial,

      application is made to the court in that regard; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of at least five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.

      (2) Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder.

      (3) An accused shall not, except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.

      (4) Subsections (2) to (6), (8) and (9) of section 272 of this Act shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed under that subsection as those subsections apply to an application under subsection (1) of that section and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.

      (5) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the vulnerable witness by means of a live television link.

      (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, where a vulnerable witness has been or is likely to be cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of the vulnerable witness while the vulnerable witness is present to give evidence; but arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear as the evidence is given by the witness.

      (7) The court may grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

      (a) the possible effect on the witness if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted;

      (b) whether it is likely that the witness would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted; and

      (c) the views of the witness.

      (8) In considering whether to grant an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

      (a) the age and maturity and degree of disorder of the witness;

      (b) the nature of the alleged offence;

      (c) the nature of the evidence which the witness is likely to be called on to give; and

      (d) the relationship, if any, between the witness and the accused.

      630

      (9) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.

      (10) The sheriff court to which a case is transferred under subsection (9) above shall be deemed to have granted an application under, as the case may be, subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to the case.

      (11) Where a court has or is deemed to have granted an application under subsections (1), (5) or (6) above in relation to a witness and the witness gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the witness prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such information.

      (12) In this section—

      'vulnerable witness' means a witness aged 16 years or over whom the court determines to be suffering from mental disorder as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.

      'court' means the High Court or the sheriff court; and

      'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure.".'.

      Government amendment No. 227.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: For the convenience of hon. Members I also propose to speak to new clauses 7 and 10, which are in similar terms to each other, as all the clauses are aimed at extending to a wider category of vulnerable witness the provisions available to children who give evidence in criminal proceedings. Where the two versions of the clause differ is that mine is restricted in its application to witnesses suffering from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, while those tabled by Opposition Members apply to a witness suffering from a mental illness or mental handicap, however caused or manifested. Otherwise, the clauses are identical in effect in that they apply to a wider category of vulnerable witness the existing provisions that enable vulnerable children to give evidence in criminal proceedings by a range of non-conventional means.
      Dr. Godman: In how many courts in the land is it feasible to apply the conditions in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amended version of that section will enable adult witnesses who suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, as opposed to mental illness, to benefit from the alternative means of giving evidence in cases in which they might experience greater difficulty in giving evidence by conventional means. There is a difficulty in giving precise numbers, because of definitional problems in relation to mental illness. Perhaps we can return to that in a moment.
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
      3.45 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want first to deal with the points raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
      At that time, I gave him a commitment, in response to an amendment, that my noble Friend the Lord Advocate would bring back a revised clause for consideration in

      631
      another place, as the need for consultation at that time meant that it was unlikely that we would be in a position to table a suitable amendment for consideration by hon. Members.
      I am, however, delighted that the consultation process was completed in time to enable me to table the new clause for consideration today. Hon. Members will, I am sure, understand that the need to give due consideration to the responses received during the consultation process meant that we were not in a position to table the new clause as far in advance of today's debate as we would have wished. I should like to mention, however, that we have benefited from the responses to the consultation and from discussions that officials have had with, among others, representatives of Enable, in formulating the new clause.
      Revised section 271 of the 1995 Act will apply to two categories of witnesses falling within the definition of vulnerable persons: a child, or a person over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to be suffering from a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning. That formulation will enable adults suffering from a learning disability, however caused, to benefit, in appropriate cases, from the provisions of the clause.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: According to the Scottish Association for Mental Health, most if not all mental health legislation gives equal protection to people who suffer from mental disorder, mental illness or learning disability. Why are the Government departing from that and setting a precedent in this case?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are discussing a rather different subject. We could be dealing with a serious murder case, and there are degrees of mental illness. Having considered the matter thoroughly, my noble Friend the Lord Advocate does not feel able to go as far as the Opposition would recommend. I shall explain the position, after which the hon. Gentleman may want to reply.
      My noble Friend the Lord Advocate considered carefully representations made to him during the consultation process by bodies representing the mentally impaired that the provisions should also be extended, explicitly, to certain witnesses suffering from mental illness as opposed to mental handicap. That is the main area of difference between the reformulation of section 271 of the 1995 Act which I tabled as new clause 11, and the new sections 271 A of that Act tabled by Opposition Members as new clauses 7 and 10.
      My noble Friend has concluded that it is appropriate to maintain the distinction between the two categories of witness. Witnesses who are mentally impaired through mental handicap from birth, or from some other and subsequent cause, such as injury, are inherently at risk and therefore in need of protection. The same cannot necessarily be said of those in the wide category of witnesses who may be suffering from a mental illness. Even a clinically well recognised mental illness will not necessarily render a witness inherently vulnerable for the purpose of giving evidence by conventional means. I am, however, prepared to discuss with the Lord Advocate tabling a further amendment that would go some way to meeting the concerns reflected in the Opposition's new clauses.
      632
      A range of provisions that will assist witnesses with particular difficulties is already in place. For example, if a witness, because of his mental condition, is unfit or unable to give evidence in a competent manner, the hearsay evidence provisions of section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 enable the court to consider evidence of an earlier statement made by him. Section 260 of that Act enables a witness who gives evidence in court to adopt as part of his evidence an earlier statement made by him. Such statements may be in writing or in the form of a video or audio recording.
      Those provisions are still relatively new. While those who practise regularly in the criminal courts will be familiar with them, they may not be well known to others who have less frequent contact with the criminal process. Their potential to assist a witness who may be suffering from a mental illness to give evidence may not, therefore, be widely recognised. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the provisions of the 1995 Act will help a significant number of vulnerable witnesses, including those suffering from mental illness, to give evidence and so increase the number of cases in which proceedings may be brought.
      In conclusion, I stress the importance that we attach to maintaining the well-established principle that the court in criminal proceedings should have access to the best available evidence. Where a competent witness is available to give oral evidence to the court in person, the personal attendance of that witness must be preferred to any other means by which evidence might be given. Only in exceptional circumstances should derogations from that general principle be permitted. We recognise that the inherent vulnerability of children, and of adults who suffer from a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, is sufficiently exceptional to justify such a derogation.
      As I said, I am prepared to discuss with the Lord Advocate extending revised section 271 to offer protection to some witnesses who are mentally ill, but only to those who are suffering to such an extent that they are subject to orders under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In a moment.
      Such an extension would recognise the fact that the person's predicament might warrant the protection afforded by the revised section 271 and would meet some of the difficulties in definition that would arise from simply extending the provision to the mentally ill while providing a definition that would assist the court. I hope that hon. Members will accept that there are good reasons for what some will regard as the restricted scope of my amendment and withdraw their new clauses. I hope that new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 227 will accordingly be welcomed by the House.
      Dr. Godman: Has the Minister finished or is he giving way?
      Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way; he seems to have finished. However, we are having a debate and if the hon. Gentleman holds his fire, he will be able to speak later.
      Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for his consideration of new clause 11 and for bringing it

      633
      to the Floor after speaking to Enable, the Scottish Association for Mental Health and other groups. However, I find it strange that he intends to reconsider the matter, because we pressed him strongly in Committee, where I asked him for a firm undertaking that he would meet those organisations before the Bill returned to the Floor. Now we find that he is thinking about further consultation, which shows the shakiness of the ground that he occupies. However, he has gone some way and I congratulate him on that.
      The Minister knows that the amendments arose in large part from the "Front Line Scotland" programmes that showed that abuse of people with learning difficulties was going unpunished because the victims felt that they were unable to give evidence in a court of hearing. In Committee, I tabled an amendment with the assistance of Enable, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which would have provided protection for vulnerable witnesses who had to appear in the criminal courts.
      The amendment would offer people with a mental disorder the possibility of protection similar to that currently given to child witnesses. I am well aware of the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has done over the years in Parliament on that issue, in which he has a deep interest. Such protection includes taking evidence in advance by means of video recordings; the giving of evidence by a live television link; and the use of screens to ensure that the witness does not have to see the accused person.
      The Government have now accepted that witness protection should be given to witnesses with a learning disability, but we are concerned that they have not seen fit to extend it to people with mental health problems. We feel that that protection should be given to all witnesses who could be vulnerable because of mental disorder, including those with mental health problems.
      Why should mentally ill people have vulnerable witness protection? First, it should be provided in the interests of justice. If a physically disabled person could not gain access to the criminal courts, attempts would be made to help him. If a person is inhibited by a mental disability from appearing in the courts, or can do so only at great risk to his health, the courts should make equal efforts to accommodate him.
      Strong concern has been expressed that the stress of court proceedings could make a person with a mental illness an unreliable witness. A witness suffering from manic depression, for example, could appear well in court but become ill within a few hours, despite being on medication. Stress can lead a person to lose touch with reality or become so depressed that he cannot function or think properly. An environment away from the court, where that person would not feel stressed, would help him to give his evidence more accurately and calmly. Whereas it is thought that an appearance at court makes it more likely that most witnesses will tell the truth, the reverse could be true for some people living with mental illness.
      Secondly, witness protection should be extended to those suffering from a mental disorder in the interests of law and order. If mentally ill people are the victims of crime and need help to give evidence, such help should be offered. If not, crimes will go unpunished and mentally ill people will be denied the protection of the criminal justice system.
      634
      Thirdly, such witness protection is in the interests of public health when giving evidence could cause a person to suffer a relapse. We are concerned that the Government do not appear to have given due consideration to that possibility. The Minister will realise that mental illness is a fluctuating condition and most people with a chronic mental health problem know that stress is a major cause of a relapse. That is true of the main and most distressing illnesses such as schizophrenia and manic depression. For that reason, associations such as the Scottish branches of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Manic Depression Fellowship support our new clause, which would provide protection for vulnerable witnesses.
      The Minister will appreciate that it cannot be in anyone's interest when people who manage to live with a serious mental illness precipitately suffer a relapse, perhaps involving a costly hospital admission and great distress to that person and his family.
      Lastly, witness protection should be provided not least because of the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It seems ironic that the Government, who only recently enacted legislation to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of disability, should now be seen to discriminate against people with mental illness. In theory, they, too, are protected by the Act. If the Government accept that some people with learning disabilities might need vulnerable witness protection, why can they not accept that some mentally ill people may also need it?
      Not all those suffering from mental ill health will need to take advantage of the proposed protection. Many will be able to appear in court, while others will be too ill to do so. Such individuals may include those living in the community, perhaps in their own flat, after being discharged from a long-stay hospital. They may be subject to petty crime or harassment. The Scottish Association for Mental Health and other groups have provided numerous such examples, and have told us that the police often insist on no prosecution because of doubts about whether the victim could take part in court proceedings.
      Another example could be a resident of a long-stay hospital or nursing home who alleges abuse by the staff. There have been recent reports of abuse in hospitals for the elderly, notably in Glasgow. A hospital patient may be legally able to give evidence if he or she is able to understand the nature of the oath and may need to speak the truth. But the prosecution may be unwilling to take the case further through fear of how the patient may appear in court. Taking evidence through a commissioner in familiar surroundings may be the answer, or a video link with the court could be appropriate.
      The last sort of person is the victim of serous crime. The Scottish Association for Mental Health told us that one woman had come to it alleging that she had been raped. The alleged incident took place south of the border, where the Crown Prosecution Service took no further action owing to doubts as to whether the woman could cope with the ordeal of court proceedings. Some of the protection suggested might have enabled it to prosecute and could perhaps have prevented further assaults on vulnerable women.
      4 pm
      On the subject of safeguards against abuse, the Government seem concerned that, if "mental illness" were allowed as a ground for applying for vulnerable witness

      635
      protection, that would open the floodgates and allow anyone who might find court proceedings stressful to get a doctor's certificate exempting him from proceedings. However, new clause 7 has safeguards built into it. The court has the final decision as to whether the person has a mental disorder that justifies the use of vulnerable witness protection. The court can ask for further evidence before making a decision. It could call for psychiatric reports rather than simply relying on a report from a general practitioner. The court would be free to dismiss frivolous claims such as that of a person who is normally well claiming that his anxiety about a court appearance was a mental illness. The court would not be obliged to accept that excuse.
      The Minister knows that Enable has petitioned him on another issue related to new clause 11—the questioning of people with mental disorders. In Committee, the Minister said that the proposal contained in an amendment that I tabled was desirable and he promised to ensure that an appropriate adult would be present during police interviews. But in meetings that Enable and the Law Society subsequently had with the Minister—for which they were grateful—the Government still expressed reservations about the statutory provision on the basis that it would set a precedent in Scots law and that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Government to be seen to be directing the police as they carried out their functions.
      However, we understand—I would like the Minister to elaborate on this—that the Government want to introduce non-statutory guidance to the police on the appropriate adult scheme. As I mentioned to the Minister in Committee, there is one problem with that suggestion: non-statutory guidance for questioning such witnesses has been in place since 1990, with little effect. Even were it to be improved, there is no guarantee that it will be operated or that the police or caring agencies will find the appropriate resources to set up and manage such a scheme.
      Will the Minister reconsider the issue? He knows the reservations that we expressed in Committee over the Quigley case, where the recommendations were in operation, but the police provisions failed. The Minister must take account of that issue, about which we are seriously concerned. We are grateful for some movement from the Government, but it is not enough for us to have confidence in the Government's new clause, so I press our case.
      Dr. Godman: I compliment the Minister on the measure, but I do not think that it is extensive enough. It is fair to say that it represents an improvement in the continuing development in the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in our judicial proceedings.
      I asked my earlier question because I am concerned about the extent of the provision of closed circuit television in our courts. The Minister knows that there is such a system in Greenock sheriff court; it is a modern installation that has been used on a number of occasions. The first occasion was characterised by the child witness telling the prosecuting counsel where to go and how to get there and walking out of the interview room, but there is no doubt that the system has been a success. There may be cases where people have to travel long distances in order to give evidence through a CCTV system.
      636
      Will the Minister tell me whether the promise he has just made would allow a person suffering from schizophrenia or manic depression to be given the sort of protection outlined in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995? Again, I tried to intervene make this point earlier. The Minister referred to an order which dealt with persons suffering from certain conditions. The Lord Advocate or the Minister—and possibly their officials, too—might be concerned about the ability of some individuals to fake the symptoms of schizophrenia or manic depression.
      In a recent case, a man was sent to the state hospital, Carstairs, ostensibly suffering from schizophrenia. Later, when this malingerer was caught out, it was alleged that he had fooled several psychiatrists. I believe—the Minister will be able to confirm this—that the procurator fiscal involved had the man charged for that form of medical malingering. Are the Government concerned that people might try to fake such illnesses?
      To be fair-minded, I admit that there are cases, such as the man at Carstairs, of persons involved in criminal proceedings faking schizophrenia. I was told by a psychiatrist of three cases in which individuals were able to fake, fairly cleverly, some of the symptoms of schizophrenia. All three had had psychedelic experiences induced by the use of LSD, so they had some experience of the sort of mental state suffered by a person suffering from schizophrenia. However, I assure the Minister that such cases are rare and that the literature does not demonstrate that such people are successful—inevitably, they are caught out by psychiatric examinations.
      If the Minister has any worries in that respect, I should have thought that the individual's medical history would be a powerful form of assessment, as would examination by psychiatrists who are skilled in the relevant field. I therefore hope that his reluctance to extend his new clause is not prompted by the fear of people faking such illnesses. We are, of course, talking about witnesses and not those charged with offences. It would be perfectly in order to extend the new clause to allow individuals suffering from some form of schizophrenia or those bedevilled by manic depression to be given the same sort of protection that is now afforded to young children in our courts.
      What the Scottish Association for Mental Health has to say in its brief is well worth the Minister's attention when he is considering whether to extend the new clause. At page 2, paragraph 5, the brief states:
      "It can surely be in nobody's interests that people who are managing to live with a major mental illness should be precipitated back into relapse, perhaps involving a costly hospital admission, and causing great distress to them, their families and friends. The Sheriffs Association, which represents all serving sheriffs in Scotland, supports this view, as does the Law Society of Scotland."
      As has been mentioned, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides a measure of protection to persons suffering from mental illness.
      The same brief states in the following paragraph:
      "Under the Disability Discrimination Act. It seems ironic that a Government which only last year published an Act outlawing discrimination on the grounds of disability, should now discriminate against people with mental illness, who are in theory protected by the Act."
      Is there a discrepancy—I look forward to the Minister's answer—between the new clause and the relevant section of the Disability Discrimination Act? If there is, any anomaly should be eliminated in the interests of such people.

      637
      The brief continues:
      "If the Government accepts that some learning disabled people might need vulnerable witness protection why can it not accept that some mentally ill people may as well?"
      Has the Minister decided against extending the new clause on the ground that a case involving, for example, evidence given by someone suffering from schizophrenia or manic depression which leads to a conviction of the accused person might be appealed by the defendant's lawyers? I would not have thought that that would be the case. I cannot think of a case in Scotland or, indeed, south of the border in England and Wales where a conviction that involved the giving of evidence by a vulnerable witness using CCTV or evidence taken on commission has been appealed on the ground that the accused was unable to face one of the witnesses for the prosecution. While the measure being offered by the Minister today is to be welcomed, it is regrettable that it has not gone further in seeking to protect people who suffer from a mental illness.
      I have already mentioned the fact that, in a few cases over the past 20 years, both here and in America, people have, for a while, been able to simulate the symptoms exhibited by genuine schizophrenics or manic depressives. However, such cases are extremely rare and should not deter the Government from extending this welcome measure.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: This issue should not be a partisan one that divides the House along party lines. It raises an important feature of the nature of criminal procedure in our courts and the extent to which we are willing to create circumstances in which any individual, whatever handicap he or she may be subject to, is able to contribute to the judicial process.
      Like other hon. Members, I have received the brief from the Scottish Association for Mental Health, but I do not intend to refer to its terms in detail. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) read eloquently from the brief and the issues are clear and positive in the minds of those participating in this debate. The strength of the case made by the hon. Gentleman was if not overwhelming, at least of such a nature that the Minister should think carefully about whether he should take the matter away and give it further consideration.
      The basis of the Government's opposition to the extension being proposed appears to rest in that rather hoary old statutory chestnut, the floodgates argument. In this particular case, though, as subsection (7) of the new clause makes clear,
      "The court may grant an application under subsection (1), (5) or (6) above only on cause shown".
      That is to say, the court has to be satisfied in any particular case that it is legitimate to go ahead in the light of the procedures set out in the new clause; and the court must have regard to the criteria set out there.
      4.15 pm
      Furthermore, in subsection (8), the court "may take into account" a number of additional criteria.
      It seems to me that the floodgates argument lies behind the Government's attitude—but there are plenty of dams in the way of the flood to prevent abuse of the proposals. The Government seem anxious, however, that the provision, if enacted, would be the subject of abuse. So
      638
      hedged about are the circumstances in which these procedures can be used, however, that there is no risk of any serious abuse whatever. That being so, why should those whose vulnerability may arise from a mental disorder be excluded from the personal advantages that the new clause seeks to create? The Minister would be well advised to give that serious consideration.
      Section 271 of the 1995 Act stipulates that a person appointed as a commissioner
      "must be, and for a period of five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor."
      So qualification to be a commissioner under current law, restated in this legislation, is merely membership of either the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society of Scotland. If vulnerability conditions are to be extended so that more commissions may need to be held, the Government will be wise to think again about whether mere membership of one of those bodies is qualification enough.
      I was once appointed a commissioner on behalf of the High Court to take evidence from a witness who was not expected to survive until the date of the trial. Indeed, that proved to be so. I remember that a difficult question arose about an objection taken to certain of the evidence being sought to be led. If, therefore, we are to extend the circumstances in which a commissioner may require to operate, it will be not just membership of these bodies but practical experience that will be important. So I suggest that the Minister consider qualifications by way of experience before extending the number of occasions when commissioners may be asked to sit in judgment.
      I reiterate: this should not be a partisan matter. The speeches made thus far today have clearly shown the mood of the House. The Minister would do himself a lot of good—and would ultimately do the administration of justice a great deal of good—if he thought again about this point.
      Mr. Canavan: I speak in support of new clause 7, which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I did not serve on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill, but I can well understand the desire to afford special protection in court proceedings to vulnerable persons, including taking evidence in advance on video recordings, giving evidence on live television, and the use of screens.
      New clause 11 restricts the definition of "vulnerable person" to a child or
      "any person of or over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning",
      whereas new clause 7 extends the definition to include vulnerable witnesses, which means
      "a witness aged 16 years or over whom the court determines to be suffering from mental disorder as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984".
      That seems to be a tight definition. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) just said, it would not exactly open the floodgates, so I cannot see the Minister's reasoning in resisting the new clause.
      There is wide support for the principle of new clause 7 throughout the country, particularly among professionals and voluntary organisations that specialise in caring for

      639
      people who suffer from mental illness. For example, a letter from Anne Wallace on behalf of Falkirk District Association for Mental Health says:
      "It is the view of FDAMH that at present some individuals with mental illness find it impossible to appear in court as witnesses because of the possible stress of the court appearance and of fear of ridicule or intimidation."
      Those feelings are echoed by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, which says in a letter:
      "We have experience of the distress caused to people who are mentally ill when faced with court proceedings. One case which came to us was of a person being harassed in her home by a group of local teenagers. The police wanted to prosecute, but the woman was unable to cope with the prospect of confronting the teenagers in court and so the abuse continued."
      If such circumstances are allowed to prevail, justice will be denied to many people with mental illness, with the result that crimes will go unpunished and many people will be denied the protection of the criminal justice system. Alternatively, they may be persuaded to go, or even be pressurised into going, to court to give evidence and the whole experience may be such an ordeal that they risk having a further mental breakdown.
      The Minister is a reasonable man and I am sure that he does not want those circumstances to develop or be allowed to continue. I hope that he will be persuaded to think again and ensure that the courts give adequate protection to all witnesses, including witnesses who may be vulnerable because of a mental disorder.
      I think that I heard the Minister say earlier that he was willing to consider the matter further and possibly introduce an appropriate amendment in the House of Lords. Why on earth has he not introduced an appropriate amendment in this House? What is wrong with new clause 7, which seems to be technically good, with no drafting faults? Why cannot the Minister just accept new clause 7 and help to ensure that people who suffer from mental illness and are called as witnesses in court have a much fairer deal?
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I add my own brief comments on new clause 7, which I too believe should not divide the House? Will the Minister answer some questions about vulnerable child witnesses who do not necessarily have any mental disorder? He will recall that the matter was raised in Committee, and I remember the Secretary of State nodding in agreement with me earlier when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee.
      I pointed out that there have been occasions when someone has been accused of committing dreadful crimes against a very young child, and the child's evidence has not been called, on the ground that he or she is too young. It is obvious that some people might choose such young victims for the very reason that the children are too young for their evidence to be listened to seriously in court. The Minister may remember that we discussed that in Committee.
      There should be ways of ensuring that a child who is capable of giving a truthful account of events and who is capable of accurate recall should not have his or her evidence disregarded on the ground that he or she cannot grasp abstract concepts such as telling the truth and understanding an oath.
      640
      I see nothing in new clause 11 in that regard. If the Minister plans to take the issue forward in the House of Lords, I should be glad to hear from him about that tonight. I hope that he has not simply forgotten about the matter, which caused concern in Committee. The Bill should not complete its passage without addressing the possibility that the evidence of very young children might be disregarded because the children are so young.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak to new clause 10, which is similar to new clause 7. Much of what I intended to say would echo what has already been said by other Opposition Members, so I shall not go over the same ground.
      We support the principle of extending protection to adults with learning disabilities, for which the Government new clause provides. As has been pointed out, however, that still excludes people with mental illness. Opposition Members seek a provision to include such people.
      I am unclear why the Government seem unable to accept that the mentally ill should be provided with that protection. I have listened to the Minister. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) echoed my impression that the floodgates argument might underlie the Government's attitude. Will the Minister tell us his specific concerns about extending the provision to include those who are mentally ill? I hope that he will accept that Opposition Members are genuinely puzzled about his refusal thus far to countenance that extension.
      The concerns of various organisations have been rehearsed, and they are shared by Opposition Members. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), that victims are witnesses too. When we speak of extending protection for vulnerable witnesses, we generally mean victims, although in some cases we mean witnesses in the strict sense of the word.
      Where necessary, we should extend all the protection we can, within the law, to people who are vulnerable. I do not understand the argument that those who are mentally ill do not come within the group classified as vulnerable. I beg the Minister to tell us clearly what the problem has been thus far.
      Dr. Godman: I remind the hon. Lady that more and more mentally ill people are living in the community as a result of so-called community care policy. If they are more vulnerable as a consequence—as many obviously are—they are surely entitled to the protection that we traditionally afford to children.
      4.30 pm
      Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I thank him for his timely intervention. An increasing number of such persons on the street means an increase in the likelihood of their appearing in court as vulnerable witnesses. As a consequence of the nature of the lives that many must lead, they increasingly appear in court as victims of crime or as witnesses to incidents.
      We are discussing those with serious mental illnesses such as manic depression and schizophrenia, and I do not think that hon. Members would deny the serious effects of those illnesses on individuals and their ability to cope

      641
      with ordinary, day-to-day life. If their ability to cope with daily life is severely affected—as it clearly is—they will not be able to cope with the extra stress of appearing in court.
      The fact is that many people who do not have mental disorders find formal court proceedings very stressful. I refer not only to High Court proceedings for murder but to all sorts of proceedings. Elderly people may feel stressed if compelled to give evidence in court. My mother had to give evidence in a summary case and she was quite worried about the prospect. She is in her 80s and does not suffer from any illness or disorder. If ordinary folk suffer such stress, the pressure on someone who suffers from mental illness must be even greater. As other hon. Members have said, I fear that cases simply will not go to court because people are not capable of dealing with the stress or because valuable witnesses to serious incidents cannot be considered reliable witnesses during court proceedings. That means that their evidence may be lost in serious cases.
      These issues are important to the way in which our law operates. We are very proud of our system of justice in Scotland. It has its faults—as does every justice system in the world—but we are justly proud of the way that the system in Scotland has developed, the traditions that have grown up over the years and the way in which it has been able to change and adapt to circumstances.
      I urge the Government to take this commendable new clause on board, as it is important to stress protection for vulnerable witnesses. I shall not repeat the list of those who support the measure because other hon. Members have referred to them already. I support the earlier comments about new clauses 7 and 10 and the in-built protections to prevent the floodgates from opening—if that is the reason for the Minister's concern.
      The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 already allow certain concessions, but the new clause has in-built protection that would allow the court to make the final decision. I think that the court can make such a decision—it already has that experience to a certain extent—and it should be allowed to do so.
      Dr. Godman: If new clause 10 or new clause 7 is successful, does the hon. Lady anticipate that a commissioner taking evidence on commission from someone suffering from schizophrenia or manic depression would be advised by a medical practitioner? I am thinking of someone suffering from schizophrenia, who had been released into the community and had not taken his or her medication when called for interview by the commission.
      Ms Cunningham: That is an important issue. In cases under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, if there is any doubt about an individual's mental state, the court has the opportunity to acquire medical evidence from a psychiatrist. It may be easier or harder to get evidence at particular times of the day or week or in particular situations.
      As I have said already, I am puzzled why the Minister has thus far set his face against an extension to include those who are mentally ill. The majority of people would assume that those who are mentally ill would be
      642
      considered vulnerable under anybody's classification and for any reason. I ask the Minister to consider the issue seriously.
      Mr. McAllion: I also support new clause 7, spoken to so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and oppose the new clause moved by the Minister.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised a small but important point with the Minister, who promised to return to it, but he did not. It relates to the facilities necessary to implement the new clauses, and their availability in courts around Scotland. The Minister said that new clause 11 extended the existing provisions for evidence being given by children to a new category of vulnerable persons. By definition, that must mean that there will be increased demand for those facilities.
      New clauses 11 and 7 would require a range of technical equipment to be available in Scottish courts. For example, subsection (2) of new clause 11 says:
      "Proceedings before a commissioner appointed under subsection (1) above shall be recorded by video recorder."
      The new clause goes on to say that the accused shall not be present during the proceedings,
      "but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings."
      He will therefore have to be in another room, perhaps in the same building, and have access to what is going on, perhaps by some remote audio-visual means.
      The new clause goes on to say that those covered by the provisions can give evidence
      "by means of a live television link."
      It also says that screens will have to be provided so that the witness does not have to be in court at the same time as the accused, but that the accused must have some means of seeing and hearing the evidence.
      A range of technical facilities must be made available. I discovered only this afternoon that Glasgow High Court does not have such facilities. Any trial there involving anyone who came under the new clause would have to go to Glasgow sheriff court, where the facilities are available. That would result in delays, because Glasgow sheriff court has a long backlog of outstanding cases. I do not know about Dundee High Court—I suppose that it meets in Dundee sheriff court, and that those facilities are available. When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow how many courts in Scotland had such facilities, the Minister could not give a coherent or sensible reply—not unusual for him.
      Dr. Godman: I can confirm that sheriff court No. 5 in Glasgow has CCTV. I have seen it in operation. My hon. Friend mentioned screens, which are a crude means of separating the witness from the accused in the dock. I would like the practice to be done away with in favour of CCTV in all courts, or evidence taken on commission.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I agree with him. I am not defending the arrangements set down in the new clauses: I am simply saying that the facilities that would allow them to be put into practice are not universally available in the courts of Scotland.

      643
      I hesitate to make any public expenditure commitments, but the new clauses may involve such commitments. Perhaps the House could turn its attention to that.
      Mrs. Fyfe: When I was a witness in Glasgow sheriff court recently, I noticed that witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence were still likely to encounter each other under the system. That causes great concern. Even with the provision of screens and remote television, considerable difficulty could be caused if there was any possibility of the witnesses seeing each other in court buildings.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend has made a relevant point, to which I hope the Minister will reply when he winds up. Many years ago, I was a witness at Dundee sheriff court when my video recorder was stolen. At that time, witnesses for the prosecution and the defence, and the accused, were all kept in the same room to wait for the trial. The whole purpose of new clause 11 would be defeated if, before a trial had even started, vulnerable witnesses were expected to share accommodation with those accused of committing—in some cases—serious offences against them. I hope that the Minister will ensure that witnesses covered by the new clause will not come into any contact with those accused of offending against them.
      The nub of the argument between Opposition and Government centres on the definition of the vulnerable witnesses who will be included in the new category. Both sides agree that a child should be defined as someone under 16; it is the Minister's new legal definition in new clause 11 that is at the heart of the debate. According to the new clause, a "vulnerable person" means
      "any person of or over the age of 16 years who appears to the court to suffer from significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
      As far as I know, that is a new definition. I have not seen it before.
      I understand that the Minister consulted on what the definition should be—or, rather, that the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Minister, carried out a quick consultation process between Committee and Report. On 20 December, in the run-up to Christmas, the Minister wrote to Committee members, kindly making available to us the consultation paper that the Lord Advocate had sent out. At that time, the Minister was referring to the "learning disabled". The Lord Advocate's consultation document argued against the definition suggested by my hon. Friends, referring to
      "a suitable definition of 'learning disabled'",
      and stating:
      "Section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 … is not considered to form a suitable basis for such a definition because it describes an extreme and narrow range of mental disorders and, arguably, does not include people exhibiting the range of learning difficulties which would render witnesses vulnerable when giving evidence."
      At the consultation stage, the Lord Advocate and the Government said that they did not want to adopt the definition in section 1 of the 1984 Act because it was too narrow, and would not cover enough witnesses who might be vulnerable in court proceedings. They wanted a wider definition, bringing in more people who might be
      644
      vulnerable in such circumstances. The consultation paper itself suggested a definition that might be used: a witness suffering from learning disability would be
      "suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
      Between consultation and Report, however, the Minister has changed the suggested definition. Out goes the phrase
      "suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind".
      The only phrase that is included in the new clause is
      "significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
      The Minister must explain tonight why, between the consultation stage and his return to the House, he has dropped the phrase
      "suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind".
      Dr. Godman: Subsection (12)(b) refers to "social functioning". Could it not be argued that a person suffering from, say, paranoid schizophrenia was suffering from a "significant impairment" of social functioning?
      Mr. McAllion: I would have thought so. Presumably, during the consultation period the Minister had a great deal of time in which to circulate the document to interested groups. Can he tell us how many people responded, whether any consultant psychiatrists or organisations representing them contacted the Government, and whether, if so, they have a view about the Minister's definition? I would have thought that that definition might or might not include someone suffering from schizophrenia, but that is a matter for a consultant psychiatrist rather than a court to decide. The Minister must tell us exactly what the position is.
      4.45 pm
      A number of hon. Members have asked whether the Government fear that the floodgates may open, and that too many people will seek protection under the new clauses. Is that why they will not accept section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 as a definition? The Minister cannot say that that is the case, however, for his own consultation document makes it clear that he wants a broader definition. He must justify the phrase that he is introducing to Scottish law for the first time, and explain who will decide what constitutes
      "significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
      Will it be the court, or a consultant psychiatrist?
      Mrs. Irene Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that witnesses who have been intimidated or threatened by the accused, or people connected with the accused, could describe themselves as not functioning very well socially? Nothing in the new clauses relates to people who have been threatened or intimidated during trials, or whom others have attempted to bribe.
      Mr. McAllion: Not only do I agree; when my hon. Friend asked whether a witness who had been threatened could be described as suffering from impairment of social

      645
      functioning, the Minister nodded. It now appears that threatened witnesses could qualify under the new clause, which widens the definition.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.
      Mr. McAllion: Now the Minister says, "No," from a sedentary position. Just a few minutes ago, he was saying, "Yes."
      Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned the organisations that were consulted. In fact, the Lord Advocate consulted the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, but failed to consult Scottish members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend highlights our problem in trying to decide between the two new clauses that have been tabled by the Government and by Opposition Members. The Minister is pushing ahead at breakneck speed. There has not been proper consultation: those who know best how witnesses should be categorised and defined in law have not been allowed their say in the law-making process.
      The suspicion must arise that what the Government are about tonight is political posturing—that they are trying to talk tough on law and order before a general election, and are not even interested in trying to improve the law or introduce proper legal changes that would protect people in real-life circumstances outside the House. That reflects very badly on the Minister and the Government. The Minister's brother is right to say that he has had more than enough of the Tory Government over the past 17 years, and his younger brother is even more right to campaign for a Scottish Parliament, because if we had one, we would not be wasting our time here tonight.
      We already have a legal definition of witnesses who may be covered by the new clause: the definition given in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. A consultant psychiatrist who works as a forensic psychiatrist, dealing with offenders, has told me that that is a generic term that is used in law. It defines two separate categories of people—those who suffer from mental illness, and those who suffer from a mental handicap.
      Mental handicap means severe mental impairment. The Minister said that those people would be covered by new clause 11, but that those who suffer from a mental illness would not necessarily come within the new definition. As many hon. Members have said, that excludes from the protection of the clause a range of people who suffer from schizophrenia, manic depressive illnesses and many other illnesses.
      All hon. Members who have spoken have made the point that the Minister must explain why people who suffer from mental illness are not being afforded the protection of the new clause. In the consultation paper that he distributed around Scotland, he said that the definition of section 1 of the 1984 Act, which included people with mental illness, was not wide enough, and that not enough people would be caught within it. Now he says that it is too wide. He must explain to us what has happened to change his mind.
      The Minister tried to get himself off the hook by referring to section 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. He suggested that that part of the
      646
      Act could be used to cover people who suffer from mental illness. Section 259 deals with hearsay evidence, and lists a range of people who need not give evidence for a variety of reasons. The first category is people who are dead—which I suppose is a reasonable ground for not giving evidence in court; no one would argue with that. People who are no longer in the United Kingdom are allowed to give hearsay evidence. People who have been identified as potential witnesses but who cannot be found are another good category. People who believe that, if they give evidence, they may incriminate themselves are also allowed to give hearsay evidence.
      If the Minister is prepared to include people suffering from a mental illness within the definition of hearsay evidence, why is he not prepared to include them within the definition in the Bill? The Government's position is inconsistent.
      Dr. Godman: In my comments, I was not criticising the responses of people who had been consulted. They were asked three questions, all of which referred to witnesses who may be categorised as learning disabled. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that they were not given an opportunity to discuss other vulnerable witnesses.
      Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is spot on. No Opposition Member would criticise properly qualified people for commenting on those issues. Our criticism is directly solely at Ministers, who are not listening to the voice of reason expressed inside and outside the House. Instead, they are pushing ahead with proposals that cannot be justified.
      I received a letter from my constituent, Dr. Joe Morrow, who has spent some time working with people suffering from mental illness. He is concerned that the new clause does not include witnesses who are vulnerable as a result of mental illness. He tells me that he has direct experience of the extreme distress that is caused to people who are or have been mentally ill when they are faced with court proceedings.
      Dr. Morrow is concerned about the people in residential care or in hospital, who may be abused and need protection to ensure that they are not intimidated in court by their carers or by those with power over them. The Minister should remember that people who suffer from mental illness need protection: they are often in an extremely weak position, whereas those who may have abused them are extremely powerful and strong.
      Dr. Morrow says that, in most mental health legislation, the definition of mental disorder in section 1 of the 1984 Act is adequate. He asked me to make his plea—a plea that has come from hon. Members across the Committee—that the Minister's suggestion is not good enough. If, like his brother, he is honest and decent, he should listen to the Opposition.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond to the debate. This is one of the most important discussions that we will have today, so it is vital that we get it right.
      The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the issue of separating witnesses from the accused. Where accommodation permits, every effort is made to keep

      647
      witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence separate. Improvements are constantly being introduced, and every effort is made to keep vulnerable witnesses separate from other witnesses.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked about the availability of equipment for giving evidence. The need for additional facilities will be assessed in the light of demand. Commissions may be taken. In any suitable accommodation, screens are available for use in every court. Closed circuit television is available in every sheriffdom, and the need for further provision is kept constantly under review.
      The hon. Member for Maryhill asked about children who may be too young to give evidence. That is a complex issue. There is no minimum age below which a child cannot give evidence: the issue is whether the child can competently give evidence. Any change would require wide consultation. I shall discuss that matter further with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
      The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that the criteria in section 271 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provide sufficient safeguards against a floodgate of applications. There would be an intolerable burden on the courts if we were to leave it to them to apply those criteria to every case in which a witness was alleged to be vulnerable. Some means of preliminary assessment is essential.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which focuses on discrimination in employment. It is not concerned with the rules of evidence, to which quite different considerations apply.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister dealt with my point by saying that there would be an intolerable burden on the court. If we have regard to the terms of the statute as proposed, an application can be granted only on cause shown, which means that each application must come to the court. There is no question of applications being granted on the nod or automatically. Every application will have to be heard by the court, even under the Government's proposal. So if that is his counter to the floodgates argument, I suggest that it may not be a very strong one.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said, some preliminary assessment will have to be made. May I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman—who has been an advocate depute, and has been engaged in prosecutions—what the prosecution's difficulty is. Successive Lords Advocate have been concerned that extended availability of vulnerable witness provisions could have a significant operational impact on the prosecution services, given the pressures that would be brought to bear on prosecutors by witnesses who sought to establish their vulnerability, so as to avoid having to give evidence to the court.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) gave the example of an outrage, and stressed the importance of bringing the culprits to justice. I agree with him. We must balance the importance of seeing that justice is done with the need to ensure that unfairness is not meted out to vulnerable witnesses. We must get the right balance.
      648
      If a witness with schizophrenia were unable to give evidence, the hearsay provisions in the 1995 Act might be available. We expect that evidence of incapacity would require to be led; otherwise, there would be concerns that such witnesses would not be competent.
      The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) complained that we have tabled too many amendments. Some of our amendments are in response to legitimate points made by him, and 100 amendments were tabled by the Opposition. I stress that we have done our best to respond to the serious points made.
      The hon. Gentleman said that a person with a mental health problem should be assisted by being allowed to give evidence by non-conventional means. I accept that stress can occur through the use of technology, but the hearsay evidence provisions should help many mentally ill persons.
      I also accept the case for extending the child witness provisions to all vulnerable witnesses, but such an extension would be a radical departure from the long-standing requirement that witnesses must give oral testimony. We are gradually departing from that requirement, first for children and now for mentally handicapped people. We would need to take great care if we were to go further at this time, because such a step would be inappropriate without the utmost thought.
      I am prepared to discuss the case for doing that for the mentally ill who are subject to hospital or other orders that have been made under the Mental Health Act (Scotland) Act 1984, because for that category of people the degree of mental illness is sufficient to have required an order. Of course that is a substantial point.
      As the hon. Member for Dumbarton said, mental illness can fluctuate. Persons who suffer from manic depression can be perfectly normal for much of the time until the illness hits them.
      Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing technically wrong with new clause 7? Why is it unacceptable?
      5 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a matter of balance and judgment, but mental illness can easily fluctuate. Should a witness to a fatal shooting be excluded because he is not sufficiently mentally ill to be subject to an order? To exclude such a witness could be contrary to the interests of justice.
      Mr. Canavan: We are not talking about excluding witnesses, but about giving them the opportunity to present their evidence in a manner that takes their vulnerability into account.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate that, but we think that the "best evidence" rule should necessarily apply. I made it clear that I am prepared to discuss with the Lord Advocate the extension of revised section 271 to some mentally ill witnesses who are subject to orders under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act.
      The hon. Member for Dumbarton raised the issue that arises from the Quickly case and the new clause that was considered in Committee, when I undertook to discuss with Enable how we might secure the best treatment for

      649
      mentally disordered persons who were interviewed by the police. I met Enable in December, and wrote to members of the Committee on 10 January. As I explained in my letter, we are not persuaded that the statutory code is the best way forward. There might be some confusion between that code and the common law test that governs the admissibility of evidence.
      I also explained that the Lord Advocate has said that he would issue instructions to chief constables setting out the circumstances in which the police will have to interview mentally disordered suspects in the presence of an appropriate adult. We shall also issue non-statutory guidance on this matter to chief constables and social work departments. I hope that that will meet our shared objective, which is that proper treatment should be given to the mentally disordered. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will not press the matter.
      Mr. McFall: We are not persuaded by the Minister. He spoke about balance and judgment, but above all this is about justice. Under the new clause, people with learning disabilities who have to appear as witnesses will be protected, but that does not apply to people with mental illnesses. Such protection should be available to both categories of people.
      The measure would apply to people with inborn learning disabilities but not to adults who would have some difficulty in attending court because they suffer from brain damage, head injuries, dementia or a severe illness. Voluntary organisations have persuaded us of the merits of our proposal, and we shall press new clause 7 to a vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We are in some difficulty, because there is a debate in progress on new clause 11. It is the lead new clause, and the one that I must put to the House. If it is accepted, new clause 7 will fall.
      Mr. McFall: Why?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Because it is incompatible with new clause 11.
      Mr. McFall: In that case, we shall vote against new clause 11.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided:Ayes 269, Noes 228.

      Division No. 42]

      [5.4 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bates, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alexander, Richard

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Biffen, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Atkins, Robert

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)

      Atkinson. Peter (Hexham)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bowis, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Brazier, Julian

      650

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Harris, David

      Brooke, Peter

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hayes, Jerry

      Burns, Simon

      Heald, Oliver

      Burt, Alistair

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butler, Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Butterfill, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Horam, John

      Cash, William

      Hordem, Sir Peter

      Channon, Paul

      Howard, Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Churchill, Mr

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Clappison, James

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Congdon, David

      Hurd, Douglas

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Cope, Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Curry, David

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Jopling, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Key, Robert

      Devlin, Tim

      King, Tom

      Dicks, Terry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knapman, Roger

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Knox, Sir David

      Dunn, Bob

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lamont, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lang, Ian

      Elletson, Harold

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Evennett, David

      Lidington, David

      Faber, David

      Lilley, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lord, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      MacGregor, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Madel, Sir David

      Freeman, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      French, Douglas

      Malone, Gerald

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Marland, Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marlow, Tony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Garnier, Edward

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mellor, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Merchant, Piers

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, William

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Newton, Tony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      651

      Norris, Steve

      Stanley, Sir John

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Steen, Anthony

      Page, Richard

      Stephen, Michael

      Paice, James

      Stem, Michael

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Stewart, Allan

      Patten, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Sumberg, David

      Pawsey, James

      Sweeney, Walter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Sykes, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Porter, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Portillo, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Redwood, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Richards, Rod

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Tracey, Richard

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Trend, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trotter, Neville

      Rowe, Andrew

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ryder, Richard

      Waldegrave, William

      Sackville, Tom

      Walden, George

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Ward, John

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Watts, John

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Whittingdale, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Wilshire, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Wood, Timothy

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Young, Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sproat, Iain

      Mr. Richard Ottaway and

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mr. Bowen Wells.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Ainger, Nick

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Allen, Graham

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashton, Joseph

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Cox, Tom

      Benn, Tony

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

      Betts, Clive

      Dafis, Cynog

      Blair, Tony

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Bradley, Keith

      Darling, Alistair

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Byers, Stephen

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Denham, John

      652

      Dewar, Donald

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dixon, Don

      McFall, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McLeish, Henry

      Dowd, Jim

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      MacShane, Denis

      Eastham, Ken

      McWilliam, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      Madden, Max

      Etherington, Bill

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mandelson, Peter

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marek, Dr John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fisher, Mark

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Maxton, John

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Meacher, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Meale, Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Michael, Alun

      Garrett, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Miller, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Graham, Thomas

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mudie, George

      Hain, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hardy, Peter

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Oakes, Gordon

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, Bill

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

      Orme, Stanley

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pope, Greg

      Hoyle, Doug

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Purchase, Ken

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Randall, Stuart

      Ingram, Adam

      Reid, Dr John

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jamieson, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Janner, Greville

      Rooney, Terry

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Salmond, Alex

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Shore, Peter

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Short, Clare

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Skinner, Dennis

      Keen, Alan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C&S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Snape, Peter

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lewis, Terry

      Spellar, John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Steel, Sir David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Stevenson, George

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stott, Roger

      Loyden, Eddie

      Straw, Jack

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McAllion, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      653

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Touhig, Don

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Trickett, Jon

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dennis

      Wray, Jimmy

      Tyler, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wallace, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mr. Joe Benton and

      Watson, Mike

      Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice.
      I have just discovered that on Friday, while I was here, along with many other hon. Members, trying to do something about cold weather payments and the wind chill factor, a Minister visited my constituency, but did not have the courtesy to inform me that she was going there. Her visit was televised in my constituency and she attended at least three functions there. Unfortunately, I am not able to raise the matter with the person in this House, because she lost her seat at the last election. I should be grateful, therefore, for clarification from you on how I can make representations to the Baroness—the former right hon. Member for Wallasey—who visited my constituency on Friday without informing me.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has made it clear that all Ministers should inform hon. Members when they visit their constituencies and that all hon. Members should also have the courtesy to do the same if they visit another constituency. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will read Hansard tomorrow.

    New clause 8

      RELEASE LICENCES
      '4.—(1) This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer and who are not released on:

      (a) life licence; or

      (b) supervised release order; or

      (c) compassionate grounds.

      (2) A prisoner to whom this section applies shall be released on licence which shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed.

      (3) A person released on licence under subsection (2) above shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in that licence by the Secretary of State.

      (4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below to vary or cancel any condition, a licence granted under this section shall include a condition requiring that the person subject to it—

      (a) shall be under the supervision of a relevant officer of such local authority, or of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area, as may be specified in the licence; and

      (b) shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.

      654

      (5) The Secretary of State may from time to time under subsection (3) above insert, vary or cancel a condition in a licence granted under this section, but no licence condition shall be included on release or subsequently inserted, varied or cancelled except after consulting the Parole Board.

      (6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Parole Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.'.—[Mr.McFall.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have tabled the new clause because we want to enhance public safety. The Government's proposals do not do so, but our provisions will strengthen that aspect of the Bill. The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 provides for non-parole licences, under which any prisoner sentenced to more than four years but not granted parole can be released on licence until the sentence expiry date. The arrangements in that Act enhanced public safety as well as rehabilitation.
      The Bill alters those arrangements, as only life parolees and those made subject to a supervised release order by the sentencing court will now be under direct supervision. The sheriff or judge must say at the time of trial that the long-term prisoner will be subject to a supervised release order. All other long-term prisoners will have no supervision, but will be liable to recall following a further offence.
      We are surprised that the Government are diminishing the public safety aspect, as well as diminishing the potential to help people to be rehabilitated back into the community. After implementation of the 1993 Act, the new parole licences came into effect in May 1995, so there has been no time to evaluate them. The Minister of State, who is dealing with this Bill tonight, put through those measures in the 1993 legislation, with the support of the Opposition.
      In our opinion, public safety will be increased if all long-term prisoners are supervised until their sentence expires. Longer-term prisoners include those who have committed very serious offences and could constitute a further risk. Why will the Government allow those individuals to be released into the community again—or allow the possibility of their release—without that supervision? Surely the Government are putting public order at risk—a risk that they should not take.
      The new clause covers those sentenced for the offences of dishonesty and of theft by housebreaking, and especially repeat, serious and violent offenders—one category that has been increasing. The professional criminal and thief would, therefore, be brought into mandatory supervision on release, giving the public that protection. That comfort must be available. It is the Government's duty to provide it and, through the new clause, we are pressing them to take heed of it.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that the public are best protected by targeting supervision on those identified as posing a risk, which is the most effective way of deploying resources.
      The public rightly expect to be protected and rightly expect those charged with the protection to focus on offenders who may endanger them. Attempting to

      655
      supervise everyone regardless of risk or need, as the new clause sets out to do, would deflect attention away from those offenders who pose a threat. That is not the best way to protect the public. Supervision can achieve its objective only if it is focused and targeted. Near misses are not good enough.
      The Bill will allow the sentencing court to identify offenders whom it considers may pose a risk to the public on release and impose a supervised release order on them. We have also provided the Crown with a right of appeal in those cases where it thinks a supervised police order should have been made but was not.
      Dr. Godman: Is the Minister's position on this important issue supported by members of the parole boards, or do they have serious reservations?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what each member would say, but I believe that targeting supervision would be regarded as a common-sense measure, and having an untargeted, unfocused approach would not meet the requirements.
      We are not persuaded that the approach proposed in the new clause would be effective, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. McAllion: I am disturbed by the Minister's remarks and the cavalier fashion in which he dismissed the new clause. For example, he said—I do not think that anyone will disagree with this statement, anyway—that we have to target such resources as we have in the probation service and local authority social work departments on those offenders who pose the greatest risk to people in the community. He then dismissed the new clause, saying that it would cover everyone. I direct his attention to the first sentence of the new clause, which states:
      "This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer".
      Some years ago—in 1994, I think—in the White Paper that the Minister issued, as the Minister with responsibility for law and order in Scotland, he pointed out that, in courts, a distinction is made between offenders who are dealt with under the summary procedure, which is usually regarded as involving less serious crimes, and offenders dealt with under the solemn procedure, which involves very serious crimes indeed.
      Under the solemn procedure, prisoners can get sentences of three, four or five years, so, by the Government's definition, all those offenders who are sentenced to four years or more are guilty of extremely serious offences. The Minister may think that those who commit serious offences are not a threat to society, but I think that most people in Scotland would disagree.
      Supervision on release was covered in the White Paper, and there the Minister struck a very different note from the one that he struck a few moments ago. He said:
      "Protecting the public did not end with clarity in sentencing",
      and I agree with him. It is not enough to play the game played by the Secretary of State, who poses as a tough guy who will deal with the criminals by making sure that
      656
      they spend more time in gaol. We must go further than that to protect the public in Scotland from the serious criminals who would be covered by the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      In the White Paper, the Minister said:
      "The public need to be reassured that the Government is doing all it can to prevent further offending."
      If the Minister wanted to do all he could to prevent further offending and to protect the public, he could begin by reading the new clause, which deals with those matters, but he took a different line a few minutes ago.
      In the White Paper, the Minister also said:
      "To this end we are making early release from custody contingent not only on good conduct in prison, but also on participation while in custody in appropriate strategies to address and change offending behaviour."
      Nobody would be too concerned about that remark. He continued:
      "The responses to the Government's consultation exercise strongly supported the principle of release on conditions intended to enhance public protection."
      The Minister said that the response to the consultations was a demand for release on condition, to ensure that offenders who came out of the gates were properly monitored and looked after, and that probation officers and social workers were available to deal with them during the period in which they were still in the community serving the part of their sentence that had not been served in gaol; but now he shrugs off the idea with a few casual remarks. The new clause would cover just about everything to which he referred.
      Does the Minister not know that the vast majority of those in Scotland's prisons are serving sentences of less than four years and that only the most serious offenders are serving sentences of four years or more? He is telling us that it is all right for serious offenders to be allowed back into the community without supervision. Perhaps he is concerned that it would might cost money to look after them properly and to protect the public, but that is not what he or his colleagues will say when they go back to Scotland to fight the general election; then they will say that law and order is a priority and that the Government spare no expense to maintain it and to ensure that people throughout Scotland are safe in their communities. The Government have the nerve to dismiss a new clause that would do precisely that.
      Only when a serious offender reoffends will the Government do anything about it. They have shown themselves to be weak, not strong, on law and order. Unless the Minister changes his tune, everyone back in Scotland—not least his family—will look at him and say, "Failed again, Minister. You've got it wrong once again."
      Mr. Ian Davidson: One of the Government's main roles should be the protection of the public. I am not convinced that the Government are taking the new clause sufficiently seriously from that perspective. I can understand why the Government want to economise on the supervision of prisoners once they have been released, but they should take much more seriously the need to ensure that people released in such circumstances are provided with support, which would result in fewer of them reoffending and enhance public safety.

      657
      We would support the system proposed by the Government, with some targeting, but proposed subsection (4)(b) specifically says that the person released
      "shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision."
      That would obviously allow the supervising officer an enormous degree of discretion. It would ensure, for example, that people were seen to be taking steps to address their offending behaviour and perhaps, with the help of the supervising officer, to find employment or obtain further educational qualifications that would make them more employable and therefore less likely to offend.
      All the evidence shows that those who are most likely to reoffend are those on the very bottom of the employment ladder. The amount of supervision and assistance that can be provided by a local authority officer, to encourage someone to seek employment, careers advice, education or training, is quite considerable. People who are released from prison and who are not immediately in danger of reoffending might drift back into criminal behaviour simply because they are alone and lack supervision.
      The Government should take more seriously the need to safeguard the public, and should not ignore our constructive proposals.
      Dr. Godman: I support the new clause. I am pleased that my hon. Friends want the parole board to have an important function in such cases. To my mind, the Minister and his officials have in recent times sought to reduce the important role played by the parole board in dealing with people released into the community. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important for the parole board to play a central part, and it is perhaps even more important for the public to be protected.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I stated earlier, we believe that supervision is most effective when focused. The courts are required to focus supervised release orders on precisely the category referred to: those who are convicted of rape and other violent offences.
      Local authorities cannot supervise all released offenders to the level needed to ensure public safety. The task cannot successfully be spread across all offenders. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have adapted our proposals on supervision. Supervision, through supervised release orders, will be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders, and at the discretion of the court in other cases.
      For those not subject to supervision, the provisions of clauses 33 and 34 provide an incentive to good behaviour on release. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) mentioned the potential to help. That is not diminished by the Bill. The national standards for the supervision of released prisoners provide that all persons released from custody can, within 12 months of their release, seek support and assistance from the local authority.
      658
      We believe that the provisions in the new clause would be undiscriminating, and therefore wasteful of resources, and that the courts are well able to recognise those offenders who represent the greatest risk to the public.
      Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the White Paper—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I had finished.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. John McFall.
      Mr. McFall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Minister says that he cannot spread the provisions because it would be too expensive, but that supervision would be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders. He should understand that we are saying that those long-term prisoners who have committed serious offences should be subject to supervision. If, as I believe, he is saying otherwise, he is showing disregard for public safety. The Opposition want those individuals to be supervised.
      It is no use for the Minister to say that the provision cannot be mandatory and cannot apply across the board. If it was good enough for the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the Minister and approved by the previous Secretaries of State—the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—why is it not good enough for the Minister and the Secretary of State today? Will the Minister maintain the provisions of the 1993 Act?
      The 1993 Act was implemented after the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, when Secretary of State for Scotland, established Lord Kincraig's committee to consider parole and other issues. It took three years, if I remember correctly, to report back to the Government, but its recommendations were accepted by all parties. I was leading for Labour in the Committee that considered the Bill when the Minister asked us to accept them. He said that all long-term prisoners needed supervision. We took him at his word; why is he breaking it now?
      Mr. McAllion: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister, who rather uncharitably refused to give way to me earlier.
      In their latest figures, which cover 1994, even the Government accept that 83 per cent. of prisoners in Scotland serve sentences of less than six months. The number of people who will be affected by new clause 8 is small. It is beyond comprehension why the Government should resist the idea of supervision of serious offenders when they are released back into the community. The Minister mentioned some of the cases that will get automatic supervision; should he not also mention the cases that will not be covered by his provision but would be covered by ours?
      Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes a good point: 83 per cent. of offenders are in prison for less than six

      659
      months, and there is no supervision for them when they get out. Why should that principle apply to those who serve long sentences and to violent or serious offenders?
      The Minister begs the question when he says that it is up to the court. Can he imagine a sheriff—or, more likely, a High Court judge—giving a 10-year sentence and saying, "Well, my boy, lest I forget, you should be subject to a supervisory release order when you come out"? There is every chance that judges will not utter those words, which means that such people will be a danger to the community when they come out. The Secretary of State smirks at that, but the 1993 legislation was introduced by his Government and made those very points. Why is he introducing this Bill against the wishes of his hon. Friends, the Kincraig committee and others? It must be recorded that the Bill is being introduced by the Secretary of State at a whim. He consulted no one.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am surprised, after all this time, that the hon. Gentleman has not got the basic substance of the Bill into his mind: the point is that people should spend longer in prison as a result of their sentences and should not be out in the community under supervision. We believe that they should be in prison. The provisions for supervision after they have served the sentence of the court are an additional protection. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that.
      Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman is being patronising. We are talking about long-term prisoners who are released under provisions made by the Government. The Opposition believe that, when the Government decide to release such prisoners, they have a duty to the public to ensure supervision. I hope that that gets through to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Davidson: Is it not a bit much for the Secretary of State to argue that he is interested in increasing sentences, and that we are not, when it was Labour who demanded in Committee that the sentence available to judges for the third convictions of drug traffickers aged over 21 should be increased from seven to 10 years? The Government defeated that proposal in Committee. We are interested in increasing sentences for such people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the Government's refusal to accept the new clause was let slip by the Secretary of State when he said that local authorities could not supervise to the level required? Does that not show that it is a question of finance and nothing else?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend.
      I remind the House that it was the Opposition who brought up the cases of Gavin McGuire and John Cronin, who were released from prison. We want adequate supervision for such people. They were released under provisions introduced by the Government. We want long-term supervision, not the blemishes on the criminal justice system that the Government have allowed. That is why we have tabled new clause 8. We want increased public safety.
      Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the Government's defence of their refusal to accept new
      660
      clause 8 is based on the fact that violent or sexual criminals have been dealt with elsewhere? However, crimes such as burglary will not be treated seriously enough by the courts; supervision after release will not be mandatory. The Government are releasing burglars into the community without the requirement for supervision. On top of all their other charters, we now have the burglars charter. Burglars are to be released without supervision, which will ensure that the public are put even further at risk.
      Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important point and the Minister could comment on the issue of people convicted of burglary.
      It appears that the Government are not much concerned about people who are not only social nuisances in their communities but a danger to them. We want to take back to our communities the message that the Government take the issue seriously and will ensure supervision for such people when they are released from prison. The Government's intransigence blows a hole in their law and order credentials. The Secretary of State tells us that the Tories are interested in law and order, yet they have allowed crime to rip over the past 18 years in Scotland. New clause 8 would ensure that, when such people are let out of prison into the community, the message goes out from the House that the Government take the issue seriously. The Government have fallen down in their duty. That is why we press new clause 8 so vigorously.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly.
      We have, of course, adapted our proposals since the publication of the White Paper. There will be control through a supervised release order where the courts determine that the offender will be a risk. In cases where the courts have not identified the offender as a risk, clause 34 will be a significant disincentive to reoffending. It provides that, if someone reoffends during a fixed period after his release, he will be liable to a heavier penalty for the new offence.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said that the Opposition wanted to increase the minimum sentence for a third conviction for drug trafficking to 10 years for adult traffickers, but they also suggested reducing it to five years for those under 21. We believe that that would have weakened law and order.
      Mr. McAllion: The Minister tried to calm our feelings by referring us to clause 34, which provides that people released under licence but without supervision who reoffend will be subject to stiffer sentences. He is making the tragic mistake that legislators have made since the 19th century: he believes that tougher and tougher sentences will reduce crime. Most criminals do not believe that they are going to be caught. The sentence that might result from being caught does not enter their considerations. They have to be looked after in the community. The Secretary of State is wrong if he thinks that locking them up in gaol for long periods is the

      661
      answer. At some point, they have to come out again. If they reoffend, crime will inevitably rise. That is why we have tabled the new clause.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That was very much the voice of old Labour. We strongly believe that it is necessary to target those concerned and not act regardless of risk or need.
      Mr. Davidson: With the permission of the House—
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 281.

      Division No. 43]

      [5.49 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Denham, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Dewar, Donald

      Allen, Graham

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dowd, Jim

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Ashton, Joseph

      Eastham, Ken

      Austin-Walker, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Etherington, Bill

      Barnes, Harry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bayley, Hugh

      Faulds, Andrew

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bell, Stuart

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Tony

      Flynn, Paul

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Foster, Derek

      Benton, Joe

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fraser, John

      Blair, Tony

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Boateng, Paul

      Galloway, George

      Bradley, Keith

      Garrett, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Burden, Richard

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Byers, Stephen

      Graham, Thomas

      Callaghan, Jim

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gunnell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hattersley, Roy

      Cohen, Harry

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Cox, Tom

      Home Robertson, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hoyle, Doug

      Davidson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Adam

      662

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jamieson, David

      Orme, Stanley

      Janner, Greville

      Pearson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Randall, Stuart

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Reid, Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rooney, Terry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terry

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Salmond, Alex

      Litherland, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Shore, Peter

      Loyden, Eddie

      Short, Clare

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Simpson, Alan

      McAllion, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Snape, Peter

      McFall, John

      Soley, Clive

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Spearing, Nigel

      McLeish, Henry

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steel, Sir David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stevenson, George

      MacShane, Denis

      Stott, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Straw, Jack

      Madden, Max

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marek, Dr John

      Timms, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Touhig, Don

      Maxton, John

      Trickett, Jon

      Meacher, Michael

      Turner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Tyler, Paul

      Michael, Alun

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Wallace, James

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Miller, Andrew

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Watson, Mike

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morley, Elliot

      Wilson, Brian

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      Worthington, Tony

      Mudie, George

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Murphy, Paul

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Mrs. Jane Kennedy and

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Baldry, Tony

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Amess, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bates, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ashby, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Atkins, Robert

      Bendall, Vivian

      663

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Biffen, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Booth, Hartley

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gummer, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, William

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Brooke, Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Butler, Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash, William

      Heseltine, Michael

      Channon, Paul

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Churchill, Mr

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Hordem, Sir Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howard, Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Congdon, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Cope, Sir John

      Jack, Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Couchman, James

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Curry, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Devlin, Tim

      Jopling, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      King, Tom

      Duncan, Alan

      Knapman, Roger

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knox, Sir David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Elletson, Harold

      Lamont, Norman

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Faber, David

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lilley, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lord, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, John

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, Sir David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      664

      Mans, Keith

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marland, Paul

      Soames, Nicholas

      Marlow, Tony

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mellor, David

      Spring, Richard

      Merchant, Piers

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Stanley, Sir John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Steen, Anthony

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Stephen, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stem, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Allan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Newton, Tony

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sykes, John

      Norris, Steve

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patten, John

      Thomton, Sir Malcolm

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Pawsey, James

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tracey, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Tredinnick, David

      Porter, David

      Trend, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Rathbone, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Redwood, John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Renton, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Richards, Rod

      Waldegrave, William

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Waller, Gary

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Ward, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew

      Watts, John

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Ryder, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sackville, Tom

      Whittingdale, John

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Willetts, David

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Young, Sir George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. Bowen Wells and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Mr. Richard Ottaway.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 9

      WOMEN OFFENDERS
      '.—(1) After section 24(8) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(9) The court shall grant a bail application by a woman unless it is satisfied it is contrary to public safety or the interests of justice to do so.

      (10) The court shall specify its reasons for a refusal of any bail application made under (9) above."

      (2) After section 204(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(2A) A court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on a woman of or over 21 years of age unless the court considers no other method of dealing with

      665
      her is appropriate; and for the purpose of determining whether any other method of dealing with her is appropriate the court shall obtain (from an officer of the local authority or otherwise) such information as it can about the offender's circumstances; and it shall also take into account any information before it concerning the offender's character and physical and mental condition.".'.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement last week on 16 January on the subject of the suicides at Cornton Vale prison in Stirling. It was made only after more than a year of campaigning by myself and others on the subject of suicides in that prison. The Minister knows that, tragically, one of my constituents lost her life—she was one of the six young women who committed suicide; the last one to attempt to take her life also resided in my constituency. Therefore, as well as having a party interest in the subject, I also have a personal one.
      In his statement last week, the Secretary of State mentioned a number of the measures that are included in the new clause; we welcomed his comments on them, as we have been appealing to him to take action. Our only regret is the length of time and the amount of pressure that it took before the Secretary of State finally decided to act. On the same day as he made the statement, he responded to the chief inspector's report on Edinburgh prison and said that both cases had nothing to do with him. The new clause will ensure that such cases have everything to do with the Secretary of State, because the prevention of suicides—particularly of young women—has everything to do with the Secretary of State and is his responsibility. He has accepted the proposition of a bail hostel in Glasgow and the appointment of individuals to carry out work on addictions and to hold psychiatric sessions in the prison.
      Dr. Godman: The new clause is designed to keep women out of Cornton Vale. In the light of what my hon. Friend said about his constituents, is he satisfied that those with suicidal tendencies receive adequate care and attention when they are incarcerated in Cornton Vale? Is he satisfied with the Government's anti-suicide measures?
      Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. When I was in America last summer on home affairs business, I visited prisons on the east coast. In every prison I visited, I asked about its suicide policy and the number of suicides. Hardly any suicides had been recorded in any of those prisons over the past 10 or 15 years, because they had adopted appropriate suicide prevention policies. There is no doubt that appropriate measures were not in place at Cornton Vale—largely, believe, because the Scottish Prison Service regarded it as something of a backwater and left it to get on with the job on its own. As a result, the proper procedures and measures were not implemented.
      I have visited that prison twice in the past six months, most recently on 29 November. The governor, Kate Donegan, showed me around and I was impressed by the remedial work being undertaken there. However, she mentioned that many of the young women there are vulnerable and that it is hard for the prison authorities to
      666
      deal with such problems. In his report on the prison, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons in Scotland, Mr. Clive Fairweather, said that suicides would not end at what he described as "the death-culture prison" until more appropriate measures were implemented. We have campaigned long and hard to make the Secretary of State understand and do something about the issue of women prisoners, especially those at Cornton Vale.
      The new clause would strengthen bail provision in Scotland.
      Dr. Godman: The chief inspector of prisons voiced similar concerns in his report on Greenock prison. The problem that we are debating is not confined to Cornton Vale; it affects prisons throughout Scotland. As Mr. Fairweather pointed out, the problem may be part of a rising tendency among young people in Scotland to commit suicide. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done to protect vulnerable people?
      Mr. McFall: I agree entirely. Only two years ago, a young constituent of mine, Gerry Deary, committed suicide in Greenock prison. The need to do something for young people is urgent. The chief inspector's reports on Cornton Vale, Greenock and Edinburgh prisons contain comments expressing professional discontent with the Government's handling of the situation in prisons. I accuse the Government of dereliction of duty in that respect.
      Mr. Fairweather's report on Edinburgh prison, which came out on Friday, reveals an intolerable situation. He points out the current dangers within the prison and describes a flashpoint atmosphere which could erupt in the future. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State take a smug attitude; they sit on their hands and do nothing. The new clause would ensure that they address the problems at Cornton Vale and elsewhere and ensure that we have good order in our prisons.
      Imposing good order is not some sort of do-gooding measure. Good order ensures that we do not have riots, that money is not needlessly spent clearing up behind them and that lives—whether those of prison officers or solicitors visiting prisons—are not put in danger. It is in the cause of good order that the new clause has been tabled.
      Dr. Godman: This is an important issue and many people would benefit from the new clause if it were passed. Not long ago, in Greenock prison, two prisoners committed suicide within 25 hours of each other. Such tragedies have a distressing effect on prison officers, especially those directly involved—that is, those who discover the bodies. Suicides in prisons are terrible both for staff and for fellow prisoners.
      Mr. McFall: Again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in whose constituency Cornton Vale is located, is not here to listen to the debate because he would learn from it. He sat in on earlier debates; yet he does not attend a debate which directly affects his own constituency. We should ask why that is. For the past year, we have been chasing the Secretary of State, asking him to address these issues and to acknowledge his responsibilities. We are debating

      667
      a clause which relates specifically to his constituency, but he is not here to listen to our proposals. Opposition Members have visited prisons and spoken to members of the Scottish Prison Service because we have an interest in the issue. I want the Secretary of State to show the same degree of interest.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman emphasised the difficulties at Cornton Vale and referred to last week's report on Edinburgh prison. Under the Bill, prisoners will have to earn days of remission. Does he agree that that will be much harder in prisons where there is overcrowding and no opportunity for rehabilitative work and that that will add to the tensions and pressure in Scotland's prisons, including Cornton Vale?
      Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. We all have long memories and we remember when the former Secretary of State, now Lord Younger of Prestwick, abolished parole. We remember the problems that that caused in Peterhead prison and elsewhere. We are dealing with a fragile situation.
      Only this weekend, I received a communication from the Parole Board for Scotland telling me that the Government's intentions in respect of prison officers assessing prisoners for early release were a dangerous proposition. We want the Minister and the Secretary of State to understand that those with an interest, professional or otherwise, in the criminal justice system have the best interests of the prison service at heart, but they are not being heeded. I am putting forward the new clause with that in mind.
      6.15 pm
      The new clause would strengthen bail provision in Scotland to ensure that women are remanded in custody prior to trial or sentencing only when they pose a danger to public safety or where it is in the interests of justice to remand them. Those who are dangerous should be imprisoned, but those who pose no danger should not. That echoes the sentiments uttered by Mr. Clive Fairweather when he investigated Cornton Vale.
      The new clause would also ensure that no woman was sentenced to detention or imprisonment until and unless the court had considered a full social inquiry report on her background and personal and domestic circumstances, including an assessment of any drugs dependency or mental health problem. It would also ensure that the court had considered all community-based disposals before making a decision to send a woman into custody.
      I want to share with the Minister the feelings of my constituents, Jim and Anne Bollen, who tragically lost their daughter Angela in Cornton Vale. In the privacy and intimacy of their home, Mr. Bollen said to me, "Mr. McFall, she would not have committed suicide if there had been a proper community disposal available for her. She was no danger to society—she was a danger to herself and a problem to her family. If the courts had recognised that, they would have been assisting us. Instead"—here Mr. Bollen pointed to his three-year-old granddaughter—"my wife and I, at our age, have the responsibility for that child for the rest of our lives."
      668
      In their eyes, the irresponsibility of the criminal justice system is answerable. The responsibility for that comes back solely, fairly and squarely on the Government. The Secretary of State cannot get out of that, despite his assertions to the contrary. Anyone who considers the macho approach to law and order displayed in the Secretary of State's article in The Sun today knows that the Government are responsible for conditions in prisons. We shall be unrelenting in our efforts to ensure that the Government take their responsibilities seriously. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is now taking his seat—that is a welcome sight.
      The new clause has been introduced to open up the debate on how women offenders should be dealt with in Scotland—in the light of 12 suicides or attempted suicides within 18 months at Cornton Vale and incidents at other prisons. We must also remember that the chief inspector of prisons pointed to the tinder box environment in our prisons. The first four suicides at Cornton Vale involved young women remanded prior to trial. Clive Fairweather made it clear in his report that many of the women remanded to Cornton Vale should not have been there, and need not have been there had bail hostels been available.
      As I said earlier, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement last Thursday of funding for Glasgow city council's bail proposals. In partnership with the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Glasgow will quickly bring 15 bail beds on stream. I also welcome the additional money being made available to develop a new 15-bed bail hostel in the west of Scotland. The reason for the pressure is that many of the young people remanded to Cornton Vale come from the west of Scotland. That issue may be worthy of further examination.
      I note that the Secretary of State said last week that additional money is being provided to deal with the drug-related problems experienced by a very large proportion of the prison population. I know that an addiction worker is being provided at Cornton Vale, as well as drug workers in the prisons in Glasgow.
      There is also the question why so many young women from the west of Scotland find themselves in Cornton Vale. Is there a difference in drugs policy between the west of Scotland and the east of Scotland? The research money available should be used to examine that issue.
      Dr. Godman: In the scheme of things that my hon. Friend is outlining, he has emphasised the importance of social background reports. Does he agree that a competent social worker can produce a good report within a few days of being given the task?
      Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am making the point that the court has a responsibility. A number of courts needs to undergo an attitudinal change. Of course, there is also a responsibility on the social workers to produce good reports.
      In the annual criminal justice planning statement submitted to the Secretary of State on 1 August 1996, Glasgow city council asked for an extension to the bail information and bail supervision service to cover the stipendiary court in Glasgow. In fact, a similar request had been made by the outgoing Strathclyde regional council in 1995. The Secretary of State's response last week, though

      669
      welcome, was therefore most definitely belated. However, it is an acceptance of the request by Glasgow city council and, formerly, Strathclyde regional council.
      The agreement to fund additional prison, court and community-based posts to assist and improve assessment of drug-misusing women offenders will provide an infrastructure of services for which I have long asked. However, that is not enough. The law needs to be strengthened. No woman—arguably, no person—should be remanded in custody other than where it is in the interests of justice to do so or where public safety requires it. If that is so, the law should state it.
      Current bail law is to be found in part III of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Sections 23 to 33 of that Act outline the bail process, procedures and conditions and how bail applications are to be dealt with. However, the provisions covering whether or not to grant bail other than for certain very serious crimes are always at the discretion of the court. Three times in section 23 the law states that the sheriff "at his discretion" may grant or refuse a bail application. That includes cases on summary procedure as well as those on petition.
      The new clause would retain full judicial discretion over whether to grant bail to women, but shifts the presumption to one of bail normally being granted unless an exception can be justified. The exceptions are public safety and the interests of justice. Where the exception is to be exercised, the new clause requires the court to specify its reasons. Thus, the new clause gives a clear lead.
      What are the numbers involved? The 1995 prison statistics bulletin, issued by the Scottish Office in October 1996, reveals that in 1995 a total of 876 women were remanded in custody—739 prior to trial and 137 awaiting sentencing. Clive Fairweather, the chief inspector of prisons, says that many of those women should not have been so remanded. The new clause will help to reduce the numbers if women remanded in custody to those cases where it is necessary for public safety or in the interests of justice.
      Parliament has already decided in the 1995 Act that certain categories of person cannot be sentenced to detention or prison without a court first having to consider a report prepared by local authority social workers. Those categories are, first, all persons under 21 years of age, murder alone excluded and, secondly, all persons of whatever age facing custody for the first time. The new clause would widen those categories to include all women offenders. No probation order and no community service order can be made unless the court has first considered a social inquiry report. That is what the 1995 Act requires. How can a court, when dealing with a woman over the age of 21, consider a community-based disposal instead of prison if it does not even ask for a social inquiry report?
      The prison staff and social workers know that many of the women sent to Cornton Vale need not be there, and I am sure that the Secretary of State also realises that. They know that many of them have a drugs problem. The facts have been emphasised time and again. The new clause would ensure that no woman could be sentenced to imprisonment in Scotland without a court having to consider, first, whether there is no other way of dealing with the woman in the community, secondly, the personal, family and domestic circumstances and background of the woman and, thirdly, an assessment of the woman's drug
      670
      dependency, where necessary. Only by being required to obtain a social inquiry report can a court honestly make such an informed decision.
      I have investigated the numbers that might be involved. The 1995 prison statistics bulletin states that in 1995 some 1,293 women were sentenced to custody. Of those, 146 were under the age of 21. Of the adults, 634 were admitted for non-payment of a fine. We hope that the growth of supervised attendance orders as an alternative to prison for fine default will reduce that number. If I remember correctly, both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have said that they will try to do something to reduce the number of individuals going to prison for fine default.
      The Minister may recollect that, when we debated the issue previously, we said that a woman with two children could be sent to prison for not paying a fine of £80 when it would cost the state more than £2,000 to keep her and look after her children. Surely, as we approach the 21st century, we should be more civilised and look for a more appropriate way of dealing with the non-payment of fines.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are doing everything in our power to extend supervised attendance orders throughout Scotland, specifically to deal with the point that he has made?
      Mr. McFall: I agree. Confronted with those figures, however, the Minister may realise that not enough has been done and that the problem needs more urgent attention.
      I can only hope that the growing use of supervised attendance orders as an alternative to prison for fine defaulters will reduce the numbers that I have given. We are still left with 513 other adult receptions, some of them repeat receptions—that is to say, of the same women. Others will be in custody for the first time and will be the subject of social inquiry reports. In some cases the courts, at their discretion, may have asked for such reports. The point is that the numbers involved are not great. As the Secretary of State conceded in his statement last week, it is therefore not a resource issue. Six hours spent on each social inquiry report represents fewer than 3,000 social work hours per year, so the total cost would be the equivalent of two full-time social workers.
      6.30 pm
      This is a simple, but practical, measure. I am aware that many of the issues that I have raised may apply equally to male offenders, but their numbers are much greater—8,217 custodial sentences in 1995—so there may be feasibility problems in terms of social work resources and court time for repeat appearances. Today's debate is designed to highlight the position of women offenders in Scotland, so if the Minister asks why we have not dealt with men, too, perhaps implying that the measure is discriminatory, I would reply that we have initiated the debate in the aftermath of the 12 attempted or successful suicides in Cornton Vale prison in an 18-month period.
      I remind the Secretary of State that it was his own appointee—Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Clive Fairweather—who highlighted the problems of women in prison in Scotland and whose report to the Secretary of State called for alternatives to prison. Many

      671
      of these women, he said, should and could have been dealt with in the community. His report cannot be ignored. No prison for men has as bad a problem as Cornton Vale, so special measures are needed to deal with a unique problem.
      Of course, many of the issues discussed today apply just as much to male offenders, but just because we cannot deal with the entire problem at once does not mean that we should be prevented from solving part of it. I believe that the measures announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State last week will be helpful. Meanwhile, the cost of doing nothing hitherto has been the lives of six young women in the Secretary of State's own constituency, and attempted suicides by a further six. Surely that will move Ministers to implement in full the proposals in the new clause for a supervision order to be considered by the courts before any woman can be sentenced to prison in Scotland. That, surely, is not too much to ask for.
      Dr. Godman: Is not suicide more prevalent among remand prisoners than among those serving sentences of imprisonment following conviction in the courts?
      Mr. McFall: That is certainly true—hence the new clause. Last week the Secretary of State showed that he realises that bail hostels are not particularly costly. Indeed, a 15-bed hostel with 24-hour staff cover will cost less than £200,000 a year to run. I believe that the Scottish Office has promised Glasgow city council almost 100 per cent. funding. I am pleased about that, but there is a need to do more.
      I offer the House the new clause in the hope that the Government will listen constructively. We must move forward in a non-partisan fashion to remove the blight of the past 18 months from the Scottish criminal justice system.
      Ms Rachel Squire: I fully support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has said. This weekend, while I was thinking about what to say in this evening's debate, by one of those strange coincidences, I was contacted at my surgery by the family of a young woman who is in Cornton Vale prison and whose case highlights a number of the reasons for new clause 9.
      Hon. Members may have heard of the case of Louise Clarke; she and her family are constituents of mine. She is in prison because she was convicted of the culpable murder of her partner and sentenced to five years. I am not speaking in support of culpable murder, but my constituent's case shows just what can happen to people in Cornton Vale who are awaiting a court appearance or—as in Louise Clarke's case—who have been convicted and given a sentence.
      Louise Clarke murdered her partner after years of domestic violence. She met him first when she was 14 years old. She had been referred to him because he, a community worker in a position of public trust and responsibility, was supposed to help her cope with the break-up of her parents' marriage. He then blatantly abused that position of trust and responsibility. Aged 38, he took full advantage of a 14-year-old girl. Eventually
      672
      she moved in with him, whereupon she was subjected to several years of domestic violence—until she finally attacked and killed him.
      I do not condone murder; I do emphasise that many of the young women in Cornton Vale prison are, like Louise Clarke, as much the victims of their circumstances as were those against whom they perpetrated their crimes. Like many other young women in that prison, Louise Clarke grew up being subjected to violence and abuse. She needs full support and rehabilitation to help her adjust to living a normal life and, hopefully, a happy and healthy life when she is eventually discharged.
      Many of my constituents and others feel that Louise Clarke's sentence was most unfair, given the circumstances. Indeed, her family and friends handed into the Secretary of State for Scotland a petition with more than 2,000 signatures. Although the Secretary of State was not there to receive it himself, it was handed to representatives of his office some weeks ago but the family and friends concerned have yet to receive even an acknowledgement.
      Mrs. Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that sentences passed on women are often much harsher than those passed on men who have committed a similar offence?
      Ms Squire: Yes. A man in circumstances similar to those of Louise Clarke would have been dealt with far more leniently.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: I simply want to say that I am sorry if the hon. Lady's constituents did not receive an acknowledgement of their petition. It has been the policy in the Scottish Office, as a financial saving measure, not to acknowledge correspondence and representations when they are received, but to wait until there is a substantive response. However, we have just changed that policy, although it does involve additional cost, for the very reason that the hon. Lady gave—it causes concern to people who think that nothing is happening because they have received no acknowledgement. I shall look into the case that the hon. Lady raises.
      Ms Squire: I thank the Secretary of State. I am sure that the family, friends and several hundred people who signed the petition will be glad to hear his statement.
      Mrs. Fyfe: A little earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said that a woman is likely to receive a harsher sentence than a man for a similar crime, including murder. That may come as a surprise to at least some of our colleagues but it is certainly the case. Women Members of Parliament probably follow those matters a bit more closely because we receive many letters about them. For example, I recall a case in an English court where a man got away with murdering his wife because she nagged him. Here is a case of a woman who suffered domestic violence for years and years before she finally snapped and committed murder. It is obvious that the woman is not a danger to society but that years of abuse drove her to those desperate straits. It was therefore completely unjustified to give her a harsh sentence.
      6.45 pm
      Ms Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for those sentiments. I am confident that my constituents and the woman's family will take great comfort from her comments, with which I fully agree.
      Such cases show the importance of greater monitoring of people placed in a position of trust and responsibility, particularly for young people. I know that that matter has been raised in the House.
      That case emphasises the importance of prison and other staff being available for rehabilitative work with the women at Comton Vale prison. My constituent's mother emphasised that the Cornton Vale staff were very understanding and supportive of her daughter, but she made it clear that the pressures and strains on staff meant that sufficient time and resources were not available.
      Indeed, the staff must at times feel that they are as much prisoners of the regime in which they work as the prisoners themselves. They are imprisoned by overcrowding, insufficient staffing levels and too few resources. As was said earlier, they work in a tinderbox environment, which puts tremendous stress and strain on them. It does not allow them the job satisfaction that they would receive if they could offer the support and rehabilitative services necessary to ensure that women prisoners were discharged to lead full, happy and healthy lives.
      Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the new clause would be to lift some of that burden from the hard-working staff at Comton Vale?
      Ms Squire: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The new clause would benefit all the women at Cornton Vale prison, both prisoners and staff.
      Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), in response to something that the Minister said, mentioned the role of highly skilled and qualified social work staff in providing rehabilitation and support services, and their involvement in the rehabilitation of young women such as those at Cornton Vale. I am extremely concerned by press reports over the weekend, which show that the Government are determined to add to their privatisation list by privatising social work services and removing the highly trained and qualified group of staff available to work with young women in prisons and elsewhere. Doing so will benefit the private sector rather than provide the high-quality, professional support and rehabilitative services that are needed if we are to reduce our prison population and create a safer and more stable society for everyone.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Part of the debate so far has concentrated on the sentencing of women offenders. I do not wish to trespass on that aspect, but I urge caution in attempts to compare one case with another. There is no doubt that the circumstances of each criminal case are almost always unique. For example, while the family of the person convicted may consider a sentence to be unduly harsh, the family of the person who died may have a diametrically different view.
      It is legitimate to argue that, so far as possible, there should be greater consistency in sentencing. The fact that the former Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Ross, is now to have responsibility for the continuing professional education of
      674
      judges seems a substantial and worthwhile step in the right direction. Perhaps out of that and other such initiatives, greater consistency may emerge.
      We must also be careful not to form our judgment on the basis of newspaper reports of various cases. Often an important factor, tending towards leniency or suggesting that a more severe sentence should be imposed, is omitted from the report.
      I shall begin my substantive remarks by congratulating the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who I see has slipped out for a moment, not just on the way that he proposed the new clause, but on the remarkable determination he demonstrated in ensuring that his constituents, to whom he referred in his speech, were afforded legal aid for the purpose of representation at the conjoined fatal accident inquiry that is to be held into the deaths of three unfortunate young women at Cornton Vale.
      It was extraordinary behaviour on the part of the Scottish Legal Aid Board—the legal aid authorities in Scotland—that legal aid was not immediately allowed when an application for that purpose was made to it. It is difficult to conceive of any issue in which an individual has a greater interest than in being represented at an inquiry whose purpose is to seek to determine the cause of death of that individual's daughter, in this case.
      I was a member of the old Legal Aid Central Committee and for a year before entering the House was a member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. From time to time, I had to deal with such applications or appeals in relation to such applications. I find it extraordinary that the board should have taken the view that it took. I hope that we will see no repetition of that. The board operates under statute. If its conduct is unreasonable, it will be open to judicial review. We would all regard it as an unnecessary waste of public funds if applicants for legal aid were compelled to go the Court of Session seeking judicial review of what seemed patently unreasonable decisions. In that regard, we should all recognise the determination of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, and congratulate him.
      Dr. Godman: I offer the hon. and learned Gentleman my compliments on his remarks about the Scottish Legal Aid Board. I hope that they are brought to the board's attention. In the near future, there is to be yet another fatal accident inquiry into yet another suicide at Greenock prison. I hope that the board will act much more sympathetically than in the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
      Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman contributes often to these debates and, on this occasion as on many others, he makes a perceptive and constructive contribution.
      Cornton Vale prison was designed in the 1960s and built in the early 1970s. Its design and construction were a direct response to the physical inadequacy of Gateside prison in Greenock, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where the physical conditions were generally regarded as wholly inappropriate for the proper treatment, care and imprisonment of female offenders.
      It is now 30 years since the original conception of Cornton Vale. In the aftermath of the most recent suicide, I put forward the view, not as a panacea or an easy response, that it was now time to consider whether

      675
      Cornton Vale is a suitable institution, in terms of its physical characteristics, for the care of those who are on remand or those who have been imprisoned.
      I am not an expert in penology of this kind, but if the physical characteristics of Cornton Vale are inappropriate, we should not shrink from considering whether to close the facility and build somewhere else something that contains the physical characteristics appropriate to deal with the young women on which much of the debate has centred.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Cornton Vale will not have been enhanced by the fact that the Secretary of State proposes to give over one of the wings to young offenders? That would reduce the complex, where I used to be a prison visitor, to two thirds of its previous size, and mix the prisoners, placing women prisoners and young offenders side by side.
      Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me if he has been a prison visitor at Cornton Vale; I have visited it only in a professional capacity, and therefore may not have seen all parts of it, as the hon. Gentleman has.
      When a series of suicides has occurred, as has been the case, one must be willing to think the unthinkable. My argument is that we need a root-and-branch approach to the question of how we deal with women who are caught up in the criminal law system, whether on remand or after conviction. If, as a result of such a review, it became clear that the physical characteristics of Cornton Vale were inappropriate, as Gateside was in the 1960s, we should be prepared to take the step of closing the facility and building a more appropriate one.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman's good faith, but has he considered how the staff of Cornton Vale would react to the statement, from a man of his standing, that the prison should be closed? Those who are constituents of mine were extremely upset about it. I do not know whether they speak for the Prison Officers Association, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was a terrible blow to morale. On reflection, does he not think that he should have spoken privately to Ministers, rather than publicly?
      Mr. Campbell: I stand by the judgment that I made. I do not say that we should close the prison. I say that, if the prison's physical characteristics are inappropriate to the proper treatment of women in the criminal law system, we should consider creating a prison in which there are such physical characteristics as enable us to deal with them.
      There is little doubt that a prison where there have been the tragic circumstances and the number of suicides that have occurred at Cornton Vale is not fulfilling its responsibility, however sincere and competent the staff are. We should be willing to consider root-and-branch alternatives.
      Dr. Godman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, as I know that others wish to speak.
      676
      We need a new regime for the treatment of women on remand and after conviction. We must acknowledge that the responses and requirements of women who find themselves in conflict with the criminal law, and the way in which they should be dealt with, are entirely different from those of men who find themselves in conflict with the criminal law. I make that judgment from my own professional experience, but it is supported by much of the recent evidence of the kind of people who have been driven to the terrible solution, if that is the right word to use in this context, of taking their own lives.
      The matter is one of considerable importance. The fact that the new clause would discourage the placing of women in prison, either on remand or after conviction, in my judgment represents a proper approach which should commend itself to the House.
      The hon. Member for Dumbarton pointed out that many women receive custodial sentences for fine default. We have seen anecdotal, front-page stories about women who were sent to prison because they did not have a television licence and could not afford to pay the fine levied upon them. Such people should not be in prison. If Ministers will not accept that argument, I am pretty sure that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who recently became president of the Prison Reform Trust, will sympathise with it.
      The Minister is about to leap to his feet and say that the Government share my view. If that is so, why are so many women sent to prison for fine default? It is because our system is insensitive: it does not contain a sufficient range of means of dealing with people who find themselves in that position. For that reason, I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the House. It is a forerunner of our treating women in the criminal law system in a way that they unquestionably deserve in the manner of a truly civilised society.
      7 pm
      Mr. Canavan: I support new clause 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Scotland has one of the highest prison populations per capita of any country in Europe. When I hear the Secretary of State speak, I sometimes get the impression that he wants to increase rather than decrease our prison population to such an extent that the construction of prisons may be the only growth industry in Scotland.
      Cornton Vale has inevitably been mentioned. I do not have any up-to-date, detailed information about that prison, but many years ago it was in my constituency and I visited it occasionally. No prison is a nice place—I do not suppose that they are meant to be—but it is nonsense to believe the claptrap peddled by some elements of the media that prisoners are living in the lap of luxury. Loss of liberty is obviously the greatest deprivation experienced by anyone who serves a prison sentence.
      Some 20 years ago, Cornton Vale was one of the most modern and most civilised prisons in Scotland. I have visited quite a few prisons since then, and some seem Victorian in their conditions. If the Government were serious about penal reform, they would try to make conditions in our prisons more humane, so that ex-prisoners would not harbour such anti-society and anti-establishment feelings.
      Although Cornton Vale was, by Scottish standards, civilised and reasonably humane 20 years ago, I am alarmed by what has occurred in recent times. I think that

      677
      the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible for prisons in Scotland and as the constituency Member of Parliament, should take a more active interest in what is going on. It is unacceptable that six young women in Cornton Vale have committed suicide in the past 18 months—an average of one death every three months—and the situation warrants inquiry at the highest level.
      Most of the young women imprisoned at Cornton Vale are very vulnerable—many are teenagers who were convicted of drug-related offences. For many, a custodial sentence at Cornton Vale was not the first option of the sheriff or the judge who sentenced them. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and others have said, many initially received non-custodial sentences, such as fines, because the judiciary deemed those penalties most appropriate in the circumstances. However, default in the payment of fines led to their imprisonment in Cornton Vale.
      New clause 9 seems to present a reasonable alternative. It places an obligation on the court to
      "grant a bail application by a woman unless it is satisfied it is contrary to public safety or the interests of justice to do so."
      It also places an obligation on the court not to pass a custodial sentence on a woman unless
      "the court considers no other method of dealing with her is appropriate".
      It emphasises bail and non-custodial sentences rather than detention and prison sentences.
      I admit that, for males and females, prison sentences are appropriate and inevitable in some cases. For example, a custodial sentence is appropriate if someone commits a terrible crime of violence and poses a danger to society. I am convinced that the majority of prisoners at Cornton Vale could receive non-custodial sentences that would be more appropriate to their crimes—particularly when they represent no great danger to public safety. I hope that the Government will consider the new clause seriously and construct bail hostels and alternative forms of accommodation as the new clause suggests. Too many young women have died in Cornton Vale, and it is time for the Secretary of State to act in the interests of justice.
      Mrs. Fyfe: If the Minister rejects new clause 9, I imagine that he will do so on the ground that it relates only to women offenders. He may believe that it should be rejected on the ground of equal treatment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, statistics show that, over the years, far fewer women than men have committed serious crimes resulting in gaol sentences. The conduct of men in prison tends to be different from that of women: whereas women tend to turn violent feelings inwards and harm themselves, male prisoners may be more likely to act aggressively against other prisoners. For those reasons, we must look afresh at the treatment of women who are remanded in prison or who are serving prison sentences. That is why I support new clause 9.
      Some hon. Members have said that by far the most common crime among women serving prison sentences is fine default. It may seem obvious, but women do not carry a gene for fine default; there is nothing in female DNA to make it more likely. It is a crime of poverty. Women are more likely to fall foul of the law in that way because they tend to have lower incomes than the male half of
      678
      the human race. As other hon. Members have said, it is unreasonable that those women have to spend time in gaol when there are other ways of dealing with such crime. Taking those women out of the system would ensure that there were far fewer women serving sentences in Cornton Vale.
      There is only one women's prison in Scotland, demonstrating how little need there is for prison places for women in Scotland. It is important, however, to consider the research carried out in the United Kingdom. I should be glad if research into the issue were conducted in Scotland. Research in England has shown that courts have taken a sterner view of women breaking the law than of men breaking the same law. I do not know whether that happens in Scottish courts, but we should find out. It certainly seems so, with so many women in prison simply for failing to pay a fine. That says something about the courts' attitude.
      Other hon. Members have talked about the deaths of women on remand. That is a tragedy for the young women concerned and it is appalling for their families, who see them go to prison on remand for a relatively trivial offence—I believe that that was true of all the cases—with dreadful results that could not normally be foreseen.
      Some of the deaths have been linked with drugs and suicidal tendencies. Rather than attempt to create a round-the-clock suicide watch in prison, we should ask whether people who are so prone to suicide should be in prison. Men or women, should they not be in the care of a mental hospital? Even in mental hospitals, it is difficult to ensure the safety of prisoners determined to commit suicide. If a mental hospital, with all its experience of such cases, finds it difficult, it is only to be expected that prison warders will find it even more difficult to tackle the situation.
      I have already said that women are more likely to turn violence on themselves than on others. When I visited Cornton Vale some years ago with my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and others some years ago, one of the warders said that they had had cases of women prisoners slashing their wrists with broken teacups, but the women did not attack others. That was typical conduct of women who were severely upset by being in prison. The loss of liberty is bound to affect anybody—man or woman—and is very difficult to deal with. Knowing that women prisoners might turn violence on themselves, we must consider how many of them should be dealt with in other ways rather than imprisonment.
      On my visit to Cornton Vale, I was amazed to discover that actions that could have improved circumstances were not being taken. I know that there have been some improvements, but I should like the Minister to address some of the issues. Even education and training opportunities were limited compared with those available to male prisoners. Little was being done to help those women to rehabilitate themselves into civil life and stay out of trouble.
      Incredibly, the reason given was that there were so few women prisoners. The fact that women tend to be by far the more law-abiding sex is held against those who commit crimes. As there are so few of them, they get fewer opportunities to find activities that would help them to be useful members of society when they leave prison. I remember that there was a very limited curriculum.

      679
      Work opportunities at that time did not extend far beyond sewing shrouds, which I would have thought would have depressed any young woman intolerably. The authorities could have exercised a bit more imagination than that.
      7.15 pm
      Complaints have been expressed over the years about attitudes to prisoners. I know that some feel that prison staff have come in for much unjust criticism. We also hear from prisoners and ex-prisoners that they felt the regime to be too harsh. We should consider that and look into the day-to-day conduct of prison life.
      We have talked about public safety. It is important to remember that we are not saying that someone who is a danger to public safety should be freed, but a bail application should be granted for those who are safe to be let out. I find it fantastic that we even have to argue the case, because we have all heard of rapists and others who were a danger to society being let out on bail and allowed to roam about, yet a woman who has not paid a fine is considered too great a danger to society to be allowed out.
      With so few women in Scotland having served a gaol sentence, it should not be difficult to research these questions and decide on the best approach. What offences should land people in gaol? In what circumstances should bail be granted? Are we certain that there is fair treatment between the sexes for offenders? The narrow research base should make it simple to carry out that work and ensure that the system is truly just to women offenders in Scotland.
      Mrs. Adams: I support new clause 9 and hope that the Government will seriously consider what my hon. Friends have said. It is clear that not nearly as many women commit crimes as their male counterparts. Someone once said to me that if there were no men, the world would be a crime-free place full of fat, happy women. That might well be true. Women are certainly not as oriented towards committing crime, but statistics in England show that they appear to be treated more harshly than men for the same crimes. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider treating women differently in the prison and criminal justice systems.
      The Minister may argue that treating women differently would be discrimination in their favour. I make no apology for asking him to do that, because women behave differently from men. When they break the law, it tends to be trivial, or at least non-violent, offences. They tend not to commit violent offences, and when they do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said, it is often in circumstances in which there has been a great deal of domestic violence, resulting in the woman eventually breaking and retaliating for the first time, frequently after many years of abuse.
      Women in prison tend to be there on minor charges, often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and others have pointed out, for defaulting on fines on trivial issues such as television licences.
      In such cases, not only the women concerned but their families are often affected. It is inhumane to punish women to such an extent, but it is also uneconomical. Women are being imprisoned, usually for some weeks,
      680
      for minor crimes such as defaulting on a £100 fine for failing to pay for a television licence. We may have to keep such women in prison for two or three months, and, moreover, we may have to support their families. Children often have to be taken into care, and the need for support frequently does not end when a woman is released and the family are back together.
      Ms Rachel Squire: I support what my hon. Friend says. Some years ago, I had to deal with a family in which the mother of three children had been given a prison sentence. Tremendous efforts were made to ensure that the children could continue to live in the community, with full support from the social services, while awaiting their mother's eventual release. Fortunately, one of the children was 16 years old at the time. As my hon. Friend has said, support was also needed after the mother's release. This important matter needs to be taken fully into account.
      Mrs. Adams: I agree.
      Families often enter a vicious circle that they cannot break. The children as well as the mother are in the system and cannot escape from it, and that frequently leads to their committing offences in future. Such a system is not economical. It does not do society any good, and it certainly does not do the women involved any good.
      Women prisoners often come from difficult backgrounds, and what they have done may relate to their particular circumstances. Many more women with psychological problems are in prison than we would expect, and many are dependent on drugs—not only illegal but prescribed drugs to which they have become addicted. We are not helping such women; we are simply locking them up.
      We know that women do not do well in prison. They often do less well than men. I wonder whether that is because the woman in a family is often the responsible person—the person who looks after the household accounts, and runs the domestic side. In locking up such women, we are not only shutting them away from their families but taking all their responsibilities from them. Women often find it difficult to cope with that.
      The Minister must look carefully at new clause 9. He must obtain social background reports on women who enter the prison system, and note the number of women prisoners who have been imprisoned for trivial, minor offences such as fine default. I know that, in some instances, he has tried to address the issue, but I do not think that we are currently going far enough.
      We should treat women prisoners differently from their male counterparts. They are usually in prison for very different reasons, and the circumstances that landed them there are usually very different. We should not be locking up non-violent women who have committed minor offences, sometimes creating the spiral that leads whole families into not just the social work system but the criminal justice system.
      Mr. McAllion: No doubt the Minister will argue—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) suggested—that one of the objections to the new clause is that it relates only to women prisoners. No doubt he will say that suicides occur in men's prisons as well, and of course he is right, but I agree with my hon. Friend that women are far more likely than men to turn violence against themselves.

      681
      Before I became a Member of Parliament, I spent a number of years as a teacher in a list D school in Dundee, which looked after young male offenders. In fact, the boys were aged up to 16, so perhaps they were not as young as all that. I can recall no occasion on which any of the young inmates turned violence against himself rather than the other boys—or, indeed, the staff, including me on a number of occasions. On one famous occasion, a bowl of hot soup was thrown over me.
      Towards the end of my time at that school, I was transferred for some of the week to work in a list D school for girls. It was obvious to me immediately that the girls at that school—Balgay in Dundee—were prone to trying to cut their wrists and push their wrists through windows in an attempt to communicate their problems to those around them. Anyone who works with young offenders, or in the Prison Service itself, could describe such behaviour to the Minister, and I am sure that for a long time he has been advised that women prisoners are much more likely to damage themselves and commit suicide. I hope that he will take that into consideration in his reply.
      Back in February 1996—at least according to a Government White Paper—random mandatory testing for drugs was introduced in Cornton Vale. That was another of the great ideas that the Secretary of State for Scotland has from time to time to show that he is a tough guy when it comes to law and order. I am sure that he sees himself as a Jimmy Cagney figure, sorting out the bad guys throughout Scotland; but most people in Scotland see him as a Baldrick figure from "Blackadder Goes Forth". Not only is he small, and not only does he look like Baldrick, but he clearly has "cunning plans" which never come off.
      This plan certainly did not come off. Nearly a year later, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service tried to explain the spate of suicides that had taken place at Cornton Vale in the following terms: the cause, he said, was the higher rate of drug-taking by women prisoners, and the breakdown of their life style. There we have it—yet another Government initiative that has not worked. Once again, the Government are trying to respond to a crisis that was created because they had not the foresight to deal with the circumstances that were to lead to that crisis in the longer term.
      When the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House on 16 January saying what he intended to do about the crisis at Cornton Vale, he made it in the form of a written answer—as is fairly usual among Scottish Office Ministers nowadays—rather than laying himself open to questions from Scottish Opposition Members. He opened that statement by saying:
      "The care of prisoners and the prevention of suicide in prisoners are operational matters for the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service".
      There we have it again—the right hon. Gentleman trying to distance himself from any responsibility for what may be going on in Scottish prisons, and saying, "It is nothing to do with me, guy; it is down to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. If there is anything wrong, it is his fault, not mine." That is a despicable attitude for Ministers of the Crown to take, particularly given that the chief executive, unlike hon. Members, cannot answer back to the Minister concerned and hold him to account.
      682
      Most of us would have no problem with the actual measures set out in the written answer. The right hon. Gentleman refers to
      "new arrangements for the induction of remand prisoners."
      That is a good idea. More time out of the cell for prisoners in Cornton Vale is another good idea. He also refers to
      "increased access to education, physical training",
      and access to groups such as the Samaritans, Rape Crisis and Women's Aid. That is all good stuff. He says that extra staffing and more money—these days we do not hear about that from either side of the House—have been provided to address
      "the drug-related problems experienced by a very large proportion of the prisoner population."—[Official Report, 16 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 307.]
      He also mentions additional psychiatric sessions and five additional posts for drug reduction work.
      7.30 pm
      That is all fine: no one complains about that. That is the sort of initiative that we want for women in Cornton Vale. The new bail hostel in Glasgow, which provides 15 beds, is another good initiative. But what about those women who are in Cornton Vale but who should not be? The Secretary of State's written answer completely ducks that question. Many women are in prison who should not be. The great thing about the new clause is the principle that there should be fewer women in prison. We should do everything in our power to stop women being sent to prison. That goes against the Government's thinking.
      The Secretary of State has already boasted that he wants more offenders banged up in more prisons for a much longer time. The Scottish Prison Service has had to face an outbreak of suicides, especially at Cornton Vale, and hostage taking in male prisons. The Secretary of State faces growing discontent in the Scottish Prison Service among staff and prisoners, but his solution of banging up more people in more prisons only makes the problem worse.
      The White Paper spoke about a new accommodation block in Greenock prison, which will have 60 new cells in two galleries. We were promised a new private prison at Kilmarnock—provided by and staffed by the private sector—offering another 500 places. The White Paper says that, after the election, the Government will have to contract out the construction of more prisons to other private sector providers. With all those grand plans to turn Scotland into a great prison yard, does the Minister intend to build any more prisons for women, or is Cornton Vale considered to be sufficient to cope with the demand for places for women prisoners in the future? What is the Government's thinking? Do they share the Opposition's view that we should send fewer women to prison? If they think that more and more women should be sent to prison, there are likely to be more suicides in prison.
      It is ironic that, at a time when the social fabric in Scotland is being dismantled by the Government, they want to build more prisons. The social fabric is essential to the health of local communities. As schools, community centres, leisure facilities and swimming pools are taken away from local people, their communities become less welcoming, darker and much more dangerous places. The social fabric of Scotland is being torn apart,

      683
      and the Government's only response is to build more prisons and to bang up more people. That will lead to the problems that we are experiencing in Cornton Vale.
      It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Government have introduced a series of measures to stop drug taking inside Scottish prisons—drug taking was one of the main reasons for the suicides. Mr. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, has spoken on the record about drug taking. An article in the press says:
      "Addressing the problem of drugs in Scottish prisons, Mr. Frizzell said prisons should not be fortresses. He added: 'It would be very difficult to keep drugs out. There is a whole culture of drug-taking that is very hard to deal with.'"
      Mr. Frizzell is at the cutting edge, and has to deal with situations inside prisons. He says that it cannot be stopped, but the Minister says it can. He says that for purely political reasons, because of the general election, although he knows that drug taking will continue in prisons. If it does continue, more people will be in difficulty, and more women prisoners will take their own lives.
      The extra 15 beds in the bail hostel in Glasgow are welcome, but Glasgow and Edinburgh already have bail hostels, whereas there is none anywhere else in Scotland. Ministers and other hon. Members must realise that Scotland is not just the central belt or the Glasgow-Edinburgh axis: there is a large part of Scotland outside that axis which should also be taken into consideration. People from Dundee, Aberdeen, Ayrshire and elsewhere will ask where the bail hostels are for their areas. We do not want everyone to have to troop down to Glasgow or Edinburgh because there is no provision elsewhere in Scotland.
      Mr. Connarty: The title of this Bill was of interest. It became known as the Dostoevsky Bill, and I said that it could be Dostoevsky's masterpiece "The Possessed". Having taken it through Committee and seen how it has come out, I think that it should rather be compared with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", because it is just a confection to satisfy certain cravings on the right wing of people's thoughts. Incarceration—slamming people up and making it hard on them—satisfies people's deep longing to feel more safe and secure than they feel after 17 years of Conservative Government. The Secretary of State fits my idea of a political Willy Wonka turning out sweets and casting them to all sorts of people in society to try to win them over in his favour. The Bill contains mostly bitter sweeties—as we know them in Scotland.
      I hope that the Minister will take a serious look at new clause 9, because it is positive and chimes with people's concerns about crime. People also have deeper concerns about how we should treat vulnerable people—who may also be offensive towards others—as well as try to protect society from their negative influences. That is what new clause 9 is about. It calls into question the appropriateness of prisons, including Cornton Vale. Scotland has only one prison for female, long-term prisoners.
      Cornton Vale prison is not the worst female prison: I have visited Holloway. It is a pity that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke about Cornton Vale continuing, is not present, because I can tell him that Holloway is one of the most
      684
      frightening places where any human being can be incarcerated. It was designed as a hospital and has a wing which is full of women psychiatric patients. It was like visiting Bedlam. I am glad to say that we have nothing like that in Cornton. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned. If the clause is accepted, it could later be included in the legislation covering the rest of the United Kingdom. If it is appropriate to prevent women from going to Cornton Vale, which was designed in the 1970s, it is all the more appropriate to prevent women from being sent to the hell of Holloway prison in London, especially if they are vulnerable or known to need psychiatric treatment.
      I have publicly criticised the changes that have been made at Cornton. I do not accept the excuses given for using one of the blocks for young offenders. Mixing the two regimes, even if there is a big fence between them, will heighten the inappropriateness of sending vulnerable women to Cornton Vale. The physical nature and the regime of the prison was included in the excellent inspector's report in 1996—he visited the prison between 19 and 30 May 1996. Every page of the report gives more weight to new clause 9. Given the condition of Cornton Vale in 1996, it is not a place where we should put anyone if it were inappropriate and if another form of disposal could be found.
      The report was in response to three suicides. Annex 6 shows that, by the time the report was produced, there had been four suicides and three other attempted suicides—mostly by hanging. There have now been six suicides. It is worth while looking at the different sections—page 9 deals with drugs and page 10 gives an analysis of drugs. Most people who go into Cornton have had some contact with drugs. In Cornton, as in other prisons, because cannabis can be traced in the bloodstream for up to 30 days, people are switching to harder drugs, such as heroin, which is out of the bloodstream in two days. The drug regime is getting harder, and some users are becoming more determined.
      Page 14 clearly shows that there is concern among the staff as well as among the prisoners about suicides. When we put vulnerable people into such pressure situations, particularly those who are on remand, it seems that women, as hon. Members have said, tend to commit self-harm. New clause 9 has a great deal of merit, because we should not place people in such establishments.
      I should like to comment on the staff and their responses. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke about some of the sweeties that the Secretary of State gave people in a sudden rush. The Secretary of State, whose party has been in government for 17 years and who has represented Stirling since 1983, suddenly initiated a spate of amendments affecting the regime in that prison. The ratio of male to female staff has been increasing. The inspector found that inappropriate and something has been done about it. Bail hostels are being provided, as are regimes for dealing with drugs, and all this has been done in a rush before the election. It is all about casting sweeties to people in the hope that they will forget the massive failures in the treatment of women prisoners.
      There is clearly a malaise among the staff, and it has been reported. Pages 103 and 104 of the inspector's report show that the staff complained about too little training and many staff members said that they felt extremely isolated in the prison and were undermined by the

      685
      suicides. They found that the regime was inappropriate for them to create a caring atmosphere. All that strongly argues that the new clause is the most appropriate way to deal with women who do not require to be incarcerated. I hope that the Government will see the logic of that and will accept the new clause.
      Dr. Godman: By way of preface to a couple of questions to the Minister and before my speech in support of the new clause, I should like to say that any soft or sentimental feelings that I had about crime or criminals were knocked out of me by my service in the Royal Military Police and as a member of the local committee of Edinburgh prison.
      Is it right that recent suicides in Cornton Vale prison are far in excess of the suicide rate among women of a similar age in Scotland, whereas, however sad it may be, the incidence of suicide among male prisoners tragically reflects a growing tendency towards suicide among young, disturbed males in Scotland?
      My second question relates to Cornton Vale and alternatives to it. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) reminded us that Cornton Vale was a replacement for Gateside prison in my constituency. A friend of my wife and myself was an officer at Gateside and Cornton Vale and said that the latter was a vast improvement on the former and that the best option would be a new prison for women. What is the Minister's view on the feasibility of a new prison for women? Perhaps he favours the dispersal of women prisoners to local male prisons. What is the attitude of the Scottish Prison Service on dispersal?
      The new clause would benefit both prisoners and women prison officers. It would certainly relieve much of the strain felt by the latter in their attempts to look after the former in difficult conditions. Today a young woman whom I know and who lives in Inverclyde has been remanded on bail by a sheriff in the west of Scotland. Although the case is sub judice, I feel able to say that that sheriff made a sensible decision. On the whole, sheriffs make such decisions in bail applications by women. But we need more than the discretion of sheriffs and I support the new clause because, as I say, it will benefit women prisoners and prison officers.
      As the Minister knows, there is to be yet another fatal accident inquiry into the suicide of a young person in Greenock prison. Our prison staff do a fine job in difficult conditions, but they require more resources and facilities.
      7.45 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I pay tribute to Governor Kate Donegan. I have visited Cornton Vale, as has the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), whom I accompanied. I have visited the prison a number of times since then, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I offer my condolences to the families of those who have died, and I am concerned about the number of suicides at Cornton Vale.
      Last year we announced our intention to use the empty spaces in Cornton Vale for male young offenders so as to reduce overcrowding elsewhere. That accommodation has been segregated from the rest of the establishment by a fence, but because of the current pressures on Cornton
      686
      Vale, the transfer of male young offenders has been postponed for the present to allow the governor and staff to concentrate on improving the women's regime.
      Mr. Connarty: Does the Minister accept that in the inspector's report the staff said that more women than they expected were under observation? They said that one of the reasons for having prisoners on the upper floors, although they would have preferred them on the lower floors, was overcrowding. At the same time, the prison wing that has been mentioned was left empty for the transfer of young offenders.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have no doubt that the governor and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service will take into account the needs of women in Cornton Vale and the need to avoid overcrowding, especially among vulnerable young prisoners.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke about suicidal prisoners being in mental hospitals. If a medical officer considers that a prisoner requires hospital treatment, that will be arranged. However, the problem is not that simple. Some suicidal prisoners do not exhibit symptoms which cause medical concern. The Scottish Prison Service suicide prevention strategy is being revised to help staff better identify prisoners who may be at risk and the service will draw on the recommendations of reports by Professor Gunn of the Institute of Psychiatry and Dr. Power of the university of Stirling.
      Courts are currently required to obtain social inquiry reports in all cases where a custodial sentence has been imposed on offenders up to and including the age of 20. Those must also be obtained when persons of 21 or over are facing a sentence of imprisonment for the first time. Some 28,000 are requested each year by the courts, at an average cost of £211 per court.
      The Government and the Scottish Prison Service have implemented a range of measures to tackle these issues. We have implemented or are implementing the vast majority of the recommendations in last year's report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. That move has introduced new arrangements for the induction of remand prisoners, has resulted in extra time out of cells and has increased access to education, physical training and other opportunities. Some outside agencies are now working in prisons, and remand prisoners now share a cell to encourage mutual support.
      All those measures are designed to alleviate the problems that prisoners, and especially those on remand, might experience. It is by that route that action should be taken rather than by requiring courts to limit their considerations on the basis of gender. New clause 9 would fetter unduly the discretion of the courts, which already take into account the factors identified in the new clause in reaching decisions on bail. In taking those decisions, the courts must have regard to public safety and the administration of justice, and the range of penalties available for the breaching of bail orders reflects that.
      The courts also have responsibility for dealing with bail offenders. We have heard Opposition proposals for tough action on bail bandits. The courts at present have the discretion available to them to refuse bail where the accused has a record of bail abuse. By limiting that discretion to instances where public safety or the interests

      687
      of justice apply, the courts may not have the same freedom to remand women in custody where they consider such action to be most appropriate.
      The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about the discretion of the courts. A court must grant bail unless, in the exercise of its discretionary right of refusal, it is of the opinion that, in looking to the public interest and securing the ends of justice, there is good reason why bail should not be granted. This approach applies to both men and women. I must tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that bail beds are provided in Aberdeen and Dundee, and we expect a new hostel to open in July this year. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I do not doubt for one moment that the interests of Dundee are important.
      As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week, the Government have extended the bail information scheme to include the stipendiary magistrates courts in Glasgow. We have offered £50,000 to convert properties operated by the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders for use as bail accommodation. Officials are discussing with Glasgow city council financial support for the addition of 15 bail bed spaces. The availability of those spaces will assist the courts in releasing an accused person on bail where the only reason for refusing bail is that the accused does not have a normal place of domicile. The hon. Member for Dundee, East will be glad to hear that similar proposals are being discussed with Dundee city council.
      Much has been written recently about the link between suicides and drugs. While those who may have been taking drugs or who have life style breakdowns are susceptible to suicide, there is a range of possible explanations for the recent suicides—including depression and a lack of hope for the future on the part of the inmates. I can tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East that mandatory drug testing is providing a clearer picture of drug taking and has provided a clearer message that drug taking will not be tolerated. It is helping staff to target support measures on those prisoners who need help in tackling their drug problems. Some women prisoners have said that being placed on a testing programme has helped them resist the pressures to take drugs.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to some of the measures that were announced recently, and I will not go through them again. I can tell the hon. Member for Maryhill that an independent researcher is undertaking a six-month study to obtain detailed information on the extent and type of drug and alcohol misuse among women prisoners before and after conviction. This will help to provide information to assist the targeting of resources for the future.
      More funding is being made available, in addition to the extra staffing provided last year, to address the drug-related problems experienced by a large proportion of the prison population at Cornton Vale. A further addictions worker post has been approved, together with additional psychiatric sessions. Proposals from the governor to increase access to drug reduction programmes in prison and to recruit additional registered mental nurses have been approved. All of those measures will expand the programme that is in operation. Tackling drugs in prison is not the only part of the equation and, to be
      688
      effective, there must be adequate through care on release. We are discussing with local authority and voluntary agencies what steps may be taken to ensure that this is available, and such discussions are going on in Glasgow.
      Any suicide is a tragedy, and although the intention behind the new clause is worthy of support, we do not believe that the proposed details are appropriate for the reason that I have given—that they involve a statutory discrimination in favour of women. That runs contrary to the principle that has informed Government policy for many years—that persons should not be discriminated against because of their sex.
      Mr. McFall: This useful debate has done the House proud—particularly as the Secretary of State and the Government have been strangely silent on the issue for far too long. If the debate has assisted the process of doing something regarding the position of women prisoners in Scotland, that is all the better. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for his remarks in what has been a good debate. We are unconvinced by the Government's position. There is a gaping hole in the criminal justice system regarding women which has to be rectified, and we shall press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 292.

      Division No. 44]

      [7.54 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Ainger, Nick

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Allen, Graham

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Alton, David

      Church, Ms Judith

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Ashton, Joseph

      Clelland, David

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Battle, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Bell, Stuart

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benn, Tony

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Berry, Roger

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Blair, Tony

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Blunkett, David

      Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

      Boateng, Paul

      Dafis, Cynog

      Boyes, Roland

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Keith

      Darling, Alistair

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Burden, Richard

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Byers, Stephen

      Denham, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Dewar, Donald

      Callaghan, Jim

      Dixon, Don

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobson, Frank

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      689

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Etherington, Bill

      Lewis, Terry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Litherland, Robert

      Fatchett, Derek

      Livingstone, Ken

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fisher, Mark

      Loyden, Eddie

      Flynn, Paul

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Foster, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Foulkes, George

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fraser, John

      McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Macdonald, Calum

      Galloway, George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Garrett, John

      McLeish, Henry

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gerrard, Neil

      McMaster, Gordon

      Gilbert, Dr John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      MacShane, Denis

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Madden, Max

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Graham, Thomas

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marek, Dr John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gunnell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hain, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Hall, Mike

      Meacher, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hardy, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Harvey, Nick

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Milburn, Alan

      Henderson, Doug

      Miller, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoey, Kate

      Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Murphy, Paul

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Oakes, Gordon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'dn N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Illsley, Eric

      Orme, Stanley

      Ingram, Adam

      Parry, Robert

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Janner, Greville

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Radice, Giles

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Randall, Stuart

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keen, Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Rendel, David

      690

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Rogers, Allan

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rooney, Terry

      Timms, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Touhig, Don

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Trickett, Jon

      Salmond, Alex

      Turner, Dennis

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tyler, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Sheldon, Robert

      Wallace, James

      Shore, Peter

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Short, Clare

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Simpson, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watson, Mike

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Brian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Winnick, David

      Spellar, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Steel, Sir David

      Wray, Jimmy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Stott, Roger

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Straw, Jack

      Ms Angela Eagle.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Cash, William

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Channon, Paul

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Amess, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clappison, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Ashby, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkins, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cope, Sir John

      Bates, Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Couchman, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bendall, Vivian

      Curry, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Biffen, John

      Day, Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Devlin, Tim

      Booth, Hartley

      Dicks, Terry

      Boswell, Tim

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter (Ettham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brooke, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Elletson, Harold

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Butler, Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Butterfill, John

      Evennett, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Faber, David

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Fabricant, Michael

      691

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lilley, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lord, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Luff, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stilling)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, John

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maclean, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, Sir David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Major, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Malone, Gerald

      Gare-Jones, Tristan

      Mans, Keith

      Garnier, Edward

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Merchant, Piers

      Gummer, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hannam, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Needham, Richard

      Harris, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Newton, Tony

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Norris, Steve

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Hendry, Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heseltine, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Page, Richard

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Paice, James

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Horam, John

      Patten, John

      Hordem, Sir Peter

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, David (Guilf'd)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Porter, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hurd, Douglas

      Redwood, John

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Richards, Rod

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Jessel, Toby

      Robathan, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jopling, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Key, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      King, Tom

      Sackville, Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Knox, Sir David

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lang, Ian

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Legg, Barry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Lidington, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      692

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Trend, Michael

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Trotter, Neville

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Waldegrave, William

      Sproat, Iain

      Walden, George

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Stanley, Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Steen, Anthony

      Ward, John

      Stephen, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stern, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stewart, Allan

      Watts, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Wells, Bowen

      Sumberg, David

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sykes, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilshire, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Thomason, Roy

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Yeo, Tim

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Young, Sir George

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Sebastian Coe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE ON FURTHER CONVICTION FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'that' to 'may' in line 20 and insert
      'it would be in the interest of justice to impose a sentence, other than the sentence required by subsection (2) above, it'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 148, in page 2, line 17, after 'circumstances', insert
      'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.
      No. 244, in clause 2, page 4, line 31, leave out from 'that' to 'may' in line 35, and insert
      'it would be in the interest of justice to impose a sentence, other than the sentence required by subsection (2) above, it'.
      No. 149, in page 4, line 31, after 'circumstances', insert
      'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.
      No. 150, in clause 3, page 5, line 30, after 'circumstances', insert
      'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.
      Mr. Wallace: The amendment would ensure that the element of discretion afforded to the judiciary in the two clauses relating to automatic and minimum sentences was concerned with the interests of justice rather than trying to find or establish exceptional circumstances.
      I want something more akin to a presumptive than an automatic life sentence, because it is our contention that the provisions in the Bill as it stands amount to an unreasonable fettering of the judiciary. Our constitution, unwritten though it is, proceeds upon a separation of powers among the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. It has always been clear that Parliament must legislate for sentences, but the Bill seems to be moving towards putting the judiciary in a sentencing straitjacket.

      693
      It is significant that in more than one of our debates today the Minister has objected to or opposed certain moves on grounds of the need to provide the judiciary with discretion. There have been newspaper reports recently that the Secretary of State is planning to introduce training for judges, but training would not be needed if the discretionary element in sentencing were removed.
      In many cases in which an automatic life sentence would follow a second offence, the courts already have power to pass life sentences if they believe that the circumstances, the seriousness of the crime or the dangerous nature of the person who committed it make that appropriate. If a court has regard to all the circumstances of a case and yet believes, despite having the opportunity to pass a life sentence, that a fixed sentence is more appropriate, it would surely amount to injustice if a more harsh sentence—a life sentence—had to be passed.
      From an earlier response of the Minister's, we know that there have been relatively few appeals by the Lord Advocate against a sentence that he considered too lenient. The figures in the White Paper show that, of 1,407 people convicted between 1990 and 1994 of an offence within the categories designated in the Bill, 75 per cent. received custodial sentences. The other side of that coin is that, despite the nature of the crimes, 25 per cent. of cases were regarded by the courts, when they had been made aware of the full circumstances of the offence and of the offender, as not meriting a custodial sentence. If a life sentence may have to be imposed even in circumstances in which the courts do not believe that any custodial sentence is appropriate, that can lead only to injustice.
      In many of the 75 per cent. of cases to which I referred, there would be lengthy fixed sentences and the period in prison would be followed by long periods of supervision under licence, during which the offender could be recalled. I understand the Secretary of State's argument to be that prisoners would be released only on licence if a life sentence had been imposed, and that they could be recalled at any time. If reoffending is predictable and prisoners are under supervision, why is the power of recall not used even under the present system? Even with an automatic life sentence, it is quite foreseeable that the parole board would nevertheless opt for release in circumstances in which it did not predict any reoffending, and we should be in much the same position as at present.
      8.15 pm
      There is a strong argument that what the Government are proposing in this exercise in machismo could weaken public protection. It could lead to an increased risk of wrongful acquittals. I will give an example of circumstances in which an acquittal might take place if an automatic life sentence loomed.
      Many offences involving violence and serious violence occur within the family. That is deeply to be regretted, and it does not excuse such crimes, but the fact is that witnesses could be deterred from giving evidence if one member of the family would, on conviction, receive an automatic life sentence. Many a jury might be deterred from convicting if it believed that, in all the circumstances of the case, an automatic life sentence would be disproportionate. In many such cases, counsel
      694
      representing the accused could draw to the jury's attention the consequences of a guilty verdict, and what might appear to be a shadow of a reasonable doubt might well become a substantial reasonable doubt.
      Many more cases are likely to go to trial as a result of the Bill, increasing the number of victims of crime who have to go through the trauma of giving evidence. There could also be more examples of plea bargaining. One of the crimes that will lead to an automatic life sentence on a second offence is an assault
      "with an intention to rape or to ravish the victim."
      It is not unforeseeable that, to secure a conviction, that offence might be reduced through plea bargaining to a plea of guilty of indecent assault, with all the offence that that might cause to the victim.
      The qualifying offences are full of anomalies. One is
      "Robbery, where at some time during the commission of the offence, the offender had in his possession a firearm or an imitation firearm."
      I do not in any way seek to diminish the seriousness of such an offence, but someone who had a toy gun in the boot of a getaway car used in the commission of an offence could, if that were established, be guilty of an offence that would lead to an automatic life sentence. If, however, a combat knife had been brandished in the face the person being robbed, that would not lead to such a sentence. Such anomalies are liable to bring the law into disrepute.
      The amendments also deal with drugs offences and the mandatory seven-year sentence. I have no truck with those who peddle drugs; they are some of the most evil perpetrators of crime. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), in discussing similar provisions for England and Wales, said:
      "For example, young drug addicts who sell small quantities of drugs to other addicts will get the same sentence as professional drug pushers."—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 908.]
      That is the sort of consequence that can arise and that will be regarded as unjust, not only by those who have to serve the sentences but by their families. It will bring the law into disrepute. Many small-time drug addicts will be less likely to co-operate with the police in assembling cases against major drug pushers if the consequence of co-operation is an automatic sentence of seven years or more.
      The Minister may argue that the Government make some provision for flexibility by referring to "exceptional circumstances". The Lord Chief Justice south of the border has said that "exceptional" is a word that can be given a very narrow definition and suggested that psychiatric problems or threats of suicide may not be "exceptional circumstances". I doubt whether provocation would be regarded as an exceptional circumstance, but it has been relevant in some high-profile cases of murder and in England of manslaughter or in Scotland of culpable homicide where seriously abused wives have killed their partners. The fact that there have been so many such cases means that such circumstances are not exceptional, so courts will not be able to exercise discretion and ensure the justice that the public demand unless the discretion implicit in my amendment is accepted.
      The Government introduced unit fines, but had to abandon them when the courts were obliged to levy fines that were disproportionate to the offences committed.

      695
      If the Bill becomes law, I predict that within months there will be a public outcry about an automatic life sentence which will be regarded as manifestly unjust.
      I conclude with the words of the 1990 White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which stated:
      "The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework, on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional cases."
      In times past, the Government recognised the strength of the arguments against what they propose in the Bill. One can only conclude that with a general election looming they would rather be seen as tough on crime than as having a proper regard for the best interests of a civilised and just criminal justice system.
      Mr. McFall: I commend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his eloquence and agree with much of what he said. We raised these issues in detail with the Minister in Committee.
      On "exceptional circumstances", I refer the Minister to the debate in Committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, when the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said:
      "The words 'exceptional circumstances' will present an immediate and fundamental problem for the courts. We cannot foresee the problems that many phrases will cause. Had we foreseen problems with some phrases, we would have acted at the appropriate time. However, we can clearly foresee a problem with the phrase 'exceptional circumstances'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 November 1996; c. 22.]
      We pressed the Minister on that point in Committee, but he said that he did not wish to limit judicial discretion. He made that comment immediately after limiting the judicial discretion with mandatory sentences. The problem of "exceptional circumstances" remains to be cleared up. It is not enough for the Government to say that it is up to the judge to decide what are exceptional circumstances if they are not laid out in the Bill. The Government say that it is a matter for judicial discretion, but if that is so, why was judicial discretion taken away in the first instance?
      In Committee the Minister said that he did not want to define "exceptional circumstances" because it would limit judges' discretion. However, this aroused concern even among Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who asked whether "exceptional circumstances" applied to the prior qualifying offence or only to the offence under consideration.
      The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) suggested that judges would be loth to define "exceptional circumstances" because they would be open to the right of appeal and their decisions might be challenged on appeal. There was much concern about that problem, not least from the Law Society of Scotland. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain the Government's thinking on "exceptional circumstances". For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are reluctant to elaborate.
      The Pepper v. Hart case in 1992 meant that courts and others outside Parliament could refer to our debates to understand the intention of legislation. It is important to make the intention clear. I ask the Minister to address that and to ensure that he gives a satisfactory response;
      696
      otherwise, judges will keep to the status quo and make no comment. The Government's aim in the Bill will thus not be realised, and I trust that he does not want that.
      Lord James Douglas—Hamilton: In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I believe that the number of appeals made by Law Officers against too lenient sentences is in the region of 15.
      Amendments Nos. 243 and 244 concern the circumstances in which courts may exercise their discretion not to impose an automatic life sentence or a minimum of seven years imprisonment for a third or subsequent conviction for class A drug trafficking offences. The amendments would seriously undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the public from violent or serious sex offenders and recidivist drug dealers. They would replace the "exceptional circumstances" test in relation to the court's discretion not to impose an automatic life or minimum mandatory sentence with a different and much wider test. The exceptional circumstances test would allow the courts to impose a different sentence only where unusual circumstances exist.
      The purpose of clauses 1 and 2 is that life sentences or custodial sentences of seven years or more should be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of the cases; otherwise, they will not have the desired protective and deterrent effect. The tests proposed in the amendments go far beyond that by, for example, allowing the courts to impose a different sentence if they think that it would be anomalous to impose a minimum sentence. They might allow a judge not to impose a minimum sentence in a case in which he would otherwise have been minded to impose a different penalty. That would make nonsense of clauses 1 and 2.
      Clause 1 deals with criminals who have already been convicted of serious offences such as rape, or of robbery with a firearm, but go on to commit a further such offence. Such criminals have shown by the nature of their offences and by their inability to desist that they are a threat to public safety. Only automatic life sentences can deal satisfactorily with the risks that they pose to society.
      Clause 2 deals with drug dealers convicted of a third or further class A drug trafficking offence. We believe that not to impose a severe determinate sentence on such persons would not provide the protection that the wider community deserves from such people.
      Mr. Wallace: If I follow the Minister's argument, will he say whether he thinks that I am offering a fair summation of it? Judges have immense experience and are paid substantial salaries to exercise their judicial discretion. As a result of the Government's proposals, they may have to impose sentences that are harsher than they believe to be necessary in the circumstances. Does the Minister believe that that is justice?
      8.30 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that the public deserve the additional protections that automatic life sentences would give in the case of repeat offenders. That would be particularly relevant in cases such as that of Maguire, who would have been caught by an automatic life sentence the second time he offended.
      Mr. McFall: I should like to add to the question just posed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about

      697
      judicial discretion. The Minister has cited the exercise of such discretion in exceptional circumstances, but has not allowed for it in the case of mandatory sentences. Is he saying that he does not trust judges and that there have been problems in the past as a result of their decisions?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not saying that. We believe that the clauses should necessarily provide a discretion for a different sentences to be imposed when there are exceptional circumstances. I am content to leave that discretion to the courts. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland could argue eloquently in court if he believed that exceptional circumstances existed. In my view, the right balance has been struck and to go further would undermine the effectiveness of clauses 1 and 2.
      By singling out particular circumstances, we do not wish to fetter the courts' discretion to decide what are exceptional circumstances and how they should be weighed. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Wallace: The Minister's reply comes as no real surprise to me, as we are all aware that the Government are going through a window-dressing exercise in trying to appear tough on crime. I do not believe that the proposals will have the effect in practice that the Minister pleads for them.
      I have already said that, if a prisoner who has been released on licence under supervision ought to be recalled, then he should be recalled. Equally, if there is an omission to recall him on the basis that he is likely to reoffend, it is equally likely that he will be released by the Parole Board with the consent of the Secretary of State and then reoffend. I do not believe that the Government's proposals would provide the type of safety for the public that the Minister says that they will deliver.
      The Minister has completely overlooked the fact that discretion is already exercised by judges to impose a life sentence where they think that there is a strong likelihood that a person will reoffend due to his dangerous proclivities. The Minister has outlined circumstances in which judges and the courts will be obliged to mete out sentences harsher than those that judges' long judicial experience lead them to believe it would be in the interests of justice to deliver.
      The Bill may give the Government a few cheap headlines in the weeks running up to the election, but I fear that the consequences in the medium term—and possibly in the short term—will be a series of high-profile cases which will show that what has been done by the Government is ludicrous. Sentences will be imposed that bear no proportion to the crime committed. That will bring our criminal law into disrepute and will undermine the thrust to tackle crime. I therefore insist on pressing the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 278.

      Division No. 45]

      [8.33 pm

      AYES

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      698

      Harvey, Nick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Steel, Sir David

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Thumham, Peter

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Tyler, Paul

      Maclennan, Robert

      Welsh, Andrew

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rendel, David

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. James Wallace.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Devlin, Tim

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dicks, Terry

      Alexander, Richard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Dover, Den

      Amess, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Arbuthnot, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Ashby, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Atkins, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Elletson, Harold

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bates, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Faber, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Biffen, John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Booth, Hartley

      Forth, Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Freeman, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      French, Douglas

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Brooke, Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Garnier, Edward

      Burns, Simon

      Gill, Christopher

      Burt, Alistair

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Butler, Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Butterfill, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gummer, John

      Cash, William

      Hague, William

      Channon, Paul

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clappison, James

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Harris, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Congdon, David

      Hawksley, Warren

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Heald, Oliver

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cope, Sir John

      Hendry, Charles

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Curry, David

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Horam, John

      Day, Stephen

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Howard, Michael

      699

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Richards, Rod

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jack, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jessel, Toby

      Sackville, Tom

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Jopling, Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      King, Tom

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Knox, Sir David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Legg, Barry

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Leigh, Edward

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lilley, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lord, Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Luff, Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stanley, Sir John

      MacGregor, John

      Stephen, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stem, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Madel, Sir David

      Sykes, John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Major, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Marland, Paul

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Thomason, Roy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mellor, David

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Merchant, Piers

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Trend, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Waldegrave, William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Newton, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Ward, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Norris, Steve

      Waterson, Nigel

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Watts, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wells, Bowen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Page, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Paice, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Patten, John

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Wilkinson, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Willetts, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Wilshire, David

      Porter, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Portillo, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wood, Timothy

      Redwood, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Renton, Tim

      Young, Sir George

      700

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 2, line 17, after 'circumstances', insert
      'whether relating to the offence or to the offender'.— [Mr. McFall]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 280.

      Division No. 46]

      [8.45 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Hall, Mike

      Ainger, Nick

      Hanson, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Hardy, Peter

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Harvey, Nick

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Hattersley, Roy

      Ashton, Joseph

      Heppell, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Battle, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Benn, Tony

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Home Robertson, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ingram, Adam

      Burden, Richard

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Byers, Stephen

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Caborn, Richard

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clapham, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Loyden, Eddie

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Connarty, Michael

      McAllion, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cummings, John

      McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      McFall, John

      Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Dafis, Cynog

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      McWilliam, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Marek, Dr John

      Denham, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dowd, Jim

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Morley, Elliot

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Mullin, Chris

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Flynn, Paul

      O'Hara, Edward

      Foster, Derek

      Olner, Bill

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      O'Neill, Martin

      George, Bruce

      Pearson, Ian

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Pike, Peter L

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Pope, Greg

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Graham, Thomas

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Rendel, David

      Gunnell, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      701

      Rooney, Terry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Salmond, Alex

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trickett, Jon

      Shore, Peter

      Tyler, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Vaz, Keith

      Soley, Clive

      Wallace, James

      Spearing, Nigel

      Welsh, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Steel, Sir David

      Worthington, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wray, Jimmy

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taytor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. George Mudie.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Couchman, James

      Alexander, Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Curry, David

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Amess, David

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Devlin, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Atkins, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baldry, Tony

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bates, Michael

      Elletson, Harold

      Batiste, Spencer

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Biffen, John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evennett, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Faber, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowis, John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Forth, Eric

      Brooke, Peter

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Freeman, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      French, Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Butler, Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Garnier, Edward

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gill, Christopher

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cash, William

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Channon, Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Churchill, Mr

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Gummer, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hague, William

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Colvin, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Congdon, David

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cope, Sir John

      Hawksley, Warren

      702

      Hayes, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heald, Oliver

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Heseltine, Michael

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hicks, Sir Robert

      Patten, John

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Horam, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Hordem, Sir Peter

      Porter, David

      Howard, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Renton, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Hurd, Douglas

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Jack, Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jessel, Toby

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ryder, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Jopling, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      King, Tom

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knox, Sir David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Legg, Barry

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Lilley, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spring, Richard

      Lord, Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Luff, Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Stanley, Sir John

      MacGregor, John

      Stephen, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stem, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Madel, Sir David

      Sykes, John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Major, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Marland, Paul

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Thomason, Roy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mellor, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Merchant, Piers

      Trend, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Trotter, Neville

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Viggers, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Waldegrave, William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Needham, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Ward, John

      Newton, Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wells, Bowen

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Wheeler, Sir John

      703

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Wolfson, Mark

      Whittingdale, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Yeo, Tim

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Young, Sir George

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 13, at end insert—
      '3A. Clandestine injury to women or an attempt to cause such injury.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 125 and 3.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 1 fulfils a Government undertaking given in Committee to accept in principle an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), which sought to add "clandestine injury" to the list of offences that could on conviction lead to an automatic life sentence. It differs from that amendment only by giving the offence its full name and by providing for the inclusion in the list of convictions for an attempt to commit the offence as well as for the offence itself. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 1
      Amendment No. 125 is a response to comments made by Opposition Members in Committee, but in this case in relation to the list of offences contained in what is now clause 44. Amendment No. 125 would remove the words "towards a child" from the description of lewd and libidinous practices, and is paralleled by Government amendment 94.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for listening to the views of Opposition Members in Committee and tabling the amendment. It is important that the crime of clandestine injury is included. Similarly, I thank the Minister for listening to our views on the definition of offences perpetrated against children. The Opposition are content with the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 125, in page 3, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
      '8. Lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour or practices.' .— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 2

      MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR THIRD CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES RELATING TO DRUG TRAFFICKING
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 4, line 6, leave out 'this section' and insert
      'section 2 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 92, 228 to 231, 256, 42, 43, 235, 257, 258, 98, 104, 236, 237, 83 to 85, 87, 100, 101, 88 and 89.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are minor technical and drafting amendments.
      704
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 92, in page 4, line 14, leave out 'this section' and insert
      'section 2 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 15, at end insert—
      '(2) In section 196 of the 1995 Act (sentence following guilty plea)—

      (a) the existing words shall become subsection (1); and

      (b) at the end there shall be added the following subsection—

      "(2) Where the court is passing sentence on an offender under section 205B(2) of this Act and that offender has pled guilty to the offence for which he is being so sentenced, the court may, after taking into account the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above, pass a sentence of less than seven years imprisonment or, as the case may be, detention but any such sentence shall not be of a term of imprisonment or period of detention of less than five years, two hundred and nineteen days.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 255 and 32.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 2, 31 and 32 deal with the ability of the court to take into account a plea of guilty, and the stage in proceedings and circumstances in which it is made, in determining what sentence to pass under clauses 1 and 2.
      What is now section 196 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes it clear that the court is able to take into account a plea of guilty in determining what sentence to pass on, or other disposal or order to make in relation to an offender. That operates as a disincentive to postponing a guilty plea until the day of the trial, to the great inconvenience of witnesses, police and jurors. It also acknowledges the possibility that a guilty plea may be regarded as a mitigating factor in sentencing, because it may imply an acceptance of responsibility and contrition on the part of the offender and may spare the victim and other witnesses from having to give evidence.
      On further consideration, it appears that the provisions of section 196 of the 1995 Act may not apply to sentences imposed under clauses 1 and 2 as drafted. Although those clauses provide for automatic life and mandatory minimum sentences, there is no reason in our view why the court should not be able to take into account a guilty plea where those sentences would apply on conviction. The amendments would ensure that that is possible.
      9 pm
      Dr. Godman: The Minister spoke of contrition and how that may assist the courts. I have no doubt about that. However, what about a case involving severe sexual assault? I hope that no leniency would be shown in such a case, no matter when the accused agreed to plead guilty.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. It is important to spare the victim the trauma of having to go through a case and have every sort of falsehood thrown at her. She may dissolve in tears—I have seen it happen. We are saying that, if the accused shows contrition by pleading guilty at an early stage and therefore does not put the victim

      705
      through the process of having to put up with a great deal of abuse and falsehood in court, that is a factor that the court legitimately should be entitled to take into account.
      Mr. Wallace: What consideration have the Minister and his colleagues given to the opinion of the recently retired Lord Justice-Clerk Ross, in the case of Strawhorn and McLeod, about inducements to plead guilty at an early stage?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not describe the measure as an inducement to plead guilty. I believe that it could be taken into account as a mitigating factor-which is rather different-if the accused faced up to his responsibility and, instead of making false accusations against a victim, did not put her through that trauma. A court should be entitled to take that into account. As I said, section 196 of the 1995 Act makes it clear that the court is able to take into account a plea of guilty in determining the appropriate sentence. After all, if a person who has committed a very serious crime tells a pack of lies, that is a different situation from that of a person who admits his transgressions and shows some contrition.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      IMPOSITION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE ORDERS ON CONVICTION OF QUALIFYING OFFENCE
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 5, line 43, after 'paragraphs 3,' insert '3A,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 10, leave out 'one sixth' and insert 'one quarter'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 238 and 240.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 4 will increase the maximum period of supervision that courts may impose for offenders released from prison to the greater of two years or one quarter of the sentence. That corresponds to a similar amendment incorporated in the Crime (Sentences) Bill in respect of offenders in England and Wales. It is in response to concerns expressed by both sides of the House that the limit of one sixth presently contained in the Bill may not be sufficient to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the public.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY ORDERS
      Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 6, line 17, leave out '245' and insert '229'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 166, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
      706
      No. 138, in page 6, line 20, leave out '245A' and insert '229A'.
      Government amendment No. 105.
      No. 136, in page 6, line 23, after 'an', insert
      'additional requirement of a probation'.
      No. 167, in page 6, line 23, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 168, in page 6, line 25, leave our 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 139, in page 6, line 26, leave out '245B to 245F' and insert '229B and 229C'.
      No. 169, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 170, in page 6, line 29, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 171, in page 6, line 43, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 128, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 13.
      No. 172, in page 7, line 1, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 173, in page 7, line 3, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 174, in page 7, line 3, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
      No. 175, in page 7, line 4, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 176, in page 7, line 7, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
      No. 177, in page 7, line 8, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 178, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 179, in page 7, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 180, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 129, in page 7, line 15, after 'shall', insert
      'in addition to section 228 (6)(a) above'.
      No. 181, in page 7, line 16, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 182, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 183, in page 7, line 19, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 184, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 185, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 130, in page 7, leave out lines 33 to 47.
      Government amendment No. 109.
      No. 186, in page 7, line 34, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      Government amendment No. 110.
      No. 187, in page 7, line 36, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 189, in page 7, line 41, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.

      707
      No. 190, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
      No. 191, in page 7, line 44, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 131, in page 8, line 6, leave out '245B' and insert '229B'.
      No. 162, in page 8, line 7, leave out '245A(9)' and insert '229A(9).'.
      No. 192, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
      No. 193, in page 8, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 194, in page 8, line 13, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 195, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 196, in page 8, line 18, leave out
      'order shall vary the order'
      and insert
      'requirement shall vary the requirement'.
      No. 163, in page 8, line 20, leave out '245C' and insert '229C'.
      No. 197, in page 8, line 24, leave out 'orders' and insert 'requirements'.
      No. 198, in page 8, line 27, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 199, in page 8, line 28, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 200, in page 8, line 32, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 201, in page 8, line 36, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      Government amendment No. 223.
      No. 164, in page 8, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 on page 9.
      No. 202, in page 8, line 40, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 203, in page 8, line 42, leave out
      'order may apply to the court which made the order'
      and insert
      'requirement may apply to the court which made the requirement'.
      No. 204, in page 8, line 46, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 205, in page 8, line 48, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 206, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 207, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'order' at both occurrences and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 208, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
      No. 209, in page 9, line 7, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 210, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'requirements' and insert 'conditions'.
      No. 211, in page 9, line 14, leave out
      708
      'order the court may vary the order'
      and insert
      'requirement the court may vary the requirement'.
      No. 212, in page 9, line 15, leave out 'order' and insert'requiremene.
      No. 213, in page 9, line 18, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 214, in page 9, line 21, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 215, in page 9, line 22, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      Government amendment No. 115.
      No. 216, in page 9, line 32, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      No. 217, in page 9, line 33, leave out 'order' and insert 'requirement'.
      Government amendment No. 119.
      No. 218, in schedule 1, page 71, line 32, at end insert—
      '(17A) In section 232(3) insert 'a' after '(3)' and insert after subparagraph (a) a new sub-paragraph as follows—
      "(b) notwithstanding (a) above, in relation to a probation order with an additional restriction of liberty requirement—

      (i) evidence of the presence or absence of the offender at a particular place at a particular time may, subject to the provisions of this section, be given by the production of a document or documents bearing to be—

      (a) a statement automatically produced by a device specified in regulations made under section 229C of this Act, by which the offender's whereabouts were remotely monitored; and

      (b) a certificate signed by the person responsible for monitoring the order that the statement relates to the whereabouts of the person subject to the order at the dates and times shown in the statement;

      (ii) the statement and certificate mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above shall, when produced at a hearing, be sufficient evidence of the facts set out in them;

      (iii) neither the statement nor the certificate mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above shall be admissible in evidence unless a copy of both has been served on the offender prior to the hearing and, without prejudice to the foregoing, where it appears to the court that the offender has had insufficient notice of the statement or certificate, it may adjourn a hearing or make any order which it thinks appropriate in the circumstances.".'.

      No. 219, in schedule 1, page 71, line 45, at end insert—
      '(21A) In Schedule 6 (discharge of and amendment to probation orders) there shall be inserted after sub-paragraph 3(2) (c) a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
      "(d) so that the probationer is thereby subject to a restriction of liberty requirement for any period or periods exceeding 12 months in all.".'.
      Mr. McFall: We want restriction of liberty orders not to stand alone but to be part of the probation and supervision process, together with social inquiry reports. That will enable us to focus on the right people.
      The research to date shows that such targeting is essential. As it stands, it is not clear from the Bill whom the provision is directed at, and whether it is to apply in solemn, summary or district courts. Experience world-wide with tagging is varied. Sweden has used it perhaps the most successfully. The Swedish experience shows that success is more likely if tagging is used for a

      709
      very short period; if it is part of a treatment programme; and if the person concerned enjoys a stable environment and has the will to go along with the tagging.
      Amendment No. 136 would allow the High Court, the sheriff court and the district court to make restriction of liberty orders in a wide variety of circumstances. There is currently no guidance on which offenders or offences should be the target of such orders. The Bill merely states that they should be used when the court deems them the most appropriate method of disposal.
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State frequently reiterated their intentions. Such orders are best used when the alternative would be a short period of custody. In Committee, we pressed the Minister on that; if tagging is to be used, then it should be used as an alternative to custody when the judge or sheriff states that someone who would otherwise be given a gaol sentence may be given a tagging order instead—we want the orders restricted to that.
      As I said, the Bill gives no guidance to the judiciary or to sheriffs. We therefore conclude that it is untargeted and that it will cause confusion about the purpose of the disposal. Moreover, the Bill contradicts the Government's attempts to achieve greater consistency in sentencing. Linking a restriction of liberty order with a probation order will ensure a proper assessment by means of a mandatory social inquiry report. That will facilitate the targeting of the disposal, in the interests of the community, the offender and the offender's family, in such a way as to advance the prospects of successful compliance.
      Research in the United States and Sweden has shown that electronic monitoring is most likely to succeed when it is attached to a programme of probation or supervision. In that way, surveillance is supported by constructive intervention designed to reduce offending behaviour. Electronic monitoring by itself would preclude the regular personal supervision that could deal with offending behaviour. Public safety—the theme of all our amendments and new clauses—will be enhanced by the dual approval of monitoring and direct supervision.
      Linking restriction of liberty with probation ensures public and democratic accountability. The supervising officer will be accountable to the local authority as well as to the court and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. In that way, the disposal will be free of commercial considerations.
      I wonder how much notice the Secretary of State has taken of the international experience of tagging, which is used in New Zealand, Singapore and other places that I mentioned earlier. Of the pilot schemes operated in Sweden, the Netherlands, America and Western Australia, the Swedish experiment seems to be the most successful. It combines electronic monitoring with intensive supervision and was initially operated in six probation districts. Offenders sentenced to up to two months in prison are allowed to apply to serve their sentence in the community under intensive supervision and with electronic monitoring. They must be of fixed abode, have a telephone, and be in employment or education.
      Between 1 August 1994 and 31 July 1995, 637 offenders were eligible under those criteria and nearly 70 per cent. of them applied for the project. A total of 396 applications were approved; 50 per cent. were drink drivers; 20 per cent. were violent offenders, often
      710
      committing drink and drug-related offences; and 30 per cent. were convicted of other offences, including theft and refusing to do military service. By the end of the period, 311 people had completed their supervision satisfactorily; 23 offenders had had their supervision terminated by reason of misconduct; and 62 were still under suspension.
      The Swedish scheme is considered to be a moderate success and has been expanded to include anyone serving three months anywhere in the country, although the maximum tagged period is expected to be four months. However, the level of technical faults was much higher than expected and the issue of false violations has still not been resolved.
      Experience is much more plentiful in America, where about 600 schemes operate. Although I hold the Minister to his remark in Committee that this will be a pilot scheme, lessons could be learned from the American experience, about which a six-year study has been made. It suggests that one main reason for failure was lack of staff resources in the probation service. Even one of the manufacturers was reported to have said:
      "reliable equipment alone will not ensure a successful programme".
      He asserted:
      "The involvement of professional social workers is key."
      The success of the schemes that have been running was said to involve the following components: first, clear, well-defined objectives for using the system; secondly, strong involvement and support from the probation and parole service; thirdly, careful screening of the participants using well-defined selection criteria; fourthly, the provision of support programmes; fifthly, strong Government commitment; and, sixthly, reliable equipment. Neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State commented on any of those issues on Second Reading or in Committee. If the Government are to go ahead with such a scheme, it is important that those objectives are laid out, and this is where they should be debated.
      There seems to be some evidence about the likely criteria for success. That is important when it comes to targeting the type of individuals whom the Government would like to see on an electronic tagging programme. Offenders must have a settled address with a telephone installed. They should be employed. Tags should not be used for any offender with a history of violence in the household, and tagging works best for offenders
      "who already have some internal control and just need an extra nudge".
      Those criteria are supported by the Swedish findings, where three criteria for success emerged. Tagging works only if it is for a very short period, the offenders are well motivated and in stable life situations, and tagging is part of a treatment programme.
      I hope that the Minister of State will address his remarks to those findings. If he tells us that the measure is being introduced in the dying weeks of a Parliament just for the sake of introducing it, that is not good enough. The measure must be shown to have merit.
      The Secretary of State turns his nose up. No information has been forthcoming from the Government about the target population, what they hope to achieve, who will be involved and what resources will be made available to the service—the building blocks fundamental to the success of the programme.

      711
      The Opposition tabled amendments in Committee to ensure that there would be a supervisory element and a probationary aspect to the programme. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment.
      9.15 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition's amendments Nos. 128 to 131, 136 and 137, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke, and the other amendments would unhelpfully limit the use of electronically monitored restriction of liberty requirements, so that in Scotland such an order could be made only as a condition of a probation order.
      Our proposals would allow a court to deal with an offender by making a restriction of liberty order alone, or by making a restriction of liberty order together with a probation order. The Opposition amendments would withdraw the first of those options. As a consequence, a court would not be able to make a free-standing restriction of liberty order, even if it considered that to be the most appropriate option. That would be hard to justify, and I would not recommend accepting those amendments to clause 4.
      I shall deal now with the Government amendments in the group. As was said in Committee, in some cases the effectiveness of electronically monitored disposals may be enhanced if they are associated with the sort of supervision offered by probation. On that basis, the Bill provides for a facility which enables a probation order to be associated with a restriction of liberty order. Government amendments clarify how that facility will operate.
      Mr. Davidson: The amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are useful, as they strike at the centre of the Government's proposal by probing the way in which the Government intend to use restriction of liberty orders.
      The Minister's response to my hon. Friend's excellent argument suggested that orders made without probation will be a cheap way of dealing with someone who should be punished by being sent to prison. In those circumstances, a restriction of liberty order without supervision misses the point.
      I recognise that the clause goes beyond the idea of electronic tagging. Under subsection (2)(b), for example, a person could be instructed not to attend football matches, if he had been convicted of an offence arising from his attendance at such a match. Clearly, electronic tagging would not be suitable in those circumstances. That person should not simply be left and trusted not to go to matches. Provision should be made for some form of probation or supervision, to ensure that the restriction is not seen as a soft option. There is genuine anxiety that, if restriction of liberty orders are unpoliced, they will be seen as a soft option.
      Does the Minister accept my hon. Friend's contention, arising from practice elsewhere, that success is likely where the restriction is for a short period, and where the person concerned is well motivated? Other evidence suggests that restriction of liberty works best if the person is in a job and if the restriction is part of a comprehensive treatment programme. The order seems tailor-made for
      712
      many middle-class people. Is it intended to distribute restriction of liberty orders evenly throughout the population, or will certain social criteria be taken into consideration?
      We have already discussed the increasing number of women who experience serious difficulties in prison. I think that restriction of liberty orders may represent a reasonable alternative to imprisonment in some circumstances, depending on the nature of the offence. People would require a degree of supervision—perhaps they should have some form of probation—but the Minister did not touch upon that aspect. I ask him to clarify those points in his response.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) supports restriction of liberty orders—as he has done more than once before. I make it clear that we are particularly guided by the experience of the pilot scheme in England, which has proved a success. The technology is seen to be reliable and it has worked effectively. The courts have made extensive use of the option and we can see no case for denying it to Scottish courts. Of course, there will be a pilot scheme and, depending on how it works, the option could be extended more widely thereafter.
      The Opposition amendments would make a restriction of liberty requirement a condition of a probation order instead of a discrete disposal. While I do not object to considering that approach in the longer term, it raises some practical issues that must be resolved beforehand. I shall examine them quickly.
      First, an issue arises because responsibility for supervising a probation order rests with a local authority officer while responsibility for the electronic monitoring of any restriction of liberty condition would rest with a person nominated by the Secretary of State. Therefore, in fulfilling his duty to supervise a probation order, the local authority officer would have to rely on someone over whom he had little direct control to monitor one of its conditions.
      Mr. McFall: Could not the Secretary of State nominate a local authority officer?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We would first have to assess and evaluate the success of the pilot scheme—which is what we intend to do. My second point is that evaluation will be extremely difficult. It may be difficult to ascertain whether any shortcomings are due to electronically monitored requirements or to the general order. I believe that it is necessary to proceed as I have recommended.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 105, in page 6, line 20, after '(1)' insert
      'Without prejudice to section 245CC of this Act,'.—[Mr. Carrington.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 245, in page 6, line 20, leave out
      'of 16 years of age or more'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 246 to 250, 252 and 253.
      Mr. Wallace: I shall resume my seat if I have the wrong amendment. Amendment No. 245 would delete the

      713
      reference to persons of 16 years and over, which would have the effect of extending the tagging provisions to those aged under 16. I find it absolutely extraordinary that a measure that has received considerable publicity and marks an important departure in the treatment of juveniles in Scotland should be moved formally by the Minister without any attempt to justify the measure to the House. It is quite extraordinary behaviour from the Minister.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I shall happily explain exactly what it means and then he may resume his speech.
      Mr. Wallace: I rather suspect that you would rule that out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the intervention would be too long. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Minister has moved a major amendment formally.
      I shall explain briefly why my party opposes the measure. As I understand it, the option of tagging children under 16 will be available only to the courts. The Minister assured the Committee that the electronic tagging exercise would be run as a pilot scheme, but at the same time as running a pilot scheme, he is trying to extend its provision.
      More seriously, in Scotland we have a distinctive scheme of juvenile justice, in which the overwhelming number of young offenders are referred to a children's hearing. Only a handful of those under 16—no doubt the Minister will be able to give us the figure—have been referred to the criminal courts in recent years. I have strong doubts that electronic tagging is an appropriate disposal for those whose offences are such that it is thought right to determine them in the criminal courts rather than the children's hearing system.
      We are embarking on a costly scheme for children under 16 when a pilot scheme is still in operation. I suspect that it is being implemented where it is most inappropriate, and the Minister has not given any explanation. We look forward to hearing one.
      That is the pattern of so much of the Bill—it has been done to give the Secretary of State a cheap headline. It sounds as though he is tough, but in this case he has misread the situation and is trying to introduce electronic tagging in cases for which it is wholly inappropriate. I look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister tries to justify the proposals, when he finally gets round to doing so. He will need a good argument to persuade us that the proposals are appropriate and amount to anything more than an exercise in window dressing.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I agree whole-heartedly with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Government amendment No. 247 says:
      "the court shall obtain and consider information about that offender's family circumstances"
      before making a restriction of liberty order. Would that include finding out whether the offender had younger siblings who were likely to admire the older brother or sister for having such an imposition placed on them and might look up to them as a hero because of that mark of distinction? I wonder whether such information on an offender's family circumstances might include the attitude of his schoolfellows. The same problems might apply to them.
      714
      As has been said already, the measure has attracted widespread publicity. Senior police officers have said that they find it wholly objectionable and impractical and that being tagged could result in some young ne'er-do-weels having more street cred. It is remarkable that the Minister should move the amendment formally without any word of explanation.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Lady and I, together with the Minister, sat on a Committee considering the Children (Scotland) Bill two years ago. The Committee took evidence and sat for many weeks considering appropriate measures for young children. Does the hon. Lady recall—I certainly do not—any suggestion by the Government that such a measure was appropriate or necessary?
      Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, and he is correct. At no time was it suggested that this was an appropriate course of action for under-16 offenders. The Committee was united in welcoming the fact that the hearing system had worked so effectively over the years and, as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, few cases involving under-16s were considered serious enough to be dealt with in a court. The relevance of the amendment is highly questionable.
      With such widespread critical comment on the proposals, including from the police, why is the Minister pursuing the amendment? In particular, given that we have agreed that a pilot scheme should go ahead in relation to adult offenders, what is the purpose of opposing such a scheme for under-16s? Are the Government waiting to see the outcome of the other scheme?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised the objections of the police to extension of the scheme to children's panels. We listened to the responses, and we are not doing that. We believe that electronically monitored disposals will provide a useful means of dealing with offenders. The Bill currently limits the use of such disposals to offenders aged at least 16. We considered that we should also examine the potential in relation to younger offenders.
      In November, we issued a consultation paper seeking views on that, specifically in the context of our children's hearing system. The consultation period ended on 4 January, with most respondents expressing reservations about the use of electronic monitoring by children's hearings. Various reasons were given. It was suggested that such a disposal would be out of keeping with the ethos of the hearing system, for example, and that it should be piloted with adult offenders in the criminal justice system first. We took account of the views, and of the fact that, even if given the power, hearings would probably make little use of it until its value had been proven in the criminal justice system. We therefore concluded that the Bill should not make electronically monitored disposals available to children's hearings.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: I feel that it behoves those of us who did not serve on the Committee to be a bit reticent at this stage of the Bill's passage, but may I ask what advice the Government are receiving from the police?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the police were reserved about the extension of the power

      715
      to children's panels. The responses were overwhelmingly opposed to it, and we listened to those responses. It has been suggested—by, for instance, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—that relatively few people under 16 would come before the courts, and, in fact, that is so. In 1994, only 171 young offenders had a charge proved against them in court. Nevertheless, in some such cases, the courts might consider an electronically monitored restriction of liberty order—perhaps in conjunction with a probation order—to be an appropriate disposal, for example in the case of a football hooligan or a persistent shoplifter.
      Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister tell us in a little more detail the exact nature of most of the cases that were taken to a juvenile court rather than a children's panel? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made a good point: he said that it seemed to him that any case that was referred to a court rather than a children's panel was likely to involve an offence to which a restriction of liberty order would not be appropriate.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is not necessarily so. The cases that go before the court are the more serious—
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me finish. I have not had a chance to answer the question.
      It may well be that, for a football hooligan, a person who has committed an assault in certain circumstances or a persistent shoplifter, a restriction of liberty order, coupled with a probation order, might be more appropriate than prison. We consider that that option should be available. We think that a pilot scheme is the correct way to proceed, and that such a scheme should be properly evaluated and assessed in due course.
      Mr. McFall rose—
      Mr. Wallace rose—
      Ms Cunningham rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I give way to the hon. Member for Dumbarton.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister.
      The Minister referred to the 171 children under 16 against whom a charge had been proved. He knows that 25 of those were detained, and that 46 cases were admitted to children's hearings. The penalty in most of the remaining 100 cases was split between probation, in 32 cases; financial penalties, in 30 cases; and caution and admonition, in 32 cases. Only a small number of young people—25—went to court. Does the Minister agree that those would be very serious offenders, and that tagging would therefore be inappropriate? I am perplexed about why the Government introduced such a measure, and the statistics make their case even weaker.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I merely suggest that the option should be available to the courts. I cannot
      716
      conceive of all the circumstances that will arise, but it is a useful option. The hon. Member for Dumbarton said that young persons should not be sent to prison for fine default, for example, but should have the option to serve non-custodial sentences in the community.
      Ms Cunningham rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must proceed and spell out our intentions.
      We have decided that courts should be able to use restriction of liberty orders for young offenders whom they sentence. Although that group of people may be small in number, they are often guilty of particularly serious offences that seriously disrupt the lives of people in their communities. I accept that, in some cases, their offences will definitely warrant a custodial sentence. In other cases, it may be preferable to confine them to their homes and to use electronic monitoring to ensure that they stay there.
      If a young offender is confined to his home, and that confinement is monitored rigorously by electronic means, he cannot be out on the streets disrupting the community by serious acts of violence or dishonesty. It may also help the young offender to break free from the malevolent influence of older offenders with whom he has been mixing.
      Some Opposition parties are not enthusiastic about the use of electronic monitoring, especially for young offenders: objections to it have been made throughout the passage of the Bill. Indeed, the Opposition objected on Second Reading, and their objections lay at the heart of the reasoned amendment that would have killed the Bill stone dead. We do not want to deny the courts the option of tagging when dealing with young offenders who commit serious and disruptive crimes. Such a disposal could provide a measure of protection to the public, enabling the offender to address the offending behaviour without having to resort to a custodial disposal. We believe that that would be a useful option in some cases, and I commend the Government's amendments to the House.
      Ms Cunningham: I was trying to intervene on the Minister to ask him to tell us how many of the 171 young offenders to whom he referred will be affected by the proposal. If only 25 of that 171 end up in court, how many of that 25 will be affected? Are we talking about two or three individuals next year? Is that what it is all about? The people of Scotland have a right to know that the Government, while supposedly making some wonderful gesture for the future of criminal justice, are in reality introducing a proposal that will affect only two or three of that 25. I want a direct response to my question.
      It is interesting that the Government have introduced the Bill supposedly in response to a consultation process. The proposal has met with widespread opposition from children's agencies, local authorities and the police, but the Minister has not mentioned that. The Scottish Child Law Centre considers that one of the main problems of the scheme is that it is not based on an understanding of children's offending behaviour. A spokesperson for the centre said:
      "Children's offending can often be linked to difficult circumstances at home, possibly even involving abuse… Giving parents a key role in enforcing compliance with the scheme may be

      717
      tying the child to an abusive relationship which could be the whole reason behind the offending."
      We must deal with that issue.
      Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Lady has raised an important point. Not a minute ago, the Minister said that tagging could ensure that the child stayed at home, which is precisely where abuse, if there is any, is likely to take place.
      Ms Cunningham: The hon. Lady is right. The child's home may be the problem, but the Minister does not address that issue. Branding children in that way may make it much more difficult for them to change and to learn from their mistakes.
      I should like to hear the Minister address the issues that have been raised by the police. I understand that they expressed concern that, obversely, the tags may be a status symbol for some children and will have the opposite effect to the one claimed by the Minister. Did the police say that? If the potential for encouraging disruptive behaviour presented by such a status symbol is enough for the police to express concern, why are the Government pressing on with the measure?
      In Committee, the Minister said that there must be consultation about young persons and added that he had nothing further to say other than that he would assess the responses. From what he has said in today's debate, instead of assessing the responses, he has ignored them, and that is not a responsible way for the Government to behave. I hope that the Minister will deal directly with the issues and give direct answers to questions.
      Mr. Davidson: The Minister asks the House to support the amendment, but, given the nature of past discussions, we are entitled to ask for clarification of the offences that he thinks might be suitable for disposal by tagging. I am no clearer than when the Minister opened the debate what offences he has in mind and how many young people he envisages under the existing pattern of offending will be affected by such a method of disposal.
      I was interested in what the Minister said about youngsters who disrupt life in their communities. I can understand why he thinks that tagging, presumably along the lines of some sort of curfew order, might be appropriate. If that is what he has in mind, he should spell out the procedure by which it would be deemed suitable for a youngster to be placed under such a curfew order in one area rather than another. Perhaps such curfew orders are not the sort of procedure to which the Minister thinks tagging orders might apply.
      The Government seek cheap headlines by wanting to be seen to be tough on crime by young people, but they are not dealing seriously with the problems that are faced by young people, or with the scale of the difficulties. In my area, a number of young people engage in repeated acts of burglary. They break and enter garden sheds, destroy gardens and break greenhouses and so on. I am not sure how the possibility of a tagging order would deter or prevent someone from destroying greenhouses or breaking into houses.
      How would it work in practice? Many burglaries take place at night or during the day when youngsters have absconded from school. Would such offences be the subject of a tagging order? If not, what sort of offences would be involved?
      718
      Some youngsters in my area have repeatedly caused damage costing enormous sums by simply going along the side of a school and smashing every window in sight. They similarly destroy the windows in community centres. The Secretary of State nods. He obviously understands the situation. How would the introduction of tagging affect offenders of that sort?
      The police spent a great deal of time trying to catch some youngsters in my area. They were eventually caught and taken to an institution, from which they repeatedly absconded because it was not secure. There were not enough places in secure establishments for those youngsters to be detained. The Government have not proposed an increase in spending on secure units for young people, but are instead going for the cheap gimmick of tagging rather than seriously addressing the difficulties. Considerable police time is wasted chasing youngsters who abscond from non-secure establishments, and it greatly undermines the credibility of the police and the system in general when youngsters are seen to be back out on the street a short time after they have been disposed of by the court.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Has my hon. Friend noticed that Government amendment No. 246 sets time limits on the tagging? Those time limits may be a response to the critical comments that have been heard on the subject in the past few months. But if they are imposed—regardless of whether there has been any change for the better in the behaviour of the young person—the whole system will have been brought into total disrepute, as any punitive system, whether in schools or elsewhere, must be aimed at changing behaviour.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Davidson: That excellent point is well made by my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. All the evidence we have heard of on how tagging dealt with adults elsewhere suggested that the period of tagging should be short, that the people involved should be well motivated, and that tagging should be part of a comprehensive pattern of treatment.
      The difficulty with many of the youngsters to whom we are referring is that they are extremely badly motivated and anti-social. I am not convinced that tagging will work with the worst of youngsters—if I can use that term—who will have been before the courts for the worst of offences. I do not know how something that may be seen as a relatively soft option will help in those circumstances.
      Colleagues have asked whether tagging will effectively stigmatise or brand the youngsters. Branding seems to me to be a trifle severe, and I presume that that was not a serious suggestion. However, I recognise that tagging might well become a status symbol, and I am not clear whether the Government have taken that into account. The Minister has not referred to it, but he must be aware that many youngsters dare each other to go further and further down the anti-social route. It can be a case of, "You break one window and I'll break two. You break two and I'll break three." How will the Government overcome the problem that tagging will be seen as a mark of honour or achievement?
      The Minister must be aware many parents in the community are not worried by the anti-social behaviour of youngsters, but—in some circumstances—see it as a

      719
      badge of manhood. I am aware of youngsters who are encouraged in anti-social behaviour against other families in the area by their parents, who are engaged in a vendetta by proxy. The adults are well aware that gaol sentences could be imposed upon them were they to act as their youngsters do. What is there in the Government's proposals to deal with that?
      The Government's proposal is designed to look good in the press, but it does not seriously address the real difficulties posed by a minority of extremely anti-social youngsters. If the Secretary of State wants to consider a method of restricting liberty, he should—rather than look to the new Tory symbol of tagging—go back to an old Tory symbol of penal servitude, the ball and chain, which at least would restrict youngsters and prevent them from running about the community. I look forward to the Secretary of State using that old Tory proposal as part of his general election manifesto.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am extremely puzzled by this discussion, and I want to ask the Minister one question—where on earth did this notion of electronic tagging come from? I cannot believe that it came from the civil service. I was not on the Committee, but some of us have served on many Committees—including Kincraig—and tagging was always excluded in the past. By what alchemy did this idea infiltrate St. Andrew's house? I put forward one possible candidate— [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I am not going to, because it is a lobby—the lobby of the commercial security manufacturing interests. They are certainly at it. Some people could potentially make a good deal of money out of it.
      The proposal has a lot to do with posturing or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put it, with "tokenism". That is what it is about because, if children's panels are excluded, jolly few are involved. Who dreamed this up?
      Mr. Connarty: Anyone who looks at the record of the Standing Committee will see that I was firm that I found this proposal one of the most abhorrent of the Government's proposals for Scotland, even for adults. I have no doubt that the Government feel that they must do something because of the attacks that they have made on the structure of society and support for the family in the past 17 years. They are beginning to be aware that many factors in society have led to family breakdown, or even aberrant behaviour among parents, which is copied by children, many of whom live in dire poverty and under tremendous stress, who feel great anger against society for having failed them and their children.
      The general spirit of the Bill seems to be that we must lock those people away for as long as possible, or that, with tagging, we should lock them into the very families and social units that may be failing them in the first place. The main theme is to keep them out of the hair of the middle and upper classes—the political classes the Government represent—who do not live in the schemes in which many of those children are first failed, then learn their social behaviour, and kick out against society. The middle and upper classes do not have to live among the tenements and the walk-up flats where many single-parent families are dumped because there is nowhere else for them, where they lose hope and where their children get out of control and become a major problem.
      720
      I see the Secretary of State having a good laugh. As we know, there are not that many schemes where he lives. The area in which he has chosen to put down his roots does not have that many people living in densely populated areas, either in Scotland or in London—whichever roots he feels most strongly these days.
      The reality is that, if they take the trouble to visit them, many Conservative Back-Bench Members will find all this social malaise in the communities that they represent. The idea of tagging people and restricting them to live in that environment as adults is bad enough. It is bad because it does not work, it is expensive and it does not constrain their behaviour. Tagging can pinpoint them for a short time, but people find ways of getting out of the surveillance, and if they want to continue with their aberrant behaviour as adults, they will.
      The idea of introducing the amendment for children of 16 years or below is even worse. How low does the Secretary of State expect it to go? If a family breaks down and children of eight, nine and 10 years old find that doing something anti-social is a way of working against society, is the Secretary of State suggesting that they will be tagged? Is he suggesting that eight-year-olds, six-year-olds or five-year-olds will be tagged—held in the home, under surveillance with an electronic bleeper on them, or whatever other technique we are going to use, until they are released into the nursery, only to continue their behaviour there?
      That shows the fundamental flaw in all the theory behind the Bill. It is not about amending the wrongs that society has caused, or amending the behaviour of those who then retaliate against society. It is about locking them away somewhere for a short time or a long time. In the case of the children, it will be six months at home, presumably, with their tag on, and, if they leave between certain hours, a bleeper will go off and Group 4 or Securicor will rush in to find out where they have gone.
      Tagging would not tackle the root problem, which is that, if young children are misbehaving in a regular anti-social pattern, something needs to be done about the environment in which they live. That must be done either by supporting the family or by finding some other area of care to supplement the family and turn failure into success; but that is not in the Government's mind.
      In Committee, I said that I was struck sometimes when I saw social workers abandoning supervision orders on children who were no longer co-operating. They walked away from those children, and I am extremely angry about that. I have written a letter only today about one such case in my constituency. I would be much more interested in the Government introducing some structure in social work departments to supervise children and to give them a place where they could learn good behaviour and find something useful to do, perhaps after school. That would provide a better solution to their psychological and social problems than locking them in with the family in which those problems arose and putting a bleeper or buzzer on them. It is all wrong: the idea does not attract me for adults, and it appals me for children. I think that it also appals most of the public.

      721
      The Government have gone over the top, into what I have called a science fiction nightmare. For children, it is even worse. Someone asked where the idea came from, but I remember reading about it in 10-cent DC comics. It is Judge Dredd in the form of the Secretary of State for Scotland—although I recently saw a cartoon trying to claim that title for the Prime Minister.
      The idea is an aberration and has not worked where it has been tried. The Government have caused most of the problems by exacerbating the feeling of alienation and the sense that society has failed people so badly that it is all right for them and for their children to kick back at it. I put it on record that I do not think that it is right to kick back against society. It is not right to attack or terrorise neighbours, or to break into shops and continually offend other people, but we must do something positive about it, not something silly and nonsensical that underlines the fact that in the Government's eyes there are two sections of society: those who are doing all right and those whom it is advisable to keep away from the people who are doing all right because they might cause some problems.
      Have the Government ever thought that, if we took those people to our bosom and worked with them to turn them into positive citizens, we might save the next generation instead of locking it up? I hope that the amendment is kicked out, for the nonsense and the insult that it is.
      Mrs. Adams: Is not this another case of "The higher you build the walls, the faster I will run"? The amendment would confine children to deprived areas, when we should be trying to get them out of those areas as often as possible. Often the problem is that those children never see the outside of those areas, and they should not be confined to them for ever.
      The proposal would punish families who are already severely punished by poverty. Their greatest crime is that poverty has been visited on them and they cannot break out of it. We are telling children under 16 that they will never be allowed to break out of that circle.
      Dr. Godman: I was not on the Committee, so perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me whether the Minister told members of the Committee where the clamping—presumably around the ankle—of the young offender would take place. Is it to take place in a police station or the youngster's home, and would the Group 4 people be escorted by police officers when carrying out the task? That is a practical question, unlike the question put by my
      722
      hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about who was the intellectual who came up with the idea. Where would the clamping be done?
      Mrs. Adams: As far as I could gather in Committee, the clamp would be something like a wrist watch or an ankle watch.
      Mr. Davidson: Or even an ankle chain.
      Mrs. Adams: Yes, even an ankle chain. The offender would be confined to the place—the home—for about 12 hours. It would be linked to something like a modem, which would have to be installed in people's homes by the Government. That would not be cheap. If someone moved outwith the radius permitted, the bleeper would go off.
      Mr. MaxtonThat is interesting. To have a modem, one must have a telephone line, and therefore a telephone. Many of the homes of the children we are discussing cannot afford telephones. Will the Government provide free telephones to everyone?
      Mrs. Adams: We raised that point in Committee and were told that the Government would provide telephones, but only a single line for the modem.
      Mr. McFall: May I take the matter a stage further? If telephone lines are to be installed, what would happen if people did not pay their bills?
      Mrs. Adams: We never got round to that. We were told that, once again, the taxpayer would meet the cost of installing—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Stephen be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Nigel Evans be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TREASURY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Matthew Carrington be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Jacques Arnold be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Personalised Number Plates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many personalised number plates there are in the Government car pool; and if he will list them. [11239]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of its framework document to the Security Facilities Executive under its chief executive, Mr. John King. The agency is therefore responding to the question.

  Letter from John King to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 17 January 1997:
  I have been asked by Mr. Freeman, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (who has Ministerial responsibility for the Government Car Service (GCS)), to provide you with a response to your Parliamentary Question concerning the use of personalised number plates by the Government Car Service. I am the Chief Executive of the Agency with operational responsibility for the GCS.
  I can confirm that the Government Car Service does not have any number plates which are personalised to individual users or to the GCS itself.
  We do however have one number plate which does not include a letter indicating the cars year of registration. This is used on a 15 year old Daimler Limousine which operates as part of the pool fleet. It is the only Limousine on the fleet.

TREASURY

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the methodology used by his Department to calculate labour force statistics. [9889]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Kim Howells, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to your recent question asking for a statement on the methodology used to calculate labour force statistics.
  The main official sources of labour market statistics are the Labour Force Survey (LFS), the Workforce in Employment (WiE) figures and the monthly unemployment claimant count. All these are published by the ONS.
  The LFS is a quarterly household survey collecting information from individuals on a wide range of labour market issues (e.g. employment, unemployment, training job-search methods). The LFS uses the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions of
  426
  labour market statuses, including unemployment, which are suitable for international comparison. A description of the LFS was published in the October 1992 Employment Gazette (page 483).
  The other regular source of employment data is the WiE series. This is a count of jobs based mainly on a survey of employers. A comparison of the LFS and WiE employment figures and methodologies was published in the January 1996 edition of Labour Market Trends (page 19).
  The other major source of unemployment data is the monthly administrative count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. This is dependent on rules relating to benefit entitlement and is not suitable for international comparisons. The methodologies for both the claimant count and the LFS ILO unemployment measure are described and compared in the booklet How Exactly is Unemployment Measured?.
  The Government's policy on the collection and presentation of labour market statistics is set out in its Response to the Third Report from the Employment Committee Session 1995–96: Unemployment and Employment Statistics (30 October 1996).
  Copies of all the above publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  VAT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will personally sign future explanatory memoranda supplied to the Vote Office accompanying documents deposited there by Her Majesty's Government concerning changes in the system of value added taxes from within the European Community. [10809]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. Explanatory memoranda reflect the Chancellor's policy but are sometimes signed by junior Ministers within their own area of responsibility.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconcile the figures published by(a) the Office for National Statistics and (b) the Department of the Environment for the number of people employed in the construction industry; and what assessment he has made of the increase in productivity in the construction industry over the last 10 years. [11031]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Office for National Statistics and the Department of the Environment expect to reconcile the figures by the end of 1997.

  The index of output per person employed is published by ONS in "Labour Market Trends". The index uses value added data from DOE and employment data from the ONS work force in employment series. The index increased by 16.4 per cent. in the 10 years to the third quarter of 1996.

  Exchange and Trading Systems and Credit Unions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the(a) number, (b) distribution and (c) benefits of (i) local exchange and trading systems and (ii) credit unions in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10534]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 16 January 1997]: Information about the number and distribution of local exchange and trading systems is not held centrally.

  As for credit unions, 554 are currently registered under the Credit Unions Act 1979.
  427
  This distribution is:

  England: 408

  North: 80

  North West: 118

  Yorks and Humberside: 61

  East Midlands: 12

  West Midlands: 57

  South West: 10

  South East: 62

  East Anglia: 8

  Scotland: 113

  Wales: 33.

  Personalised Number Plates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11415]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Land
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the(a) total area of land administered by the Church Commissioners, (b) amount assessed as agricultural land, (c) amount of land let for the purpose of farming and (d) total number of tenant farmers; and if he will make a statement. [10519]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners administer land for investment in agricultural, residential and commercial property and, in addition, small areas occupied by bishops' residences. Statistics of total area are available only for agricultural land. As at 31 December 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, the commissioners owned 55,518 hectares—137,185 acres—of agricultural land; 52,788 hectares—130,438 acres—were let for the purpose of farming. For the purpose of calculating only the number of tenant farmers, the commissioners define a farm as an area of land over 20 hectares—50 acres. As at 31 December 1995, there were 371 tenanted farms.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11600]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Ministers of the Crown are able to make use of the child care facilities provided by the Department.

  EC Gas Directive
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress was made towards agreeing a428
  European directive on gas liberalisation at the EU Energy Council of Minsters meeting on 3 December; and if he will make a statement. [10823]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 9 December,Official Report, column 30 and the hon. Member for Blaneau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 11 December, Official Report, column 274.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions his Department has drawn from the Grant Thornton 1996 European business survey regarding(a) the percentage of United Kingdom SME which export, (b) the figures in each European Union country and (c) the European Union average. [11229]

  Mr. Page
  I welcome the survey's findings that as many as 45 per cent. of United Kingdom SMEs export, and that the share is significantly higher in only six other European Union countries. SMEs clearly make an important contribution to Britain's position as the world's fifth largest trading nation.

  Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; and from which budget these sums were paid. [11098]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 January,Official Report, columns 133–34.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology as representatives of UK interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee; [11100]

  (2) how many (a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. [11101]

  Mr. Taylor
  The staff at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are employed by the Natural Environment Research Council. The prior options process is designed to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by these bodies. In most cases, membership in fact reflects the professional or personal qualifications of the individual. However, information on committee membership is set out in the table.

  Chair/President

  Members

  United Kingdom

  4

  40

  European

  1

  9

  International

  3

  24

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the expected future costs of the prior options review of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [11099]

  Mr. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 January,Official Report, columns 136–37.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Inmates (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been of prison inmates during the past 12 months; what were the principal offences for which they were prosecuted; and if he will make a statement. [9937]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available centrally.

  Prisoners (Custody Costs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of custody per inmate month in adult prisons in the last year for which figures are available. [10922]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average cost of the custody per prisoner month in adult prisons in the last year for which figures are available.
  The average net operating cost per prisoner per month in adult male prisons in 1995–96 was £1,776. This figure includes establishments which may contain facilities for some young offenders and female prisoners. It excludes all female establishments, most of which may contain both adults and young offenders.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of custody per inmate month in(a) open and (b) closed youth establishments in the last year for which figures are available. [10923]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average cost of custody per prisoner month in a) open and b) closed youth establishments in the last year for which figures are available.
  The average net operating cost per prisoner per month in open youth establishments in 1995–96 was £2,071 and in closed youth establishments it was £1,730. The figure for closed establishments includes remand centres. These figures exclude all female establishments, most of which may contain both adults and young offenders.

  Non-custodial Sentences (Costs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average monthly cost of supervision under the Children and Young Persons Acts for the last year for which figures are available; [10925]
  430
  (2) what was the average monthly cost of a supervision order combined with intensive, intermediate treatment or specified activities in the last year for which figures are available; [10926]

  (3) what was the average monthly cost of a probation order in the last year for which figures are available;[10929]

  (4) what was the average monthly cost of a community service order in the last year for which figures are available. [10930]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on monthly unit costs collated from probation service returns is given in the following table:

  Estimated monthly cost per case supervised by the probation service in England and Wales, by type of order, 1995–96

  £ per case Cost

  Supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969

  180

  Probation Order

  190

  Community service order

  140

  The figure for supervision orders relates to work by the probation service, and does not cover work by social services departments. Information on supervision orders with an additional requirement is not identified separately.

  Bail Support Schemes (Costs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average monthly cost of bail support schemes in the last year for which figures are available. [10928]

  Mr. Sackville
  Bail support schemes, which vary widely in scope and coverage, are organised and funded locally by area probation services and social services. No information is held centrally about their cost.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the consideration given to health and safety at work issues at the Fire Service College. [11231]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are satisfied with the consideration given to health and safety at work issues at the Fire Service College. Responsibility for these matters rests with the college management, but the arrangements are monitored by professionally qualified Home Office health and safety officers, Health and Safety Executive inspectors and local authority environmental health officers.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently held in Her Majesty's prison establishments; and how many of them are accused of committing a crime. [11611]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 11 December 1996, the latest date for which information is available, 292 persons who had sought asylum were detained in Prison Service establishments solely under Immigration Act powers. In
  431
  addition to these, a further 121 asylum seekers were detained in prisons under powers other than, or in conjunction with, those contained in the Immigration Act 1971. Information on the number of these persons who are being held on criminal charges, as opposed to those serving a court imposed sentence, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Year Against Racism
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received in relation to the EC's Year Against Racism, and from whom. [11213]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Department has received many inquiries of many different kinds about aspects of the European year from a wide range of organisations and individuals and has established a database of several hundred names.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives are planned as the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Year Against Racism. [11211]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The first major event of the year will take place on 28 January, when the Secretary of State for Employment and Education and Sir Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, will be jointly hosting a conference to promote the business case for race equality. We shall then be launching the year formally in February. Other activities are being planned throughout the year, both by Government and by a wide range of other organisations. These are being collated into a calendar of events which will be widely disseminated in due course.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department is the lead Department for the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC's 1997 Year Against Racism. [11214]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Yes.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has held with groups and organisations in the voluntary sector, and with local authority associations about the European Year Against Racism. [11210]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In addition to informal contacts, we have set up a national co-ordinating committee which I am chairing personally. The committee met for the first time on 2 December and meets again on 26 February. The following organisations have been invited on to the committee: the Commission for Racial Equality; Association of County Councils; Association of District Councils; Association of Metropolitan Authorities; British Phonographic Industry; Confederation of British Industry; Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Interfaith Network; Race for Opportunity; Runnymede Trust; SIA; Trades Union Congress; training and enterprise councils; Welsh Local Government Association; Home Office; Department for Education and Employment; Department of Health; Department of the Environment; and Northern Ireland Office. Lady Flather, the United Kingdom member of the European Union Consultative Committee on Racism and Xenophobia, is also a member of the committee.
  432
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department has made available with regard to the activities surrounding the EC's designation of 1997 as a Year Against Racism; and what sums have been set aside for such activity. [11212]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I am pleased to say that the European year has generated an enormous amount of interest in the United Kingdom and my Department has responded to a large number of inquiries. We have also disseminated widely the newsletter produced by the European Commission. We are providing specific funding to the Commission for Racial Equality to run a helpline and information service for the year and the first United Kingdom newsletter will be issued very shortly to the lists of contacts collated by the Home Office and the Commission for Racial Equality.

  In addition, Government Departments will mark the year in appropriate ways, although no specific central budget has been set aside for this purpose.

  The European Commission has set aside a budget of 4.7 million ecu to stimulate action and involvement in the year. We expect the Commission to announce details shortly of how organisations in member states can apply for this funding.

  Data Protection (Registration Fees)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the fees likely to be received from applicants for registration under the Data Protection Act 1984 in the next three financial years; and what plans he has to transform the registration fee into a tax on data users. [11238]

  Mr. Sackville
  The current estimates are:

  Financial Years

  £ million

  1997–98

  4.4

  1998–99

  6.5

  1999–2000

  4.9

  The fee has been set at a level which will ensure that the full costs of the Data Protection Registrar's activities, since the exception of her office, are met on an accruals accounting basis. Fee income for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 may be affected by changes to the registration arrangements with the implementation by October 1998 of the European Community directive on data protection. We have not yet decided the form of the new arrangements.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of expenditure in the current financial year on the probation service in(a) England and Wales and (b) Wales; and if he will express this expenditure as a percentage of expenditure on police and prisons. [11017]
  433
  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  England and Wales

  Wales

  Current estimate of expenditure on probation service 1996–97

  £350.2 million

  £18.1 million As percentage of estimated

  As percentage of estimated expenditure on police

  9.9 per cent.

  10.4 per cent.

  As percentage of estimated expenditure on prisons

  21.3 per cent.

  1—

  1 Separate figures for expenditure on the Prison Service in Wales are not kept.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the expenditure of the probation service in each of the counties of Wales since 1992, indicating the annual percentage increases or decreases on the previous year's expenditure. [11019]

  Mr. Sackville
  Net specified expenditure by probation areas in Wales between 1992–93 and 1995–96, and year-on-year percentage changes are given in the table. The probation areas correspond with the pre-April 1996 counties, with the exception of north Wales, which comprises the former counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Dyfed

  Expenditure (£)

  1,700,530

  1,845,785

  2,020,753

  2,144,641

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +8.5

  +9.5

  +6.1

  Gwent

  Expenditure (£)

  2,277,894

  2,456,291

  2,614,526

  2,698,153

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +7.8

  +6.4

  +3.2

  North Wales

  Expenditure (£)

  2,991,103

  3,166,670

  3,439,321

  3,612,692

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +5.9

  +8.6

  +5.0

  Powys

  Expenditure (£)

  630,889

  701,511

  782,941

  867,437

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +11.2

  +11.6

  +10.8

  South Glamorgan

  Expenditure (£)

  3,307,601

  3,506,904

  3,791,970

  4,023,999

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +6.0

  +8.1

  +6.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  Expenditure (£)

  3,474,121

  3,725.125

  3,934,732

  4,064,822

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +7.2

  +5.6

  +3.3

  West Glamorgan

  Expenditure (£)

  2,819,039

  3,034,418

  3,223,813

  3,307,664

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  +7.6

  +6.2

  +2.6

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what national standards or criteria are currently in force in determining the average case load 434
  of probation officers (a) dealing with community service orders, (b) dealing with offenders in custody and (c) dealing with supervision orders. [11021]

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions on allocation of case load to make best use of available staff resources are matters for individual probation committees, having regard to local circumstances; and no national standards or criteria have been issued.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage change in expenditure upon the probation service in England and Wales since 1992; and what are the equivalent figures for the police and prison services. [11018]

  Mr. Sackville
  Central Government support for the probation service in England and Wales, current and capital, between 1992–93 and 1995–96 increased by 9.6 per cent. The equivalent figures for the police and the Prison Service are 19.1 per cent. and 3.5 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of probation officers currently dealing directly with cases in each of the counties of Wales; and what assessment he has made of the change in the number of officers following the proposed budgets for 1997–98. [11020]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available published figures for the numbers of probation officers and senior probation officers1 employed by probation committees in Wales at 30 June 1996 are given in the table.

  It is for individual probation committees to determine their spending priorities, including staff numbers, in the light of the expenditure limits implied by the level of their grant support in 1997–98.

  Number

  Dyfed

  29

  Gwent

  65

  North Wales

  64

  Powys

  10

  South Glamorgan

  71

  Mid Glamorgan

  67

  West Glamorgan

  51

  1 Whole-time equivalents.

  Baboons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licence applications for the use of wild-caught baboons have been approved by the Animal Procedures Committee since 1994 for research; what checks were made to ensure that these animals did not suffer unduly during trapping and transport to the United Kingdom; and what was the country of origin of these animals. [11169]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the start of 1994, three project licences authorising the use of wild-caught baboons have been approved by the Animal Procedures Committee.

  We announced in 1995 a ban on the use of wild-caught non-human primates unless specific and exceptional justification could be made. Details of the trapping, housing and transport arrangements for any holding

  435
  centres must now be submitted to the Home Office before animals acquired from these sources can be used in regulated procedures.

  All the animals originated in Kenya. Following a visit by one of the animals (scientific procedures) inspectors to the holding centre concerned, many further application to use animals acquired from this source will not be considered until adequate improvements have been made to the facilities.

  Personalised Number Plates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11416]

  Mr. Howard
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Health and Safety (Co-Steel)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Health and Safety Executive inspectors have visited Co-Steel to speak to employees without management present since August 1996. [11083]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An HSE inspector who made three visits to investigate a fatal accident which occurred on 28 September 1996 interviewed several employees without management being present. An HSE inspector who carried out an inspection on 5 December 1996 had a discussion with two employees without management being present.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to initiate an investigation into safety procedures at Co-Steel, following the withdrawal of the British Safety Council's safety award. [11082]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive carried out an inspection of Co-Steel Sheerness plc in May 1996 and were generally satisfied with the company's health and safety arrangements. However HSE is currently examining the arrangements for complying with the reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which elected workers representatives have access to documents relevant to workplace health and safety in derecognised workplaces. [11084]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, employers who choose to consult their employees via elected representatives are required to provide the representatives with the information necessary to carry out their functions. Employers must let workers representatives see the records of work-related injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences which relate to the representatives' responsibilities.

  Derelict Land Grant (Corby)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid in derelict land grant to Corby district borough council in each year since 1979. [11068]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information about expenditure from 1979–80 to 1994–94 was given in my answer of 26 April 1995,Official Report, columns 530–31. English Partnerships paid £2,148,392 from its land reclamation programme in 1995–96. There have been no payments as yet in the current financial year, but English Partnerships expects to make a payment of £193,000.

  Landlords (Gas Appliance Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that landlords comply with the amendment made to regulation 35 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996: and if he will make a statement. [10952]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Gas safety publicity is an important plank in the Health and Safety Commission's strategy for promoting compliance by duty holders with gas safety legislation. The duties enjoined on relevant landlords by the second amendment to the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994, as amended, are the primary focus of the commission's current gas-related carbon monoxide poisoning publicity campaign.

  Enforcement of the 1994 regulations is a priority activity for the Health and Safety Executive. There was more than a tenfold increase in formal enforcement action against landlords for breaches of regulation 35A in 1995–96 compared with 1994–95. Enforcement of the 1994 regulations, including the second amendment, will continue to be a priority activity for the HSE.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Sir Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to ensure(a) that the direction of all telecommunications masts is properly controlled and (b) that numbers are kept to the practical minimum in (i) Dorset and (ii) the United Kingdom. [11581]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Controls over the erection of telecommunications masts are already in place. Masts over 15 m in height require a full application for planning permission wherever they are located, as do all masts in specified protected areas. Outside these areas, licensed telecommunications operators have the right to erect masts up to 15 m in height, subject to a prior approval procedure operated by local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. To help minimise the number of masts, our planning policy guidance encourages mast sharing wherever practicable and licences issued under the Telecommunications Act require operators to consider this. These controls apply to England and Wales. Other controls are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right. hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Ancient Hedgerows
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications of the judgment in Hull county court by Judge Cracknell concerning the preservation of ancient hedgerows. [11424]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the case referred to, Mr Colin Seymour and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust obtained from Hull county court a declaration that Flamborough parish council is bound for ever by the Flamborough Inclosures Act 1765, and subsequent award under it, to maintain a particular hedge that is owned by the council. The judge heard only one side of the argument. However, his judgment illustrates that obligations arising under Inclosure Acts and awards may still be enforceable; and that, in appropriate circumstances, the court may find that a local resident has locus standi to challenge the failure of a local authority to perform them. As he pointed out, the outcome depended on the wording of the particular Inclosure Act and award, and others may be expressed differently. It would therefore be wrong to read too much into this case.

  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received a copy of the memorandum by John Holmes of the Nirex science department, dated 10 December 1996, concerning the outstanding scientific matters that need attention in regard to the rock characterisation facility and proposals for the disposal of radioactive wastes. [11801]

  Mr. Clappison
  Yes.

  Stockton City Challenge
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish his decision on the public inquiry into the Stockton city challenge scheme for the redevelopment of Stockton high street. [11871]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Good progress is being made in considering the inspector's report and a significant amount of post-inquiry correspondence. Some complex issues are involved which need careful consideration, and the decision will be issued as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  Christ the King School
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will(a) make a statement on and (b) announce a decision on, the application referred to him by Spelthorne borough council to divert a footpath currently running through the playground of Christ the King school, Stanwell. [10916]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The order will be decided by an inspector appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following an exchange of written representations between Spelthorne borough council and the objector. The exchange of representations is complete and the inspector will visit the site before making his decision on the order.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total financial allocation(a) from his Department and (b) from other Government Departments and agencies for research to be carried out by the Building Research Establishment executive agency in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [11268]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The total amount expected to be spent at the Building Research Establishment in 1996–97 by my Department will be in the order of £32 million.

  The Department is discussing with BRE proposed contracts for 1997–98, when it is anticipated that BRE will be in the private sector.

  In 1996–97, other Government Departments have commissioned work valued at £2.1 million. It is a matter for individual Departments to decide whether and when to let contracts to BRE in 1997–98.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names and qualifications of the Building Research Establishment executive agency visitors. [11270]

  Mr. Jones
  The visitors of the Building Research Establishment executive agency are appointed by its chief executive, and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from R.G. Courtney to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question on the names and qualifications of the Building Research Establishment Executive Agency Visitors.
  The BRE Visitors are:
  N. Armstrong, Director, North East Region Housing Corporation
  J. B. Deal, Technical Director, Haden Young Limited
  Dr. B. C. Hutt, Chairman of the Building Group, W. S. Atkins Consultants Limited
  Professor P. E. O'Sullivan OBE, Head of the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College, London
  Dr. D. G. Anderson, Technical Director, Lambson Fine Chemicals Limited
  R. Crotty, Computer Executive, Bovis Construction Limited
  D. Kincaid, Building Management Consultant
  Professor C. L. Page, Department of Civil Engineering, Aston University
  Professor D. Bradley FRS, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds
  Dr. D. D. Drysdale, Fire Safety Engineering Unit, University of Edinburgh
  Professor T. J. Shields, Director, Fire Research and Testing Centre, University of Ulster
  Professor J. B. Burland, Professor of Soil Mechanics, Imperial College, London
  E. C. Chaplin, Company Chief Engineer, Tarmac Construction Limited
  B. W. Smith, Flint and Neill Partnership
  Professor R. Webster, Faculty of Design, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.

  I regret that we do not hold details of their qualifications.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sources of professional advice his Department will have available after the transfer of
  439
  the Building Research Establishment executive agency to the private sector to enable his Department to arbitrate on plans for novel buildings; and if he will make a statement. [11272]

  Mr. Jones
  My Department employs its own professional officers to advise on cases referred to it under the Building Act 1984, but where appropriate advice will continue to be sought from the Building Research Establishment after its transfer to the private sector.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount allocated to the negotiated research programme for the Building Research Establishment executive agency for the financial year 1996–97 by his Department. [11267]

  Mr. Jones
  The total amount expected to be spent at the Building Research Establishment in 1996–97 under the negotiated construction research programme is £15.85 million.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure the continuing maintenance of the Buildings Research Establishment executive agency's large building test facility at Cardington after the transfer of the agency to the private sector. [11275]

  Mr. Jones
  In response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) on 2 April 1996,Official Report, columns 163–64, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Government want BRE to remain a single entity. That is the basis on which BRE is being offered for sale.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has undertaken to solicit the views of the construction industries throughout the United Kingdom regarding his intention to transfer the Building Research Establishment executive agency to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [11280]

  Mr. Jones
  A large number of construction industry bodies were consulted as part of the review of the options for privatisation of BRE carried out by PA Consulting. In addition, three senior industry representatives were members of the advisory group which oversaw PA Consulting's work.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to ensure that those parts of the land on which the Building Research Establishment executive agency is situated which are sites of special scientific interest will be protected in the event of the transfer of the Building Research Establishment to the private sector. [11278]

  Mr. Jones
  There are no sites of special scientific interest on the sites occupied by the Building Research Establishment.
  440
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when funding for the negotiated research programme for the Building Research Establishment executive agency for the financial year 1997–98 will be allocated by his Department. [11266]

  Mr. Jones
  Within the Department the allocation for construction research programmes has been made. The Department is discussing with BRE proposed contracts for 1997–98, when it is anticipated that BRE will be in the private sector.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to establish the nature of the waste deposited in refuse tips on land on which the Building Research Establishment executive agency is sited at Garston, and the extent of the contamination of that waste; and if he will make a statement. [11279]

  Mr. Jones
  An environmental liabilities audit was commissioned by the Department as part of the preparation for the sale of BRE. This concluded that the area of the Garston site previously used for tipping does not present a risk to the current activities.

  Knowsley Heights (Fire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out, and by which organisations, into building and other fire safety issues raised by the fire at Knowsley Heights in Liverpool in April 1991. [11269]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Building Research Establishment was commissioned by the Department to investigate the fire at Knowsley Heights. This subsequently led to a programme of research by BRE into the spread of fire in relation to cladding systems, particularly those of the "rainscreen" type. The project included appraisal of some of the hygrothermal properties of cladding systems.

  Lightweight Polymer-cored Sandwich Panels
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned to be carried out into the fire safety implications of the presence of lightweight polymer-cored sandwich panels in the food processing industry; and by which organisations this research was carried out. [11271]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Officials in my Department have been working on this question with colleagues in the Home Office who had commissioned the Building Research Establishment to undertake an initial review of the fire safety of large insulated sandwich panels. My Department will commission follow-up tests with larger specimens shortly.

  Pollutants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out on his behalf, and by which organisations, into pollutants in the home in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years. [11273]
  441
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department of the Environment has commissioned a substantial body of research into pollutants in the home over recent years. The research contracts which have been let over the past five years, and the organisations performing these contracts, are as follows:

  Contract title

  Contractor

  Contract duration

  Indoor air quality

  Building Research

  1990–93

  Establishment

  1993–96

  1996–99

  Assessment of the risks to health and well being of occupants from exposure to various pollutants in homes

  MRC Institute for Environment and Health

  1994–99

  ALSPAC daily health diaries

  University of Bristol

  1994–95

  The siting of carbon monoxide detectors for use in domestic premises

  Building Research Establishment (joint DoE/HSE contract) 1995–97

  Size Selective Sampling of Indoor Air Quality—Exposure to Tobacco Smoke and Allergens

  AEA Technology

  1996–98

  Estimation of Personal Exposures to Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants

  University of Birmingham

  1996–98

  Stainless Steel (Swimming Pools)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out on his behalf, and by which organisations, into the behaviour of stainless steel in swimming pool construction. [11274]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since 1988 my Department has commissioned research at the Building Research Establishment on the risks associated with the use of stainless steel in swimming pools. The work has been carried out in collaboration with interested parties such as British Steel and the Institute of Sports and Recreation Management. BRE has published a guidance document and has provided information for several journal articles. The work has provided advice on recommended stainless steel grades, inspection and maintenance and has generally raised awareness of the issues for designers and swimming pool owners.

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the responses he has received into his consultation paper on competition in the water industry; and how many were in favour of extending competition into the domestic sector. [11049]

  Mr. Clappison
  A list of responses to the consultation paper "Water—Increasing Customer Choice" is in the Library. The paper invited comments on a number of measures to extend competition. These included giving domestic customers the right to make their own connections to the water main, on which there was general support. On common carriage arrangements, our proposals related to large users of water, and we did not invite comments on extending the proposals to the domestic sector.
  442
  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by his Department and the regulator on consultancy advice on the feasibility of extending competition in the water industry. [11050]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department and the Office of Water Services jointly funded a report on the hydraulic, network and quality issues raised by common carriage at a cost of £21,150.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the results of his consultation exercise into extending competition in the water industry. [11051]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement soon about how the Government intend to proceed.

  Large Building Design (Bomb Attacks)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to reassess the current robustness requirements for large buildings, following recent bomb attacks in London and Manchester; and which organisations have acted on his behalf in assessing the damage and formulating design guidance aimed at limiting the impact of terrorist attacks. [11263]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department did commission the Building Research Establishment, and others, to undertake limited investigations of the London bombings at St. Mary Axe in 1992 and at Bishopsgate in 1993, but not the Manchester incident. More detailed studies of such incidents are routinely carried out by experts in the explosives safety branch on behalf of the Home Office. Close liaison is maintained by my Department with ESB in order to monitor the performance of those buildings subjected to explosive attack. We have no plans to amend the Building Regulations to increase the resistance of buildings to bomb attack, although we have supported the development of design guidance specifically aimed at limiting the effect of explosions on buildings which are considered to be at particular risk of terrorist attack.

  British Standards Institution
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names, qualifications and employing organisations of the Government's funded representatives on each BSI committee; and what arrangements he proposes to make for Government representation on each committee in the event of the transfer of the Building Research Establishment executive agency to the private sector. [11363]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A list of representatives funded by the Department of the Environment of BSI committees has been deposited with the Library of the House. That list shows the information requested except the qualifications of each individual, which are not recorded centrally. The expertise of Building Research Establishment staff is expected to remain available to assist with the representation of government interests in the development of standards following the transfer of BRE to the private sector.

  Capital Challenge
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconcile the figures for the
  443
  reductions in the provision for local authority capital approvals and capital grants by service in 1997–98 that were made to provide for the introduction of capital challenge with the estimated supplementary credit approvals to be allocated to each service under the capital challenge pilot scheme. [11650]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information available is in a different form from that requested.

  The pool of resources for the capital challenge pilot scheme was created by transferring provision from Government Departments' budgets for support for local authority capital expenditure. Table 1 shows departmental contributions in each of the three financial years of the pilot scheme.

  Table 1

  £ million

  Department

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  2.6

  4.4

  3.5

  Department of Transport

  44.2

  74.8

  59.8

  Department of the Environment

  66.3

  108.9

  87.1

  Home Office

  3.0

  4.9

  3.9

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1.2

  2.0

  1.6

  Department for Education and Employment

  25.4

  43.5

  34.8

  Department of Health

  7.2

  11.6

  9.3

  Totals

  150.0

  250.0

  200.0

  Columns may not sum due to rounding. Table 2 shows the estimated uptake of supplementary credit approvals by service over the three years of the pilot scheme.

  Table 2

  £ million

  Service

  Credit approvals sought by successful bids

  Education

  104.9

  Housing

  121.5

  Personal social services

  15.4

  Transport

  203.9

  Magistrates' courts committees

  7.3

  Fire and civil defence

  18.7

  Probation committees

  2.9

  Coast protection/flood defence

  1.3

  Sport and recreation

  15.0

  Economic development

  60.3

  Waste collection

  16.8

  Parks and open spaces

  10.0

  Arts and libraries

  11.6

  Other

  22.2

  Total

  611.8

  A total of £600 million is available under the capital challenge pilot scheme. Ministers have approved a slight surplus of projects since it is likely that some will not proceed according to plan.

  The services shown cannot be reconciled directly with the departmental contributions shown in table 1 since some services, for example economic development, will include the policy interests of more than one Department. The precise profiling of individual projects has not yet been agreed with authorities, and it is not therefore possible to show estimated expenditure for each service for individual financial years.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the targets agreed at the Rio summit in 1992, indicating progress so far achieved with each of them by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each other country for which information is readily available and (c) internationally. [10818]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: At the Rio earth summit, the Prime Minister and other world leaders agreed the Rio declaration, conventions on climate change and biodiversity, a statement of forest principles, and Agenda 21. Shortly after Rio, the United Kingdom, with other members of the European Union and the Group of Seven, adopted an action plan to give practical effect to the Rio agreements. The United Kingdom has met in full its commitments under that action plan, including the ratification of the climate change and biodiversity conventions, and the production of a national strategy for sustainable development.

  The strategy sets out measures and targets designed to promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and is monitored through annual White Papers which report on progress.

  The UN's Commission on Sustainable Development was established after Rio to monitor progress on the implementation of the Rio agreements. The United Kingdom submits annual reports to the commission, copies of which are placed in the Library. We do not keep information on other countries' progress in implementing Rio commitments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasion the British Council has provided or facilitated training for the Indonesian paramilitary or police personnel(a) in Indonesia and (b) in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the cost and content of such training and what proposals there are for future support. [10707]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Council has provided or facilitated training for Indonesian police personnel, in Indonesia and in the United Kingdom, under non-aid-funded arrangements, in addition to its involvement, on behalf of the Overseas Development Administration, in the national police management training project in Indonesia. Details of the latter have been provided to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) in earlier replies on 8 February 1995,Official Report, columns 294–95, 3 March 1995, Official Report, column 727,12 July 1995, Official Report, columns 609–12, and 16 May 1996, Official Report, columns 522–26.

  The British Council in Indonesia has provided English language training to prepare police personnel for training in Britain. This language training has been funded under the Chevening awards scheme by the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The number of

  445
  police trainees and associated costs over the past five years, and estimated figures for the coming financial year, are as follows:

  Year

  Trainees

  Cost (£)

  1992–93

  1

  1,000

  1996–97

  2

  2,000

  1997–98

  1

  1,500

  Figures in respect of training arranged by the British Council in the United Kingdom for these Indonesian police personnel, all under the Chevening awards scheme, are as follows:

  Year

  Trainees

  Cost (£)

  1992–93

  1

  12,000

  1996–97

  2

  29,000

  1997–98

  1

  15,000

  The four students listed have followed, or will follow, courses in police studies, business administration, banking and finance, and traffic studies.

  In 1993–94 and 1994–95 the British Council also provided English language training in Jakarta to two groups of 15 traffic police. This was fully funded under the auspices of a World bank project managed by a British consultancy company.

  The British Council has not provided for facilitated training for Indonesian paramilitary organisations.

  British Citizens (Death Sentence)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if consular access has been granted and made to Mr. Krishna Maharaj in Florida. [11480]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our consular staff became aware of Mr. Maharaj's situation in October 1988. He received his first consular visit on 3 January 1989. We have been in regular touch with him ever since.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens abroad his Department estimates to have been(a) sentenced judicially to death and (b) executed in the past 10 years. [11476]

  Dr. Fox
  The answer is(a) eight, and (b) four.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the reason for the replacement of the judge who initially presided in the Florida murder trial of Mr. Krishna Maharaj. [11478]

  Dr. Fox
  The first judge was removed from the trial in order to face bribery charges in an unrelated case.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens abroad outside the EU have been provided with financial resources to defend themselves or to appeal against verdict or sentence in cases that could end with judicial execution in the past 10 years. [11477]
  446
  Dr. Fox
  None.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the legal options available to Mr. Krishna Maharaj; and how much time has been made available to Mr. Krishna Maharaj to present arguments to the Florida Supreme court for a new trial. [11479]

  Dr. Fox
  Mr. Maharaj is able to make use of the US post-conviction appeals process. His state appeal was heard in April 1996. The Florida Supreme court ruled in December 1996 that his case should be returned to the Miami court for an evidentiary hearing to decide whether or not he is entitled to a retrial.

  United Nations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the United Nations regular budget in 1996 was financed by borrowing from the peacekeeping budget; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this on peacekeeping operations. [11344]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UN regular budget at the end of 1996 was most recently forecast to have been in deficit by $195 million—down from $198 million at the end of 1995. This end of year balance of funds was cross-borrowed from the peacekeeping budget.

  The borrowing of funds from peacekeeping budgets to meet cash shortfalls on the UN regular budget is a short-term measure and is within UN financial regulations. It has no appreciable impact in the day-to-day work of UN peacekeeping operations. We do not, however, believe that this is good accounting practice.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much outstanding debt is owed to the United Nations(a) in total and (b) by the United States; how much of this is owed to the peacekeeping budget; and if he will make a statement about the financial situation of the United Nations. [11345]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  At 15 December 1996, outstanding assessed contributions to the UN totalled $2.26 billion. Of this, $1.71 billion was for peacekeeping operations. The total US debt was $1.3 billion, including $926 million for peacekeeping operations.

  We firmly believe that all UN member states including the US, must pay their dues promptly, in full and without conditions, in accordance with their legal obligation. The EU proposals for UN financial reform include penalties for late or non-payers.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review export controls and the supply of arms to Bosnia. [11587]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In my written answer to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) on 15 July,Official Report, column 358, I announced continuing restrictions on UK arms exports to the states of the former Yugoslavia, in line with an EU common position. We have no plans at present to review this policy.

  Venezuela (Prisoners)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to secure the release of James Miles and Paul Loseby from custody in Venezuela. [11530]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our consular staff in Caracas are in regular contact with Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby to ensure that they are treated fairly. They have provided information about local lawyers and the Venezuelan legal system. The date of their release is a matter for the Venezuelan judicial authorities.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to conclude a prisoner exchange agreement between Britain and Venezuela. [11531]

  Dr. Fox
  Yes. Steps are in hand.

  Personalised Number Plates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11417]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place concerning the loss of life of asylum seekers trying to travel to European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [11180]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Meetings take place on a regular basis with our European Union partners to discuss asylum matters. There has been no discussion on this specific issue.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Greece concerning the reported loss of life of people trying to reach Greece by sea. [11181]

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Domestic Air Travel
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what guidelines are issued to hon. Members about the use of air travel funded by the House of Commons within the United Kingdom; and if he will list the airlines and airports in the United Kingdom that hon. Members are able to use. [11680]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Hon. Members may use any United Kingdom airport or any airline appropriate to their parliamentary duties.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visit (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of his visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; and who accompanied him on his visit. [11666]

  The Prime Minister
  I was accompanied by my wife and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. We took 24 members of my office and other staff, 23 members of the press and 48 representatives of British industry, although not all of them accompanied us throughout the entire visit.

  Detailed cost information is not yet available. The representatives from industry and the press will, of course, be charged in the normal manner.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the progress of the millennium exhibition project at Greenwich. [12056]

  Mrs. Viginia Bottomley
  My Department issued a statement on 18 January setting out the basis on which the millennium exhibition project will go ahead. The text of the statement is reproduced as follows:On 6 December last year, the Millennium Exhibition operating company, Millennium Central, submitted its proposals for a National Exhibition to the Millennium Commission. The Commissioners decided at their meeting on 11 December that an Exhibition will take place in Greenwich in the year 2000.
  At its meeting on 13 January 1997, the Commission agreed that the indicative budget now available provides a basis on which a grant of £200 million can be made. Immediate negotiations on the terms and conditions of grant will begin in parallel with the preparation of a detailed business plan and the creation of the management team. This will be done in such a way as to drive costs down.
  In addition to the Commission's grant, the Exhibition will be funded through commercial income including private sector sponsorship. The Millennium Commission has a target of £150 million for sponsorship, of which more than half has been identified. Entrance charges will be set at a level which allows as many people as possible to attend but which also maximises revenue.
  The operational targets for visitor numbers and income for the Exhibition are, of course, estimates and will remain so, even when the detailed business plan is prepared. The Government will expect the business plan to be delivered within the indicative budget and will keep progress under continuous review to ensure that a first class exhibition is delivered at Greenwich in the most cost effective way. Nevertheless, the Government has taken the view that the Commission should have provision to cover variations from the estimates in the plan without prejudicing its existing grant programmes and the possibility of a fourth round of capital projects.
  The National Lottery etc. Act of 1993 allows for money from the National Lottery to be channelled to the Millennium Commission only until 31 December 2000, although that period may be extended by Order. An Order will accordingly be brought forward to extend the funding life of the commission for one year. Millennium Central understands that should the need for provision to cover variations arise, it will be required to make a new application to the Commission for this purpose. But any such application will only be made for contingencies and inflation which at present cannot be predicted and both the Government and Opposition agree that everything possible must be done to keep within the existing budget.

  449
  The Government is putting in place the normal public sector procedures necessary to monitor and review a project of this sort. No public expenditure will be committed to the Exhibition beyond that which will be made available to English Partnerships to acquire and prepare the site.
  The Government has decided that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Roger Freeman, should assume responsibility for Millennium Central. It would not be right for the Secretary of State for National Heritage to take this role in view of her position as Chairman of the Millennium Commission. To do so would also fetter her discretion as Secretary of State to act properly under the terms of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Mr. Freeman will be advised by the Department of National Heritage. He will be the company's shareholder and will appoint its Board members and be answerable to Parliament for its performance.
  The Government is also pleased to announce that Robert Ayling, Chief Executive of British Airways, is to be Chairman of Millennium Central and that Jennifer Page, currently Chief Executive of the Millennium Commission, will be Chief Executive of the company.
  The Government has discussed the Millennium Commission's plans in detail with the Opposition, who are represented on the Commission. The Opposition remain enthusiastic about the proposed exhibition at Greenwich. They will want, if elected, to review all aspects of the project delivery, to ensure it is cost effective and properly implemented, so that it will come within the existing budget. The Government is pleased that the Shadow Heritage Secretary, Dr. Jack Cunningham, who has supported the plan for a National Exhibition from the start, has agreed the terms of this announcement.
  A National Exhibition should be a landmark in the lives of British people; it should be an event of which the whole country can be proud and which other nationals will admire, and be a worthy successor to the 1851 Great Exhibition and the 1951 Festival of Britain. The decontamination and regeneration of the 300-acre Greenwich Peninsula—the largest single derelict site in Southern England, just six miles for Westminster—will be one of the great legacies of the event. Five thousand people will work to build the Exhibition. The associated national programme will involve the whole country in the celebration of the Millennium. This will be an exhibition for the whole nation.

  Historic Buildings (Advice Charges)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what sources of advice on the reduction of fire risks in historic buildings are currently available to her; and if she will list the amount paid in charges for such advice for each of the last three years. [11282]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are number of sources of advice available to me including: Sir Alan Bailey's report, "Fire Protection Measures for the Royal Palaces", produced in May 1993; and the National Research Co-ordinating Committee for Fire Safety in Historic Buildings, on which most organisations with an interest in fire safety in heritage buildings are represented. Advice has also been sought from Lawrence Webster Forrest/Klimat, International Fire Consultants, Warrington Fire Research, C. S. Todd and Associates and the Building Research Establishment. Over the last three years, the following amounts have been paid in charges for such advice: 1993–94—£52,000; 1994–95—£109,000; 1995–96— £163,000.

  In addition, English Heritage operates a technical research programme which can include research into the reduction of fire risks in historic buildings. The results of that research are generally made available to the public either free or at a small price.
  450
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what sources of advice on the protection of stone in historic buildings are currently available to her; and if charges are made for such advice. [11281]

  Mr. Sproat
  English Heritage, in consultation with the Building Research Establishment, operates a technical research programme which can encompass research into the protection of stone in historic buildings. The results of such research are generally made available to the public either through leaflets or through publications. The former tend to be free; the latter tend to be at a small charge. English Heritage also offers guidance on technical issues on request, for which a charge is not levied.

DEFENCE

  Malathion
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what clinical assessments have been conducted by or on behalf of his Department on the health effects of malathion powder containing organophosphates. [10634]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what licensing procedures apply in respect of use of malathion by British armed forces. [10640]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Malathion-based dusting powder has been discontinued and replaced in the inventory of UK armed forces by coopex powder, a pyrethroid-based pesticide. Residual stocks of the malathion-based dusting powder are being disposed.

  Post-viral Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what data have been collected by his Department in each year since 1979 on the occurrence of post-viral fatigue syndrome or related illness contracted by environmental health assistants serving with the Royal Army Medical Corps. [10891]

  Mr. Soames
  Data on post-viral fatigue syndrome are not collected in this form.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary for Defence what assessment his Department's research into Gulf war syndrome made of the possible linkage between the use of vaccines against hepatitis B and post-viral fatigue syndrome manifested in Gulf war veterans. [10894]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has made no specific assessment of the possible linkage between the use of vaccines against hepatitis B and post-viral fatigue syndrome manifested in Gulf war veterans.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department's inquiry into Gulf war syndrome has made of articles published in the "Journal of the American Medical Association"; and what is his policy on reviewing American publications on post-Gulf war illness. [11028]
  451
  Mr. Soames
  My Department is currently assessing the four articles and editorial on the health of US Gulf war veterans which were published in the 15 January edition of the "Journal of the American Medical Association". We continue to monitor articles on Gulf health issues in American publications, reviewing them and conducting detailed assessments as medical staff consider appropriate. The Medical Research Council has also agreed to review research carried out or in progress in the US on our behalf, in order to establish its relevance to UK Gulf health issues.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the vaccines provided for use by personnel who served during the conflict with Iraq included anti-malarial agents. [11292]

  Mr. Soames
  None of the vaccines provided for use by the personnel who served in the Gulf during the conflict with Iraq included anti-malarial agents.

  Diazinon
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what examination his Department's research into Gulf war syndrome undertook of the transitional breakdown products of the pesticide, diazinon; and what externally produced research papers on this pesticide have been evaluated by his Department. [10898]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has not undertaken any research into the health effects of pesticides containing diazinon. As was stated in the report of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team, paragraph 3.D.31, there is a possibility that during deployment to the Gulf in 1990–91 a small number of personnel could have used a pesticide containing diazinon, which was purchased locally, for a limited period. As far as the Department is aware, these are the only circumstances under which British forces may have used a pesticide containing diazinon. The Ministry of Defence has not evaluated any externally produced research papers on diazinon.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to develop technology-based defence against ballistic missile attack. [11029]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are currently assessing whether we have a national requirement for ballistic missile defence, taking into account risks posed by ballistic missiles and evaluating the options for responding to these risks.

  Naval Helicopters (Training)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many departures from the agreed flight plan of naval helicopters on training flights occurred in each year since 1992. [11527]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available. Military aircraft are not required to file flight plans other than if transmitting through civil controlled airspace. Departures from a sortie plan can occur for a variety of emergency, operational or air traffic control reasons.

  Duke of York (Helicopter Flight)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the flight path and the stopping-off places of the naval helicopter which carried the Duke of York on a training flight on 13 November 1996. [11520]

  Mr. Soames
  The aircraft left its home base at Portland, delivered a flight crew to the royal naval auxiliary yard Fleetlands, Gosport and then proceeded to collect HRH the Duke of York at Sunningdale while carrying out navigation training in the London helicopter route. A visit to Cowarth Park school was then undertaken during this training and after HRH was returned to Sunningdale the aircraft proceeded to RAF Manston for a military exercise.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was responsible for agreeing the flight plan of the helicopter which carried the Duke of York on 13 November 1996. [11518]

  Mr. Soames
  The sortie was fully planned and authorised through the normal chain of command at the royal naval air station, Portland.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the training flight of the naval helicopter which carried the Duke of York on 13 November 1996. [11519]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of individual flights is not routinely recorded. The cost of the helicopter training flight which carried HRH the Duke of York on 13 November was accommodated within overall annual training hours and fuel allocations.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11598]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Ministers of the Crown are eligible to make use of the child care facilities provided by the Department. If use were made of my Department's child care facilities by my ministerial colleagues or by me, we would expect to pay the full non-subsidised cost of the care provided.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made to clean up the North Ponds area at AWE Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement. [11482]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The North Ponds area receives surface water from within the Aldermaston site. Radiological levels are within limits set by the Environment Agency and other regulatory bodies. The area is being remodelled as part of a scheme to improve water management at Aldermaston, with completion expected next year. Some decontamination work will then be needed.

  Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many requests have been made by the
  453
  United States of America for permission to transfer nuclear weapons information of British provenance to France since 1967. [11536]

  Mr. Soames
  We are not aware of any official requests for the transfer of nuclear weapons information under the 1958 agreement.

  Defence Police (Highlands and Islands)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and location of his Department's police within the Scottish highlands and islands. [11898]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief constable/chief executive of the Ministry of Defence Police agency. I have asked the chief constable/chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Charles Kennedy, dated 20 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number and location of Ministry of Defence Police officers located in the Scottish Highlands and Islands, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  There are no Ministry of Defence Police officers stationed in the Scottish Highlands and Islands.

  Sunken Ships
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of sunken ships which are listed as war graves indicating their approximate location. [12016]

  Mr. Soames
  Consideration of whether a sunken ship falls to be considered as a war grave, as now defined in the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, has been on a case-by-case basis. It has not in the past proved necessary to compile a list of such vessels, and to do so now would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  Naval Vessels (Assistance)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to United Kingdom naval vessels regarding the assistance to be rendered when there is danger to life on the high seas in a non-combat situation. [11183]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom abides by customary international law, which recognises the requirement to render humanitarian assistance on the high seas whenever possible. This requirement is enshrined in the Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy, as well as in a number of other standing instructions and general guidance. All officers in command of Her Majesty's ships, vessels and establishments are required to observe and obey these regulations, and to ensure that their ships' companies do the same.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  European Union Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the European Commission directorates concerned with the 454
  dispersal of aid have underspent in each of the past five years; for what reasons such underspend occurred; and what measures have been taken in response. [10971]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  All European Community external assistance directorates—Directorates-General VIII, DG, IA, DG, IB, and the EC Humanitarian Office, ECHO—have underspent against their initial annual budget in each of the five years 1991 to 1995 inclusive, except ECHO in 1991, 1992 and 1994 and DGIA in 1993 and 1994.

  There are a number of reasons for the persistent underspending: over-ambitious increases in the external assistance budgets; weaknesses in forecasting systems; and insufficient staffing.

  The UK Government consistently argue for both realism and restraint during EC budgetary negotiations. We are working with the Commission to improve its forecasting systems. We continue to press the Commission to address staffing issues. We also second ODA staff to Brussels and EC delegations to help improve aid delivery systems.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to increase the amount and percentage of European Union aid funds that are channelled through British non-governmental organisations. [10970]

  Dr. Fox
  The Government press for fair competition for all European Community development co-operation spending, in order to ensure both value for money and effectiveness. British non-governmental organisations are extremely effective and well placed to benefit from this approach.

  Consortium for Street Children
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects of the Consortium for Street Children funded by the aid programme in 1995 and 1996 and the level of funding given; and if he will list the projects, and their cost, to be supported in 1997, 1998 and 1999, or the level of funding to be offered in these years if specific projects have not yet been agreed. [11248]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  ODA has supported the following projects:Production of a resource directory: £30,000 spread over two financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96;
  Pilot project on girl street children: £16,100 in 1995–96; and legal handbook: £12,000 in 1996–97.

  Outline proposals for 1997–98 are under consideration. The director of the Consortium for Street Children is aware that ODA cannot make multi-year commitments.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what locations in eastern Indonesia and East Timor reception tests were carried out to test the effectiveness of the transmitters installed under the shortwave radio transmitters project. [11645]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Reception tests were carried out by the Indonesian authorities. Neither the Overseas Development Administration nor the UK contractor has information regarding the locations at which tests were carried out.
  455
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with the Government of Portugal regarding the developmental benefits to East Timor of the regional physical planning programme for transmigration, the national overview of land resources, and the regional physical map improvement and training projects in Indonesia. [11649]

  Dr. Fox
  None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the Radio Republic Indonesia reports which his Department used to assess the developmental value of the radio studies rehabilitation project in Indonesia. [11646]

  Dr. Fox
  No such reports are on file. The assessment was carried out by an appraisal team which visited Indonesia in September and October 1985.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pardes House and Beis Yaakov School
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she received an application for grant-maintained status from the Pardes House and Beis Yaakov school; and when she expects to determine it. [11208]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department received the application from the Pardes House and Beis Yaakov School on 20 September 1996. A decision on the application will be made as soon as possible.

  Science Studies
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment she has made of the reasons why so many young people cease to continue science studies after 16 years of age; [10958]

  (2) what plans she has in respect of the science education at age over 16, for those who do not plan a career in a science-related job. [10959]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is of course ultimately for young people after 16, in consultation with their schools and colleges, to choose the right subjects for them. The Department undertook a review in 1994 on the supply and demand of newly qualified young people in mathematics and science. Most recently, Sir Ron Dearing's report last year on 16 to 19 qualifications made several recommendations on increasing take-up and achievement in both mathematics and the sciences. The joint committee of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications has been taking forward work on those recommendations. My right hon. Friend will of course consider carefully any further advice and specific proposals for action they make.

  Back-to-work Measures
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures have been introduced since 1992 to help the long-term unemployed back to work; and what assessment her Department has made of their effectiveness. [10963]
  456
  Mr. Forth
  Since 1992, new jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen. There is clear evidence that our labour market is now more flexible and working more effectively. The UK is the only major European country with unemployment below 2 million, and long-term unemployment has fallen consistently for almost three years.

  The Government's labour market policies have sought to build on this progress, and to help long-term unemployed people in particular to compete successfully for the jobs becoming available. Through the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, Employment Service advisers can now spend more time helping each individual jobseeker. We have also introduced a number of measures to improve incentives to work, and we have maintained year by year the level of 1.5 million opportunities for unemployed people in employment and training programmes.

  We have kept the range of employment and training programmes under continual review, and since 1992 have introduced a number of new measures designed to do more to help long-term unemployed people back to work. New programmes for those unemployed for one year or more have included: 1-2-1, jobplan workshops, workwise—worklink in Scotland—restart courses and the jobfinder's grant. A number of other measures have also been piloted.

  The Department's programmes and pilot programmes are fully evaluated, and evidence on the comparative effectiveness of individual measures has been used to improve the balance of provision for long-term unemployed people.

  In his November Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a new package of employment measures to help people who have been unemployed for two years or more. We are extending project work: from February, a total of 31 project work pilots will provide help for up to 100,000 people. In addition, a new contract for work pilot initiative will explore ways in which the talents of the private sector might be used to help more very long-term unemployed people back to work.

  From April, under a new jobfinder programme, people reaching two or more years unemployment will benefit from an intensive series of one-to-one interviews with an Employment Service adviser which will focus on helping the individual jobseeker back to work. We will also be making the jobmatch programme—which helps people to leave unemployment for a part-time job—available nationally to those aged under 25 who have been unemployed for two years or more; and, within the existing training for work programme, there will be new opportunities for long-term unemployed people whose job prospects can best be increased through training designed to improve their basis skills.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) schools,

  457
  (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools there are in England; and how many schools have (i) held ballots to decide whether or not to opt out of local education authority control and (ii) decided to opt out of local education authority control; and what are (i) and (ii) as a percentage of (a), (b) and (c) for England for each year since 1990 [11356]

  All schools

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Year

  Percentage of schools holding ballots

  1Percentage of ballots resulting in yes vote

  Percentage of schools holding ballots

  Percentage of ballots resulting in yes vote

  Percentage of schools holding ballots

  Percentage of ballots resulting in yes vote

  1990

  0.2

  78.2

  0.0

  0.0

  1.4

  79.6

  1991

  1.1

  78.7

  0.5

  76.6

  4.6

  79.8

  1992

  1.7

  78.3

  0.6

  79.8

  8.0

  77.8

  1993

  2.3

  74.9

  1.6

  77.6

  6.3

  71.3

  1994

  0.9

  55.8

  0.7

  63.8

  1.9

  37.1

  1995

  0.4

  59.6

  0.3

  61.1

  0.8

  46.7

  1996

  0.5

  63.0

  0.4

  62.8

  0.9

  50.0

  1 Figures for all schools include special schools and grant maintained schools in each year but exclude nursery schools, which are not eligible for GM status. Special schools became eligible in 1993.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the grant-maintained schools which have sought her approval for a change of character(a) by extending the age range of pupils for which the school provides and (b) by selecting pupils according to aptitude or ability, stating in each case, whether their application has been successful. [11431]

  Mr. Squire
  The following table lists grant-maintained schools which have published statutory proposals either to extend the age range of the school or to select pupils by ability or aptitude, and whether the proposals were accepted or rejected.

  LEA area

  School name

  Proposals to add or extend a sixth form Approved

  Birmingham

  Baverstock GM school

  Birmingham

  Bishop Challoner school

  Birmingham

  Small Heath school

  Cambridgeshire

  Sawtry village college

  Derbyshire

  The Merrill community school

  Derbyshire

  Chellaston school

  Derbyshire

  Heanor Gate GM school

  Derbyshire

  Woodlands community school

  Derbyshire

  West Park community school

  Derbyshire

  Friesland GM school

  Derbyshire

  Noel Baker community school

  Dorset

  Budmouth technology college

  Dudley

  Ellowes Hall GM school

  Essex

  West Hatch school

  Essex

  Beauchamps GM school

  Essex

  Bromfords school

  Essex

  Chalvedon school

  Essex

  The King John school

  Essex

  The Greensward school

  Essex

  The Philip Morant GM technology college

  Essex

  St. Thomas More high school for boys

  Essex

  The King Edmund school

  Essex

  Furtherwick park

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham Kingsmead school

  Gloucestershire

  Balcarras school

  Hampshire

  Ringwood school

  Hampshire

  The Arnewood school

  458
  Mr. Forth
  In January 1996, there were 23,265 primary, secondary and special schools in England, of which 18,480 were primary and 3,594 secondary. Some 1,744 schools have balloted parents on whether to seek grant-maintained status; 1,297 ballots have resulted in a yes vote. The following table sets out the proportion of schools holding ballots and voting yes in each year since 1990.

  LEA area

  School name

  Hampshire

  The Burgate school

  Hampshire

  Hardley school

  Hampshire

  Bay House school

  Hampshire

  Applemore technology college

  Havering

  The Frances Bardsley school

  Kent

  The Cornwallis school

  Kent

  The Maplesden Noakes school

  Kent

  Angley school

  Kent

  Thamesview school

  Kent

  Hayesbrook school

  Kent

  Northfleet school for boys

  Kent

  Pent Valley school

  Kent

  The Malling school

  Kent

  Senacre technology school

  Kent

  St. George's CE high school

  Kent

  Oldborough Manor community college

  Kent

  Aylesford school

  Kent

  Wrotham school

  Kent

  Herne Bay high school

  Kent

  Sandwich high school

  Kent

  Meopham school

  Kent

  Brockhill Park GM school

  Lambeth

  La Retraite RC girls' GM school

  Lincolnshire

  William Fair CE school

  Lincolnshire

  St. Peter and St. Paul school

  Lincolnshire

  Gleed Girls

  Lincolnshire

  Monks Dyke school

  Norfolk

  Sheringham high school

  Norfolk

  Costessy high school

  Nottinghamshire

  Greenwood Dale GM school

  Rochdale

  Wardle high school

  Sandwell

  Heathfield GM school

  Surrey

  Heathside school

  Tameside

  Audenshaw high school (GM)

  Trafford

  New Wellington GM CTC high school

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford GM school

  Waltham Forest

  Higham Park school

  Warwickshire

  Queen Elizabeth school

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustine's RC GM school

  Wolverhampton

  Moseley Park GM school

  Rejected

  Birmingham

  Ninestiles GM school

  Cambridgeshire

  The Queen's school

  459

  LEA area

  School name

  Cambridgeshire

  Comberton village college

  Croydon

  Riddlesdown GM high school

  Derbyshire

  Noel Baker community school

  Dorset

  Highcliffe school

  Essex

  The Thorpe Bay high school

  Essex

  The Philip Morant school

  Essex

  The King Edmund school

  Gloucestershire

  Pittville school

  Gloucestershire

  St. Benedict's school

  Hampshire

  Bay House school

  Hampshire

  Testwood school

  Hereford and Worcester

  The Blessed Edward Oldcorne school

  Hertfordshire

  Hockerill school

  Kent

  Aylesford school

  Kent

  Meopham GM school

  Kent

  The Montgomery school

  Kent

  Wrotham school

  Kent

  Senacre technology school

  Kent

  Thamesview school

  Kent

  Oldborough manor school

  Lincolnshire

  Gleed Girls' school

  Lincolnshire

  Castle Hills GM school

  Lincolnshire

  Sir William Robertson GM school

  Lincolnshire

  The Giles school

  Norfolk

  Cromer high school

  Norfolk

  Great Yarmouth GM high school

  Norfolk

  Lynn Grove high school

  Norfolk

  Acle high school

  Norfolk

  Flegg high school

  Rochdale

  Hollingsworth high school

  Shropshire

  Abraham Darby school

  Sandwell

  Heathfield high school

  Surrey

  Winston Churchill school

  Trafford

  The New Wellington school

  Waltham Forest

  Higham Park school

  Proposals to add or extend a nursery Approved

  Berkshire

  Holy Family RC school

  Berkshire

  Castleview combined school

  Bexley

  Barnehurst infant school

  Cambridgeshire

  The Park Lane GM primary

  Cumbria

  Flookburgh CE GM primary

  Cumbria

  Dalton St. Mary's CE school

  Cumbria

  Broughton GM primary school

  Cumbria

  Eaglesfield Paddle CE GM

  Cumbria

  Beaconside infant school

  Cumbria

  Warwick Bridge GM primary

  Dudley

  Alder Coppice GM primary

  Ealing

  Three Bridges school

  Ealing

  Montpelier school

  East Riding

  Wold Newton GM primary

  Essex

  Katherines primary school

  Essex

  Northwick Park infant school

  Essex

  Eastwood infant school

  Essex

  Chase Lane GM primary school

  Essex

  Prince Avenue primary school

  Essex

  Leverton infant school

  Essex

  Milton Hall primary school

  Gloucestershire

  Robinswood primary school

  Hertfordshire

  Cuffley primary school

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Our Lady of Victories school

  Kent

  Holy Trinity CE primary

  Lambeth

  St. Bede's RC infant school

  Lincolnshire

  Old Leake school

  Lincolnshire

  Bourne Abbey (GM) primary

  Norfolk

  Dersingham First school (GM)

  Norfolk

  Loddon First school

  Norfolk

  Gresham village school

  Northants

  Woodnewton Way infant school

  Sutton

  All Saints CE primary school

  460

  LEA area

  School name

  Warwickshire

  Dunchurch First school

  Warwickshire

  Ash Green GM school

  Rejected

  Buckinghamshire

  Brookmead school

  Buckinghamshire

  Overstone GM combined school

  Cambridgeshire

  The Park Lane GM primary

  Cambridgeshire

  Orton Wistow primary school

  Cheshire

  St. Wilfrids RC GM school

  Cheshire

  Mottram St. Andrew's school

  Cumbria

  St. Paul's CE GM school1

  Cumbria

  Bowness on Solway GM primary

  Derbyshire

  Wiliam Gilbert school

  East Riding

  Barmby Moor school

  Lincolnshire

  Washingborough GM school

  Lincolnshire

  St. Andrews CE GM primary

  Northamptonshire

  Millbrook GM infant school

  Surrey

  The Manor First school1

  Surrey

  Hawkedale First school1

  Surrey

  Send CE GM school

  Wiltshire

  Studley Green GM primary

  Proposals for other change of age range Approved

  Berkshire

  Herschel GM grammar school

  Berkshire

  Langley GM grammar school

  Berkshire

  Slough GM grammar school

  Berkshire

  Cippenham middle school

  Berkshire

  The Westgate school

  Ealing

  Wood End middle school

  Ealing

  Wood End first school

  Ealing

  Drayton Manor high school

  Ealing

  Northolt high school

  Ealing

  Greenford high school

  Ealing

  Brentside high school

  Hampshire

  Hardley school (GM)

  Hampshire

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' school

  Hampshire

  Testwood school

  Hampshire

  Front Lawn middle school

  Hampshire

  Purbrook park school

  Hampshire

  Calmore middle school

  Hampshire

  Abbotswood middle school

  Hampshire

  Lyndhurst middle primary school

  Merton

  Ursuline convent school

  Surrey

  Glyn school

  Surrey

  Rosebery secondary school

  Surrey

  The Beacon secondary school

  Surrey

  Send CE first school (GM)

  Surrey

  Collingwood GM school

  Surrey

  Epson and Ewell high school

  Surrey

  Guildford county school

  Surrey

  Park Mead first school (GM)

  Surrey

  Yattendon middle school

  Warwickshire

  Queen Elizabeth GM school

  Warwickshire

  Dunchurch first school

  Warwickshire

  Rugby high school

  Warwickshire

  Hartshill school

  Warwickshire

  Myton school

  Warwickshire

  Ash Green GM school

  Warwickshire

  Middlemarch middle school

  Warwickshire

  Dunchurch first school

  Rejected

  Lincolnshire

  King Edward VI school

  Sheffield

  Clifford first school

  Warwickshire

  Ash Green school

  Proposals to select pupils by aptitude or ability Approved

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth Boys' school

  Barnet

  Mill Hill county high school

  Berkshire

  Reading Girls school

  461

  LEA area

  School name

  Bromley

  Hayes school

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth grammar school1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Oratory School

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar school for girls

  Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar school for boys

  Hertfordshire

  Parmiters school

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth school

  Hertfordshire

  Chancellors school

  Kent

  Chaucer technology school

  Kingston

  Holy Cross school

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenison's GM school

  Lambeth

  St. Martin in the Fields high school

  Lambeth

  Dunraven GM school

  Surrey

  Roseberry GM girls' school

  Wandsworth

  Graveney GM school

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood school

  Rejected

  Hertfordshire

  The Bishop's Stortford high school

  Kent

  The Westlands school

  Kirklees

  Castle Hall GM school1

  Lambeth

  Dunraven GM school

  Surrey

  Glyn ADT GM technology school

  Sutton

  Cheam high school

  1 For these schools there were also simultaneous proposals for other changes of age range.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many job vacancies were advertised in the(a) Kilwinning and (b) Irvine job centres in each of the past six months; and how many people were registered as being unemployed during these periods in the parliamentary constituency of Cunninghame, South. [11334]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of job vacancies advertised in the Kilwinning and Irvine Jobcentres in each of the last six months; and how many people were registered as being unemployed during these periods in the parliamentary constituency of Cunninghame South. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  For ease of reference I have attached, as Annex 1, a breakdown of the number of vacancies advertised in Kilwinning and Irvine Jobcentres over the last six months.
  In answer to the second part of your question I have listed below the total number of unemployed claimants registered in the Cunninghame South constituency over the last six months.

  December 1996: 2,995

  November 1996: 2,926

  October 1996: 3,109

  September 1996: 3,225

  462

  August 1996: 3,585

  July 1996: 3,501

  I hope this is helpful.

  Vacancies notified to Kilwinning Jobcentre

  December 1996: 95

  November 1996: 84

  October 1996: 159

  September 1996: 287

  August 1996: 146

  July 1996: 174

  Vacancies notified to Irvine Jobcentre

  December 1996: 370

  November 1996: 441

  October 1996: 302

  September 1996: 376

  August 1996: 281

  July 1996: 345

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the proportion of school places in each English county which her Department has identified as surplus in each of the last three years in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; [11354]

  (2) if she will list the proportion of surplus places in each county in the last three financial years in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [11355]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information available is given in the following table. The Department's figures on surplus places represent a snapshot of the position each January and were first collected in 1994. Figures for January 1996 are not yet available.

  Percentage of surplus places in the English Counties (excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities) at January 1994 and January 1995

  Percentage

  Primary

  Secondary

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  Isles of Scilly

  27

  30

  65

  63

  Avon

  9

  8

  18

  18

  Bedfordshire

  15

  15

  17

  15

  Berkshire

  9

  8

  14

  11

  Buckinghamshire

  17

  13

  8

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  13

  10

  7

  5

  Cheshire

  15

  15

  12

  12

  Cleveland

  12

  11

  19

  16

  Cornwall

  8

  8

  8

  4

  Cumbria

  14

  12

  17

  13

  Derbyshire

  13

  12

  16

  14

  Devon

  10

  10

  7

  6

  Dorset

  7

  8

  9

  8

  Durham

  14

  14

  18

  15

  East Sussex

  12

  10

  10

  8

  Essex

  12

  9

  16

  15

  Gloucestershire

  13

  12

  10

  8

  Hampshire

  13

  13

  12

  7

  Hereford and Worcester

  11

  11

  15

  12

  Hertfordshire

  16

  13

  17

  16

  Humberside

  13

  12

  16

  15

  Isle of Wight

  5

  6

  10

  10

  Kent

  11

  9

  15

  13

  Lancashire

  9

  9

  13

  11

  463

  Percentage of surplus places in the English Counties (excluding GM schools in stage 1 authorities) at January 1994 and January 1995

  Percentage

  Primary

  Secondary

  1994

  1995

  1994

  1995

  Leicestershire

  10

  9

  15

  14

  Lincolnshire

  13

  13

  12

  11

  Norfolk

  11

  10

  9

  8

  North Yorkshire

  14

  13

  13

  10

  Northamptonshire

  9

  8

  11

  11

  Northumberland

  21

  21

  11

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  11

  25

  22

  Oxfordshire

  17

  12

  16

  15

  Shropshire

  12

  11

  17

  8

  Somerset

  7

  6

  11

  10

  Staffordshire

  20

  14

  7

  6

  Suffolk

  10

  9

  11

  10

  Surrey

  11

  10

  11

  6

  Warwickshire

  15

  14

  21

  18

  West Sussex

  12

  9

  13

  13

  Wiltshire

  14

  14

  14

  12

  Shire Counties

  13

  11

  14

  12

  All England

  12

  11

  14

  12

  Education Spending
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the education component of standard spending assessment and actual

  New entrant to initial teacher training by phase and gender 1992 to 1996

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97 England only1

  England and Wales

  England only1

  Primary

  18,364

  17,980

  15,090

  14,930

  12,467

  Secondary

  13,616

  15,240

  16,410

  16,090

  15,979

  Total

  31,980

  33,220

  31,500

  31,020

  28,446

  Percentage female

  72

  70

  69

  Notes:

  From 1993–94 figures include School Centred ITT (SCITT) and Open University.

  Source:

  England: DFE Annual Recruitment Survey 1992–93 and 1993–94; Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 1994–95; TTA Survey of ITT Providers 1995–96, 1996–97.

  Wales: Welsh Office 1992–93 to 1994–95; Higher Education Students Early Statistics Survey 1995–96.

  Gender: DfEE Further and Higher Education Statistical Records 1992–93, 1993–94; Higher Education Statistics Agency's Student Record 1994–95.

  1 Provisional.

  Teacher Statistics
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the(a) gender profile, (b) average length of service and (c) average age of the teaching profession. [11341]

  Mr. Forth
  In March 1995, 34 per cent. of full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools were men, and the average age for all teachers was 41. Information on average length of service is not available, since records are not available prior to 1962.

  Hyperactivity
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will require the assessment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder of children suspended from school more than three times; and if she will make a statement. [11509]
  464
  spending per pupil, and pupil numbers (a) between five and 10 years and (b) between 11 and 15 years, expressed in cash and constant prices, in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 in each local education authority and on average. [11433]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The data are contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The tables set out the level of primary and secondary education standard spending assessment per pupil between 1995–96 to 1997–98 in cash terms and in 1997–98 prices and the underlying pupil numbers. The figures and pupil numbers for 1997–98 are provisional. Outturn spending per pupil for the years in question is not yet available.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people entered courses of initial teacher education, broken down by gender, for primary and secondary schools in each year since 1992. [11339]

  Mr. Forth
  The following table shows new entrants to teacher training for primary and secondary from 1992 to 1996. An overall gender split is given for 1992 to 1994: the split is not available for primary and secondary separately. Data on gender for 1995 will be published in "Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1996" which will be available on 31 January.

  Mrs. Gillan
  No; decisions about whether to undertake a statutory assessment of special educational needs are for the local education authority following referral by a child's school, another agency or a request from a parent. The assessment is to determine a child's educational needs rather than to make a clinical diagnosis, although the authority will take advice from others, including the medical and educational psychology services. Throughout the process, the local education authority must have regard to the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.

  Non-teaching Staff
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many non-teaching staff were employed by local education authorities throughout the United Kingdom for each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [11481]
  465
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time equivalent of non-teaching staff1 employed by local authorities in England—June 1990 to June 1996

  Years as at June

  FTE of Non-teaching staff3

  1990

  362,400

  1991

  364,200

  1992

  360,300

  1993

  318,200

  1994

  320,300

  1995 (revised basis)2

  269,300

  1996 (provisional)

  266,000

  Source:

  The main source of information about local authority employment is a survey carried out by the Local Government Management Board on behalf of the joint staffing watch group, on which both local and central government are represented.

  Notes:

  1 The table includes all manual and non-manual staff whether employed in schools or centrally based. Staff employed by grant-maintained schools are excluded throughout. The figures for 1993 to 1996 exclude staff in colleges that transferred to the new FE sector in April 1993.

  2 The figures for 1994 and 1995 were not calculated on a comparable basis because of changes to the survey. Previously FTEs were estimated using national statistics of average hours worked. Since 1995 more reliable FTEs are calculated by local authorities at employee level. Also, staff doing two or more jobs in an authority are now recorded for each job separately. It is estimated that, using the 1995 basis of calculation, there was a growth of about 2,000 FTE non-teaching staff between 1994 and 1995.

  3 Non-teaching staff include educational support, clerical, school meals and premises related staff employed in schools and colleges, together with central services and administration within the education service.

  Local Authority Education Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the capital expenditure on education by each local authority in England in each year since 1989–90. [11432]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following tables gives capital expenditure by each local education authority in England in each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95. Information on 1989–90 and 1995–96 is not available.

  Capital expenditure on education by local authorities: 1990–91 to 1994–95 (cash terms)

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  City of London

  18,181

  0

  25

  2

  2,779

  Camden

  1,256

  2,819

  1,542

  409

  1,353

  Greenwich

  1—

  1,501

  1,122

  402

  2,182

  Hackney

  1,492

  1,203

  1,212

  1,535

  2,585

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,169

  2,071

  4,738

  3,398

  2,304

  Islington

  3,872

  1,947

  598

  851

  1,283

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,046

  2,798

  2,023

  2,412

  2,339

  Lambeth

  894

  1,587

  2,144

  1,789

  2,071

  Lewisham

  1,522

  1,534

  757

  1,967

  4,795

  Southwark

  1—

  2,159

  3,148

  3,906

  4,407

  Tower Hamlets

  19,602

  17,103

  12,918

  12,068

  11,718

  Wandsworth

  3,818

  4,306

  5,835

  6,114

  7,694

  City of Westminster

  1,301

  1,848

  1,298

  1,025

  3,016

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,073

  7,249

  6,604

  3,013

  5,561

  Barnet

  5,255

  2,300

  2,734

  5,278

  5,572

  466

  Capital expenditure on education by local authorities: 1990–91 to 1994–95 (cash terms)

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Bexley

  2,666

  2,365

  3,206

  5,606

  5,411

  Brent

  6,447

  3,727

  2,496

  1,639

  1,321

  Bromley

  5,527

  7,215

  6,189

  6,311

  13,453

  Croydon

  15,764

  8,439

  4,532

  3,772

  7,045

  Ealing

  2,816

  1,926

  3,524

  4,561

  5,054

  Enfield

  20,457

  16,146

  2,990

  2,356

  2,131

  Haringey

  1,339

  2,047

  693

  2,801

  2,615

  Harrow

  3,057

  3,538

  5,442

  5,099

  5,741

  Havering

  7,618

  4,848

  2,739

  1,024

  1,631

  Hillingdon

  4,958

  1,717

  5,513

  9,195

  4,842

  Hounslow

  5,300

  5,304

  7,311

  5,877

  3,528

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,144

  4,213

  1,257

  1,406

  3,117

  Merton

  10,861

  3,955

  3,468

  3,538

  4,791

  Newham

  7,128

  10,662

  6,751

  1,818

  3,087

  Redbridge

  5,842

  3,264

  5,370

  3,413

  5,337

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,010

  2,946

  2,713

  2,554

  2,898

  Sutton

  7,536

  7,292

  3,907

  3,426

  4,353

  Waltham Forest

  6,973

  3,441

  5,869

  7,264

  3,996

  Birmingham

  14,121

  14,507

  12,690

  12,853

  16,647

  Coventry

  11,415

  6,877

  5,388

  3,042

  3,052

  Dudley

  4,640

  6,667

  10,935

  4,047

  4,746

  Sandwell

  4,352

  2,740

  2,190

  5,581

  5,625

  Solihull

  3,275

  3,389

  2,644

  3,481

  3,497

  Walsall

  2,957

  2,447

  2,508

  1,528

  1,791

  Wolverhampton

  2,189

  2,631

  3,224

  3,304

  2,298

  Knowsley

  2,885

  1,297

  2,548

  2,496

  2,069

  Liverpool

  3,371

  2,477

  2,367

  3,457

  7,193

  St. Helens

  4,530

  7,084

  2,168

  1,698

  1,708

  Sefton

  4,854

  3,636

  2,294

  2,996

  1,199

  Wirral

  4,135

  4,630

  2,718

  1,294

  1,165

  Bolton

  3,683

  1,530

  2,037

  1,642

  1,777

  Bury

  1,324

  1,085

  1,047

  618

  1,491

  Manchester

  1—

  6,907

  9,807

  9,171

  12,593

  Oldham

  4,701

  10,989

  8,573

  4,278

  6,148

  Rochdale

  4,640

  7,362

  9,114

  2,068

  3,129

  Salford

  4,868

  3,651

  2,096

  3,365

  3,726

  Stockport

  3,123

  2,552

  2,033

  1,933

  1,694

  Tameside

  2,250

  1,949

  1,910

  1,231

  2,549

  Trafford

  11,207

  5,333

  5,572

  5,515

  4,008

  Wigan

  3,980

  5,322

  3,813

  1,323

  1,044

  Barnsley

  2,011

  1,910

  4,133

  2,704

  1,662

  Doncaster

  478

  410

  794

  1,580

  5,800

  Rotherham

  1,976

  1,331

  2,401

  1,855

  486

  Sheffield

  1—

  6,302

  7,022

  8,188

  8,181

  Bradford

  10,019

  12,505

  12,102

  9,380

  10,612

  Calderdale

  2,149

  2,153

  2,227

  1,856

  1,999

  Kirklees

  4,779

  4,463

  7,514

  9,087

  6,683

  Leeds

  10,903

  20,429

  25,556

  21,537

  9,799

  Wakefield

  1—

  3,299

  5,609

  11,768

  11,471

  Gateshead

  4,384

  5,078

  3,992

  1,837

  1,577

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,520

  3,387

  2,490

  3,280

  6,037

  North Tyneside

  2,122

  1,963

  2,331

  3,603

  4,854

  South Tyneside

  4,650

  4,584

  1,911

  1,849

  1,014

  Sunderland

  4,229

  4,223

  5,855

  5,553

  2,002

  Isles of Scilly

  212

  50

  117

  35

  22

  Avon

  10,539

  15,323

  14,077

  8,979

  8,069

  Bedfordshire

  3,219

  1,872

  5,880

  5,531

  5,207

  Berkshire

  10,662

  7,357

  16,234

  17,656

  17,079

  Buckinghamshire

  13,941

  13,312

  11,931

  9,766

  12,078

  Cambridgeshire

  16,232

  22,713

  23,230

  8,596

  10,921

  Cheshire

  10,778

  16,465

  21,908

  19,022

  21,310

  Cleveland

  6,643

  4,954

  4,786

  4,103

  5,715

  Cornwall

  12,333

  11,435

  14,611

  10,787

  7,989

  Cumbria

  8,306

  10,100

  12,325

  12,859

  10,016

  Derbyshire

  16,357

  14,459

  15,921

  10,512

  11,057

  467

  Capital expenditure on education by local authorities: 1990–91 to 1994–95 (cash terms)

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Devon

  26,053

  32,599

  26,643

  25,308

  23,282

  Dorset

  8,900

  13,195

  14,622

  11,837

  20,180

  Durham

  5,822

  7,159

  8,218

  6,863

  6,684

  East Sussex

  13,937

  17,275

  18,156

  16,494

  17,832

  Essex

  19,713

  23,992

  19,844

  17,971

  23,824

  Gloucestershire

  11,956

  10,569

  7,331

  9,338

  10,775

  Hampshire

  33,101

  25,013

  23,715

  24,508

  34,322

  Hereford and Worcester

  11,919

  10,656

  5,493

  7,807

  8,427

  Hertfordshire

  14,040

  14,091

  13,432

  11,702

  16,845

  Humberside

  10,291

  8,578

  9,379

  7,123

  5,307

  Isle of Wight

  2,712

  3,299

  2,184

  2,597

  4,044

  Kent

  18,956

  24,964

  25,898

  23,190

  28,825

  Lancashire

  20,675

  20,255

  24,096

  25,019

  27,548

  Leicestershire

  13,282

  12,543

  12,373

  10,344

  10,374

  Lincolnshire

  11,667

  18,463

  19,485

  15,641

  16,346

  Norfolk

  6,936

  6,152

  5,707

  7,490

  6,724

  North Yorkshire

  5,586

  10,844

  8,170

  7,070

  4,715

  Northamptonshire

  4,956

  3,966

  3,250

  8,438

  5,701

  Northumberland

  2,969

  5,460

  5,338

  2,968

  2,503

  Nottinghamshire

  6,294

  6,318

  7,772

  5,767

  5,966

  Oxfordshire

  11,583

  3,524

  10,784

  11,824

  18,543

  Shropshire

  6,561

  7,384

  4,256

  4,856

  7,623

  Somerset

  7,777

  5,770

  11,132

  10,412

  8,466

  Average size of single teacher classes and pupils on register in maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994–1996

  Position in January each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Total pupils on register

  Average class size

  Total pupils on register

  Average class size

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Corporation of London

  214

  219

  214

  27.0

  26.8

  26.8

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  10,928

  11,083

  11,153

  27.1

  27.3

  27.3

  10,657

  10,768

  10,861

  20.4

  19.8

  20.5

  Greenwich

  21,080

  21,234

  21,535

  26.1

  26.4

  25.5

  13,980

  13,994

  13,653

  21.9

  21.7

  21.6

  Hackney

  16,883

  17,936

  18,077

  25.7

  26.1

  26.1

  7,445

  7,453

  7,366

  21.9

  21.5

  23.0

  Hammersmith

  9,191

  9,430

  9,502

  25.2

  25.6

  26.1

  5,885

  5,971

  5,953

  21.0

  22.8

  22.6

  Islington

  15,657

  15,998

  16,255

  25.9

  26.6

  26.2

  7,215

  7,450

  7,537

  23.1

  23.2

  22.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,441

  6,418

  6,512

  24.9

  25.1

  24.4

  3,162

  3,177

  3,202

  19.1

  18.5

  20.4

  Lambeth

  18,932

  19,034

  19,123

  24.2

  24.6

  24.6

  6,306

  6,677

  6,601

  21.6

  21.5

  22.1

  Lewisham

  20,814

  21,061

  21,602

  26.0

  25.4

  25.7

  10,888

  10,951

  10,879

  22.6

  21.6

  21.2

  Southwark

  22,520

  22,768

  22,883

  26.9

  26.9

  26.1

  9,384

  9,172

  9,160

  24.3

  24.7

  24.4

  Tower Hamlets

  21,732

  22,051

  22,416

  26.4

  26.7

  25.8

  11,888

  12,293

  12,707

  22.4

  23.1

  23.1

  Wandsworth

  17,437

  17,567

  17,915

  25.0

  25.2

  25.4

  8,941

  9,181

  9,183

  21.2

  21.7

  21.7

  Westminster

  9,226

  9,479

  9,582

  24.0

  25.3

  24.9

  7,464

  7,551

  7,627

  20.8

  21.1

  21.9

  Barking

  16,102

  17,250

  17,601

  26.1

  26.7

  26.7

  9,756

  9,953

  10,054

  21.8

  21.2

  21.1

  Barnet

  24,002

  24,443

  24,809

  26.4

  26.5

  26.3

  18,790

  19,158

  19,437

  19.8

  19.4

  19.1

  Bexley

  19,508

  21,062

  21,856

  27.5

  28.6

  28.6

  14,525

  14,549

  14,748

  22.0

  21.4

  21.6

  Brent

  22,404

  22,478

  22,665

  27.0

  26.9

  26.7

  12,688

  13,233

  13,432

  20.9

  21.0

  20.9

  Bromley

  22,430

  23,055

  23,832

  28.1

  28.4

  28.7

  17,150

  17,801

  18,069

  21.1

  20.2

  20.4

  Croydon

  27,016

  28,414

  29,568

  27.6

  28.1

  28.3

  14,909

  15,238

  15,306

  21.9

  22.2

  22.0

  Ealing

  25,595

  26,257

  26,921

  26.6

  26.6

  27.2

  13,480

  13,872

  14,185

  22.2

  22.1

  22.3

  Enfield

  23,823

  24,500

  25,309

  27.8

  28.4

  28.5

  17,848

  18,218

  18,637

  21.2

  21.0

  21.5

  Haringey

  19,777

  20,538

  21,251

  26.7

  27.2

  27.0

  9,222

  9,673

  10,056

  21.2

  21.5

  21.7

  Harrow

  19,348

  19,579

  19,918

  26.8

  27.1

  27.8

  8,320

  8,453

  8,409

  23.4

  22.9

  22.7

  Havering

  20,108

  20,396

  20,710

  27.5

  27.4

  27.9

  14,892

  14,908

  14,667

  22.2

  22.0

  22.1

  Hillingdon

  20,543

  21,188

  21,949

  27.1

  26.8

  26.6

  14,115

  14,326

  14,644

  21.0

  20.7

  20.9

  Hounslow

  19,595

  19,751

  19,914

  26.2

  27.4

  27.3

  14,526

  14,879

  15,110

  21.3

  21.5

  20.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  10,771

  11,033

  11,420

  28.9

  29.5

  30.0

  7,787

  7,959

  8,034

  20.5

  20.0

  20.2

  Merton

  15,654

  15,868

  16,119

  27.2

  27.0

  28.1

  7,313

  7,495

  7,595

  22.0

  22.0

  23.3

  Newham

  25,586

  27,432

  28,114

  27.5

  27.5

  27.9

  14,067

  14,775

  15,261

  24.5

  24.2

  24.8

  Redbridge

  19,707

  19,814

  20,585

  29.3

  29.2

  29.0

  15,362

  15,703

  16,336

  20.9

  20.6

  21.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  11,195

  11,444

  11,918

  25.7

  26.1

  26.7

  7,622

  7,650

  7,700

  23.3

  23.5

  22.9

  Sutton

  13,470

  13,883

  14,272

  28.3

  28.0

  27.3

  11,359

  11,753

  12.001

  21.4

  21.5

  20.7

  Waltham Forest

  20,164

  20,690

  21,158

  26.8

  26.5

  26.4

  11,506

  12,082

  12,101

  22.5

  23.0

  23.5

  Birmingham

  107,700

  108,635

  110,045

  28.2

  28.2

  27.8

  64,728

  65,504

  66,095

  22.1

  21.7

  21.6

  Coventry

  29,825

  30,113

  30,314

  27.1

  27.8

  27.2

  19,013

  19,274

  19,343

  22.9

  22.9

  22.4

  Dudley

  29,582

  30,010

  30,623

  27.0

  27.3

  26.9

  18,124

  18,448

  18,628

  22.7

  229

  23.0

  Sandwell

  32,291

  32,723

  33,061

  27.9

  28.2

  28.6

  18,418

  18,993

  19,023

  21.2

  21.9

  22.1

  Solihull

  20,120

  20,747

  21,395

  27.3

  27.6

  28.2

  13,505

  13,929

  14,160

  21.8

  21.6

  21.6

  Walsall

  28,526

  28,554

  28,864

  25.7

  26.0

  26.0

  19,506

  19,803

  19,755

  20.6

  20.4

  20.8

  468

  Capital expenditure on education by local authorities: 1990–91 to 1994–95 (cash terms)

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Staffordshire

  8,949

  10,160

  10,792

  6,917

  9,536

  Suffolk

  12,377

  11,109

  12,328

  11,256

  10,900

  Surrey

  17,896

  17,366

  15,917

  22,179

  22,566

  Warwickshire

  5,618

  3,602

  4,200

  4,726

  6,485

  West Sussex

  17,028

  14,753

  13,845

  21,437

  21,431

  Wiltshire

  9,483

  10,009

  9,949

  6,403

  5,626

  England

  2812,749

  797,677

  797,610

  732,158

  802,199

  1 LEA did not submit information.

  2 Totals have been grossed to compensate for non returns.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list average class sizes in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools and total primary pupil numbers and total secondary pupil numbers in each of the past three years in each local education authority. [11426]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  469 470

  Average size of single teacher classes and pupils on register in maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England 1994–1996

  Position in January each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Total pupils on register

  Average class size

  Total pupils on register

  Average class size

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Wolverhampton

  25,608

  25,867

  26,283

  25.9

  26.2

  26.5

  16,001

  16,093

  15,930

  20.5

  21.6

  21.2

  Knowsley

  19,000

  20,122

  20,117

  27.7

  28.0

  27.6

  9,096

  9,449

  9,494

  22.1

  22.4

  21.6

  Liverpool

  51,616

  50,364

  50,374

  26.9

  27.1

  26.8

  30,556

  31,138

  31,510

  20.4

  20.7

  20.8

  St. Helens

  17,635

  17,698

  17,829

  26.8

  27.0

  27.5

  11,759

  11,873

  11,789

  19.7

  20.3

  20.0

  Sefton

  27,399

  27,867

  28,198

  27.2

  27.6

  27.5

  19,030

  19,453

  19,497

  20.9

  21.9

  21.3

  Wirral

  31,632

  31,741

  32,126

  25.9

  26.1

  26.4

  21,159

  21.424

  22,753

  20.9

  20.5

  20.9

  Bolton

  27,638

  28,085

  28,435

  28.1

  28.7

  28.5

  17,031

  17,324

  17,491

  21.1

  21.3

  21.8

  Bury

  176,248

  17,542

  17,952

  27.5

  27.8

  28.3

  10,332

  10,689

  10.853

  22.7

  23.0

  23.6

  Manchester

  46,923

  47,056

  46,856

  26.5

  26.9

  27.0

  21,693

  22,126

  22,019

  22.4

  22.3

  22.3

  Oldham

  24,774

  24,961

  25,114

  28.6

  28.5

  28.6

  16,331

  16,607

  16,693

  22.5

  22.8

  21.8

  Rochdale

  21,658

  21,830

  22,287

  29.5

  29.2

  29.2

  12,942

  13,204

  13,177

  22.8

  23.3

  23.0

  Salford

  23,265

  23,734

  23,919

  27.1

  27.3

  27.4

  11,639

  11,949

  11,977

  22.3

  21.9

  22.4

  Stockport

  25,595

  25,925

  26,449

  27.7

  27.5

  27.7

  16,019

  16,273

  15,655

  21.6

  21.9

  22.5

  Thameside

  23,296

  23,678

  23,907

  29.6

  29.5

  29.3

  13,372

  13,781

  14,058

  23.7

  23.8

  23.5

  Trafford

  20,565

  21,134

  21,502

  29.0

  29.0

  28.7

  11,947

  12,461

  12,882

  21.6

  21.8

  22.0

  Wigan

  29,963

  29,932

  30,272

  27.9

  28.0

  28.2

  19,523

  19,923

  19,898

  21.4

  21.6

  21.6

  Barnsley

  21,502

  21.703

  21,910

  27.4

  27.5

  28.2

  12,730

  12,976

  12,988

  22.9

  22.8

  23.2

  Doncaster

  29,459

  28,916

  30,614

  27.5

  28.1

  28.2

  21,868

  22,978

  21,515

  21.1

  21.4

  21.7

  Rotherham

  24,954

  25,215

  25,645

  25.1

  25.8

  26.9

  18,187

  18,771

  18,953

  20.5

  21.4

  21.7

  Sheffield

  44,563

  45,225

  45,850

  26.3

  26.8

  26.8

  26,981

  27,359

  27,503

  22.4

  22.6

  23.1

  Bradford

  41,229

  41,547

  42,190

  27.3

  27.8

  27.9

  4.6,297

  46,584

  46,072

  22.5

  22.8

  22.7

  Calderdale

  19,881

  20,316

  20,487

  27.9

  27.5

  27.7

  13,390

  13,657

  13,810

  20.2

  21.0

  20.9

  Kirklees

  37,719

  38,189

  38,501

  27.2

  28.2

  28.7

  24,875

  25,225

  25,363

  21.4

  20.9

  21.7

  Leeds

  69,428

  70,583

  71,135

  27.9

  28.2

  28.1

  43,627

  44,282

  44,274

  20.5

  20.5

  21.1

  Wakefield

  30,708

  31,180

  31,840

  27.5

  27.9

  28.0

  20,084

  20,708

  20,428

  21.8

  21.7

  21.8

  Gateshead

  18,366

  18,564

  18,684

  25.8

  26.0

  25.9

  11,751

  11,780

  11,853

  20.7

  20.4

  20.6

  Newcastle upon

  Tyne

  22,441

  22,460

  22,389

  27.3

  27.6

  27.7

  16,902

  17,285

  17,288

  21.5

  21.3

  21.6

  North Tyneside

  16,615

  16,952

  17,015

  26.5

  26.9

  27.0

  14,342

  14,440

  14,316

  21.9

  22.1

  21.9

  South Tyneside

  16,023

  16,233

  16,398

  26.3

  26.3

  26.8

  9,570

  9,755

  9,650

  22.5

  22.6

  22.4

  Sunderland

  30,057

  29,942

  30,324

  25.6

  25.4

  25.6

  19,436

  19,586

  19,311

  20.9

  21.0

  21.2

  Isles of Scilly

  169

  157

  152

  18.7

  17.3

  13.7

  122

  126

  113

  24.0

  26.0

  15.0

  Avon

  80,700

  82,079

  83,196

  27.7

  27.8

  27.7

  54,418

  54,667

  54,720

  21.2

  21.1

  21.4

  Bedfordshire

  43,511

  44,045

  44,604

  26.3

  26.8

  27.1

  44,711

  45,476

  45,966

  22.0

  21.9

  22.5

  Berkshire

  62,455

  63,732

  65,313

  27.1

  27.0

  27.3

  47,005

  47,620

  47,834

  20.1

  20.3

  20.4

  Buckinghamshire

  62,365

  63,960

  65,156

  27.2

  27.3

  27.8

  37,166

  37,739

  37,999

  21.1

  20.6

  21.4

  Cambridgeshire

  59,127

  59,686

  60,492

  27.4

  27.3

  27.8

  40,904

  41,702

  41,762

  22.3

  21.8

  22.3

  Cheshire

  89,944

  90,598

  92,088

  27.4

  27.3

  27.4

  63,583

  64,707

  64,942

  21.1

  21.3

  21.3

  Cleveland

  65,102

  65,169

  65,607

  26.8

  26.9

  26.9

  36,437

  37,128

  37,240

  22.1

  22.1

  22.1

  Cornwall

  40,531

  41,055

  41.667

  26.8

  27.0

  27.3

  28,977

  29,387

  29,515

  22.2

  22.2

  22.4

  Cumbria

  42,840

  43,140

  43,969

  25.7

  26.2

  26.0

  31,215

  31,711

  32,076

  20.6

  21.0

  21.0

  Derbyshire

  85,418

  86,478

  88,613

  27.3

  27.9

  28.9

  57,548

  58,397

  58,514

  21.4

  21.7

  22.3

  Devon

  80,633

  82,430

  83,698

  26.4

  26.7

  27.2

  58,826

  60,429

  61,351

  21.1

  21.3

  21.3

  Dorset

  45,803

  47,042

  48,075

  27.5

  27.6

  27.7

  41,286

  42,201

  42,828

  21.9

  21.8

  22.0

  Durham

  56,334

  56,549

  57,246

  27.5

  27.7

  28.4

  37,708

  38,265

  37,976

  21.6

  21.9

  22.5

  East Sussex

  51,981

  53,190

  54,875

  27.4

  27.5

  27.7

  34,349

  35,407

  35,690

  21.0

  21.3

  21.1

  Essex

  123,997

  128,567

  132,554

  26.9

  26.9

  26.9

  95,893

  96,325

  96,681

  21.9

  21.9

  21.8

  Gloucestershire

  43,597

  44,764

  45,679

  26.4

  26.7

  27.2

  33,389

  34,001

  34,394

  21.5

  21.6

  22.1

  Hampshire

  137,313

  135,389

  137,986

  27.4

  27.7

  27.8

  79,199

  84,415

  85,427

  22.2

  22.3

  22.4

  Hereford and

  Worcester

  49,251

  50,662

  51,430

  25.1

  25.5

  25.9

  47,472

  48,173

  47,796

  21.7

  21.9

  21.8

  Hertfordshire

  84,825

  87,464

  89,738

  26.4

  26.5

  26.7

  68,347

  69,532

  70,371

  20.1

  20.0

  20.2

  Humberside

  85,409

  86,432

  87,757

  27.5

  27.7

  27.9

  56,111

  56,877

  57,075

  22.6

  22.8

  22.3

  Isle of Wight

  7,214

  7,279

  7,435

  26.0

  26.3

  26.9

  10,498

  10,648

  10,805

  22.2

  22.1

  22.4

  Kent

  129,234

  133,025

  135,598

  27.6

  27.7

  27.7

  102,229

  102,764

  103,769

  20.9

  20.7

  20.6

  Lancashire

  130,576

  132,402

  133,891

  27.7

  27.9

  28.4

  84,257

  86,116

  86,918

  21.4

  21.6

  22.4

  Leicestershire

  80,448

  81,429

  82,493

  25.8

  26.5

  26.7

  59,963

  60,973

  61,552

  21.5

  22.2

  22.2

  Lincolnshire

  49,844

  51,488

  52,763

  26.5

  26.8

  26.7

  37,841

  38,605

  39,221

  19.9

  20.0

  20.2

  Norfolk

  62,631

  63,972

  64,844

  25.1

  25.4

  26.0

  41,078

  41,410

  41,441

  20.2

  20.0

  20.1

  North Yorkshire

  59,240

  60,605

  61,850

  25.7

  26.2

  26.3

  44.013

  45,065

  45,638

  20.8

  20.7

  20.8

  Northamptonshire

  51,265

  52,446

  53,649

  26.4

  26.7

  26.5

  44,910

  45,270

  45,659

  20.6

  20.8

  21.3

  Northumberland

  21,692

  21,621

  21,737

  27.0

  27.2

  27.1

  29,329

  29,758

  29,804

  22.0

  22.7

  22.6

  Nottinghamshire

  92,884

  94,094

  95,703

  27.0

  27.4

  28.3

  63,768

  64,998

  65,414

  20.5

  20.6

  21.2

  Oxfordshire

  41,313

  42,765

  43,912

  25.6

  25.9

  26.8

  35,127

  35,888

  36,281

  21.0

  21.1

  21.9

  Shropshire

  35,991

  36,764

  37,664

  26.4

  26.6

  27.3

  25,223

  25,820

  25,780

  21.1

  21.5

  21.6

  Somerset

  36,453

  37,237

  37,849

  26.9

  27.0

  27.3

  28,038

  28,545

  28,845

  22.1

  22.5

  23.2

  Staffordshire

  93,514

  94,651

  96,188

  27.7

  27.6

  27.7

  69,487

  70,645

  71,093

  22.1

  22.0

  22.3

  Suffolk

  44,355

  45,582

  46,696

  24.8

  24.9

  25.1

  48,024

  48,798

  49,040

  20.7

  20.9

  21.0

  Surrey

  73,325

  74,600

  77,049

  25.5

  25.6

  25.8

  45,405

  50,534

  50,777

  21.6

  21.6

  21.6

  Warwickshire

  46,446

  46,650

  47,209

  26.5

  26.9

  27.9

  25,087

  26,005

  26,260

  20.3

  20.6

  21.3

  West Sussex

  53,158

  54,995

  56,516

  26.2

  26.5

  26.8

  39,952

  40,415

  40,426

  21.6

  21.9

  21.7

  Wiltshire

  48,205

  49,351

  50,861

  26.6

  26.9

  27.1

  34,487

  35,294

  35,776

  21.3

  21.4

  21.3

  England

  4.241,750

  4,312,200

  4,389,364

  26.9

  27.1

  27.3

  2,933,598

  2,993,256

  3,011,284

  21.4

  21.5

  21.6

  1 Not applicable.

  471
  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects the form 7 figures to have been processed in order to provide class size information as at January 1997; and if she will make a statement. [11360]

  Mr. Squire
  [holding reply 17 January 1996]: Provisional figures on class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools as at January 1997 are expected to be published in a statistical press notice at the end of June.

  Westwood St. Thomas School
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will announce her decision on the application of Westwood St. Thomas school, Salisbury, for grant-maintained status. [11007]

  Mr. Forth
  The application is under consideration. A decision will be made as soon as possible, consistent with full consideration of the proposals.

  Public Examination Boards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to reduce the number of public examination boards; and if she will make a statement. [11186]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend made it clear in response to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority—Office for Standards in Education report on "Standards in Public Examinations 1975 to 1995", published on 5 December, that she believed that it was now right to consult on moves to reduce and rationalise the number of examining and awarding bodies. She will be publishing a consultation paper on possible options early next month.

  Small Firms Training Loan Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans to re-launch the small firms training loan scheme; and with what changes. [11230]

  Mr. Paice
  The small firms training loans scheme was re-launched in September 1996. The following changes in rules and procedures were introduced at that time:the capital and interest repayment holiday offered to SFTL borrowers is now based on the amount of the loan. Loans up to £700 receive a six-month holiday, loans between £701 and £15,000 receive nine months and those over £15,000 receive 12 months;
  endorsement of applications by a training and enterprise council or local enterprise company is now mandatory only for loan applications for amounts over £15,000 submitted to a bank other than the bank holding the applicant's main business accounts;
  eligibility for SFTL support has been extended to cover the costs of an employee acting as in-house trainer, providing that the named trainer is relieved of normal operational duties while training others;
  the application form has been simplified.

  School Day
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans she has to change the current regulations on the length of the school day; [12075]
  472
  (2) what estimate she has made of the additional cost of increasing the length of the school day to an average of eight hours; and if she will make a statement. [12076]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for governing bodies to determine the length of the school day and we have no plans to change this. The Department has carried out no studies of the cost of extending the school day, although it is known that some schools have a significantly longer compulsory day than others.

SCOTLAND

  Arrestments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) bank arrestments and (b) earnings arrestments there were in each year since 1993; and what statistics his Department (i) collects and (ii) publishes on this subject. [10946]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the numbers of arrestments of moveable property in the hands of third parties have been collected centrally only since 1 January 1996. These figures do not distinguish between arrestment of bank accounts and arrestment of other property. The total to 30 September 1996, the latest date for which figures are currently available, is 65,570. The statistics which are collected on arrestments are published in the annual "Civil Judicial Statistics, Scotland".

  The information requested in relation to earnings arrestments is given in the table.

  1993: 69,195

  1994: 90,350

  1995: 82,677

  1996 (to 30 September): 84,485

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has conducted on the trends and impact of bank arrestments arising from civil court judgments. [10947]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  NHS Property Sales
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 338, if he will list for each health board and NHS trust in Scotland for the (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 financial years and in total for each of these periods (i) how much has been raised from the sale of surplus property and (ii) how much of this has been reallocated to the health board or NHS trust which disposed of the surplus property. [10965]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the tables.

  With regard to NHS trusts, all receipts are retained by the trust responsible for the sale. The expenditure of these receipts is controlled by the external financing limit.

  As for health boards, for 1993–94 and 1994–95 all receipts were retained by the board responsible for the sale. Since 1995–96, receipts from the sale of surplus land and buildings by health boards are normally remitted to the management executive and are used to offset the

  473
  capital programme for the whole of the NHS in Scotland. A case can be submitted by health boards to retain capital receipts. In 1995–96 Dumfries and Galloway health board and Tayside health board retained £3.285 million and £0.15 million, respectively.

  Receipts from disposal of assets

  £000

  Trust

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  NHS Trust

  —

  —

  126

  Angus NHS Trust

  —

  48

  185

  Argyll and Bute NHS

  Trust

  —

  —

  157

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Community Healthcare

  NHS Trust

  864

  229

  126

  Borders Community Health

  Services NHS Trust

  —

  —

  8

  Borders General Hospital

  NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1

  Caithness and Sutherland

  NHS Trust

  67

  1

  92

  Central Scotland

  Healthcare NHS Trust

  121

  —

  80

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Acute and Maternity

  Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  4

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Community Health NHS

  Trust

  —

  —

  45

  Dundee Healthcare NHS

  Trust

  —

  43

  32

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  NHS Trust

  4

  —

  51

  East and Midlothian NHS

  Trust

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS

  Trust

  —

  6

  22

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  NHS Trust

  —

  541

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal

  Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  —

  280

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  31

  243

  Glasgow Dental Hospital

  and School NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  University NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian Healthcare NHS

  Trust

  2,427

  1,170

  1,626

  Greater Glasgow

  Community and Mental

  Health Services NHS trust

  —

  —

  98

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse

  Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  8

  Highland Communities

  NHS Trust

  —

  27

  362

  Inverclyde Royal Infirmary

  NHS Trust

  —

  87

  —

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  NHS Trust

  —

  —

  2

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  NHS Trust

  —

  —

  24

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  Lomond Healthcare NHS

  Trust

  —

  —

  72

  Monkslands and Bellshill

  Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  —

  —

  Moray Health Services

  NHS Trust

  37

  —

  42

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  NHS Trust

  —

  —

  333

  Perth and Kinross

  Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  219

  261

  474

  Receipts from disposal of assets

  £000

  Trust

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  119

  16

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  6

  24

  13

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  27

  12

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  114

  13

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  —

  30

  16

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  —

  —

  302

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  299

  99

  7

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  4

  12

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  11

  —

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  —

  —

  2

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  —

  751

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  40

  18

  34

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  106

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  —

  —

  20

  Total

  3,770

  2,880

  5,549

  1 These receipts relate to the Royal Scottish National Hospitals NHS Trust which merged with Forth Valley Healthcare to become Central Scotland NHS Trust 1994–95.

  Health boards

  1993–94 £000

  1994–95 £000

  1995–96 £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  701

  534

  0

  Aryshire and Arran

  120

  945

  180

  Borders

  45

  171

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  104

  612

  3,285

  Fife

  0

  1,800

  0

  Forth Valley

  93

  1,068

  575

  Grampian

  474

  425

  0

  Greater Glasgow

  1,822

  2,969

  3,899

  Highland

  824

  523

  0

  Lanarkshire

  1,347

  1,531

  969

  Lothian

  6,648

  5,737

  3,789

  Orkney

  0

  130

  14

  Shetland

  2

  68

  32

  Tayside

  299

  0

  150

  Western Isles

  125

  0

  0

  Total

  12,604

  16,513

  12,893

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual revenue earned by Caledonian MacBrayne from carriage of commercial goods vehicles on all routes to and from the Western Isles in 1995–96. [11586]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of £3,537,000. This figure comprises all revenue earned from the carriage of commercial vehicles on the company's Oban-Castlebay-Lochboisdale, Mallaig-Castlebay-Lochboisdale, Uig-Tarbert-Lochmaddy, and Ullapool-Stornoway services.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the representations he has had from the International Bar Association in relation to the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [9943]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is my understanding that neither the Attorney-General nor the Lord Advocate has received representations from the International Bar Association in relation to the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. In May 1995 the Lord Advocate received intimation from the president of the International Bar Association of a motion concerning the establishment of a permanent international criminal court which was to be put before the council of the International Bar Association in Edinburgh in June 1995. In May 1996 the president of the International Bar Association wrote once again to the Lord Advocate inviting him, or a representative from the Crown Office, to attend the conference being held jointly by the International Bar Association and the Arab Lawyers Union. That invitation was declined. The Lord Advocate has received a report of the discussions at the conference including the proposals of the keynote speaker, Professor Bassiouni, concerning trial in Scotland. These proposals are, in fact, broadly in line with the approach that the Lord Advocate and Her Majesty's Government have taken to the case and the undertakings concerning the fair trial and treatment of the accused which have already been given to the Libyans.

  Historic Buildings (Advice Charges)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sources of advice on the protection of stone in historic buildings are currently available to him; and if he will list the amount paid in charges for such advice for each of the last three years. [11283]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since these are matters for Historic Scotland, I have asked the agency's chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graeme Munro to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 20 January 1997:
  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the sources of advice on the protection of stone in historic buildings available to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has been referred to me for answer since this is an operational matter falling within the remit of Historic Scotland.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has, within Historic Scotland's Properties in Care Division, a regional structure of qualified architects well versed in the conservation of stone. This skill and knowledge is put to use in the preservation of monuments in his care, and through the historic building repair grant scheme, is made available to owners of historic buildings. This advice is also available in support of scheduled monument consent and listed building consent schemes.
  In addition, Historic Scotland, commissions research into the conservation and repair of stone in historic buildings and publishes the findings as Research Reports and Technical Advice Notes. To date these include "Stonecleaning in Scotland—Research Report" in 3 Volumes, Literature Review and Research Summary (1992), "Proceedings of the International Conference 1992", "Stonecleaning—A Guide for Practitioners" (1994); "The Repair of Historic Buildings in Scotland" (1995), "Preparation and Use of Lime Mortars" (1995), "Line Conference Proceedings" (1995), and "Case Studies of Traditional Lime Harling" (1966).
  476
  Further research projects currently in progress include an investigation into "Carved Stone Decay", "The Cleaning of Granite", "Graffiti Removal", "Sandstone Consolidants and Waterproofers", "Laser Stonecleaning in Scotland" and "Biological Growths on Sandstone Buildings", and it is intended that reports and technical guidance will be published as these projects are concluded.
  The costs of these commissioned research projects amount to £70,180 for 1994–95, £94,363 for 1995–96, and £11,815 for April 1996—December 1996. These costs are partially offset by the income accruing from the sales of published Research Findings and Technical Advice Notes amounting to £9,069.7 (1994–95), £5,983.01 (1995–96), and £3,550.34 (April 1996 to December 1996).
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sources of advice are currently available to him on the reduction of fire risk in historic buildings; and if he will list the amount paid in charges for such advice for each of the past three years. [11284]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since these are matters for Historic Scotland, I have asked the agency's chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Graeme Munro to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 20 January 1997:
  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the sources of advice on the reduction of fire risk in historic buildings available to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It has been referred to me for answer since this is an operational matter falling within the remit of Historic Scotland.
  In common with others, the Secretary of State for Scotland has available to him technical guidance on the reduction of fire risk in historic buildings published by the Fire Prevention Association, including "Fire Prevention in Historic Buildings and Town Centres" (published 1992) and "Heritage under Fire" (1995), and by Historic Scotland in "The Repair of Historic Buildings in Scotland" (1995) and other guidance prepared by fire brigades.
  Historic Scotland, on behalf of the Secretary of State commissioned, in 1995, a multi-disciplinary research project from Edinburgh University to consider "Fire Protection in Scottish Historic Buildings". The research team is due to submit the report in Spring 1997 and, after consideration, it is hoped to publish a Technical Advice Note. The University research team is assisted by a Steering Group compromising representatives from the Scottish Office Environment Department and Fire Service, Historic Scotland, the Fire Protection Association, Strathclyde Fire Brigade, the National Library of Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland and the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland. The project has been initiated as a direct consequence of the increasing awareness of the high loss to fire of Scotland's built heritage, and is likely to lead to further research on specific topics to enhance the understanding of fire risk and the means of providing increased protection for historic buildings. The cost of the current research project is £67,500 of which £40,690 was paid in 1995–96.
  Historic Scotland is also currently preparing a Technical Advice Note in conjunction with the Fire Prevention Association on the sensitive installation of fully-charged water sprinkler systems in historic buildings. This publication will develop and enhance the experience gained during the installation of such a system in one of the Secretary of State's own properties, Duff House. Banff, (William Adam 1735) during its recent conversion to a country house art gallery.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is represented by Historic Scotland on the National Research Co-ordinating Committee for Fire Safety in Historic Buildings, set up by English Heritage to review the implementation of the Bailey Report following the Windsor Castle fire of 1992.

  477
  Representative bodies on the committee are:

  Department of National Heritage

  The Home Office

  Historic Scotland

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Fire Protection Association

  English Heritage

  The Royal Household

  The National Trust

  The terms of reference of this body are to meet quarterly to report on implementation of the Bailey recommendations, to collect and publish fire safety research data, to co-ordinate research based on prioritised needs and to seek research funding by pooling resources, grants from existing programmes and additional share of PES bids.
  Following the Windsor Castle fire and major fires in other historic buildings an internal report was prepared in 1992 by the then Head of the Works Services Division of Historic Scotland to assess the fire risk in the ancient monument estate. This resulted in the drawing-up by the Agency's professional staff with the assistance of local fire brigades, Fire Action Plans and an Emergency Procedures Manual for the most vulnerable monuments in state care and this work is on-going.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many recognised outbreaks of Newcastle disease have been recorded on farms in Scotland by area in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [11547]
  478
  (2) how many (a) chickens, (b) turkeys and (c) other birds have been affected by Newcastle disease in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [11545]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 January 1997): There have been no recognised outbreaks of Newcastle disease in Scotland in the last five years. Widespread vaccination of poultry has been instrumental in maintaining the health status of the national poultry flock during the last decade.

  Frozen Pipes Warnings
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what work has been carried out for his Department to determine a severe weather trigger for warnings to the general public of possible damage from burst pipes in buildings; what has been the role of the Building Research Establishment Executive Agency in this work; and if he will make a statement. [11276]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The severe weather working party, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in January 1996, received guidance from the Building Research Establishment Scottish laboratory on the development of a tentative weather trigger for the likely freezing of pipes in loft spaces in severe conditions in Scotland. The Scottish Office subsequently commissioned BRE to develop an appropriate cold weather indicator to act as a trigger for the issue of warnings to householders and others in Scotland of imminent severe weather and of the consequent risk of freezing and bursting of water pipes. BRE reported in October 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of withholding live animal export licences at times when disruption of the continental road system interferes with journey plans, to the detriment of the welfare of animals in transit. [10988]

  Mrs. Browning
  A licence is not required to export live farm animals to other member states of the EU. However, during periods of disruption, such as that recently caused by French lorry drivers, the Department checks closely on the circumstances prevailing at the time on routes declared to us on route plans, with a view to intervening if this is justified.

  Cattle Cull
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 157, if he will list the locations of the dry warehouses in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in which meat and bonemeal from animals slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme is stored, and the cold storage depots in the United Kingdom. [11305]

  Mr. Baldry
  The locations of the dry warehouses and cold storage depots referred to in my previous answer are as follows:

  Location

  Number of dry warehouses

  Number of cold storage depots

  England

  Wellingborough

  —

  1

  Gillingham, Kent

  —

  1

  Grimsby

  —

  2

  Craven Arms

  —

  1

  Bristol

  —

  2

  London

  —

  1

  Lancaster

  —

  1

  Taunton

  —

  1

  Hull

  —

  2

  Tonbridge

  —

  1

  Exeter

  1

  1

  Gainsborough

  —

  1

  Hereford

  —

  1

  Manchester

  —

  2

  Richmond

  —

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  1

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  1

  Sheffield

  —

  1

  Wallsend

  —

  1

  Swanley

  —

  1

  Cambridge

  —

  1

  Wigan

  —

  1

  Preston

  1

  —

  Wrangton

  1

  —

  Longton

  1

  —

  N. Ireland

  Ardglass

  —

  1

  Dundrum

  —

  1

  Craigavon

  —

  2

  Newtown Butler

  —

  1

  Belfast

  2

  —

  Newtownstewarat

  1

  —

  480

  Location

  Number of dry warehouses

  Number of cold storage depots

  Mallusk

  1

  —

  Lisnaskea

  —

  1

  Scotland

  Fraserburgh

  —

  1

  Glasgow

  —

  1

  Locabriggs

  —

  1

  Inverness

  —

  1

  Ross Shire

  —

  1

  Aberdeen

  —

  1

  Fife

  1

  Kirknewton

  1

  —

  Wales

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  Newport

  —

  1

  Gaerwen

  —

  1

  In addition, over-30-months scheme carcases have been stored at two container sites, one in Kent and the other in Hull. I regret that these were omitted in my previous answer.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the weekly cost of storage of(a) rendered meat and bonemeal and (b) carcases of cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme; and when he expects the disposal to be completed. [11306]

  Mr. Baldry
  The weekly cost of storage depends upon stock levels. It is currently around £45,000 for rendered meat and bonemeal and £220,000 for unrendered carcase material. Disposal will be completed at a pace determined by control requirements and the availability of rendering and incineration capacity.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what disposal options others than high-temperature incineration are under consideration for cattle slaughtered and rendered under the over-30-months scheme. [11307]

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by whom, and for what purpose, the Food Advisory Committee was asked to consider at its December meeting the use of vitamin B6, and if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached at that meeting. [11491]

  Mrs. Browning
  I asked the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—for advice on the toxicity of vitamin B6 in response to concerns expressed by the Consumers Association about the safety of dietary supplements containing high doses of vitamins and minerals. The COT's advice was passed to the Food Advisory Committee so that it could consider what action should be taken. The FAC endorsed the COT's conclusions and recommended that discussions be held with interested parties to explore the possibility of a voluntary limit on levels of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements. It also made it clear that it wishes to
  481
  consider this matter further in the light of those discussions and information about the market for high dose supplements.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Food Advisory Committee and the committee on toxicity consulted Consumers for Health Choice and the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy about the use of vitamin B6 prior to reaching conclusions on its safety. [11492]

  Mrs. Browning
  Neither the Food Advisory Committee nor the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment consulted Consumers for Health Choice or the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy before reaching its conclusions on the safety of vitamin B6. However, the FAC has recommended that officials discuss the conclusions with interested parties.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many adverse reactions as a result of vitamin B6 supplement in the United Kingdom were reported to his Department in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [11493]

  Mrs. Browning
  No arrangement exists for the reporting to this Department of adverse reactions to vitamin and mineral supplements. A report into the toxicological problems resulting from exposure to traditional medicines and food supplements commissioned by this Department did not reveal any cases of adverse reactions to vitamin B6 during the period. However, evidence of adverse reactions has been published in the scientific literature.

TRANSPORT

  Sleep-related Road Accidents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of financing the erection of permanent advisory "Tiredness Can Kill" signs on roads which have had a high incidence of sleep-related accidents. [9851]

  Mr. Bowis
  Sleep-related accidents are associated with particular times of day as well as types of road. The need for, and financing of "Tiredness Can Kill" signs on trunk roads and motorways is considered on the basis of local circumstances.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to raise public awareness of the dangers of driving while sleepy. [9852]

  Mr. Bowis
  We issued preliminary advice to drivers on how to combat sleepiness in September 1995. Further research is in progress into the relative effectiveness of other possible measures to ensure that the best advice is made available to drivers on how to minimise the risk of having a sleep-related accident. This phase of the research will report later this year, following which we will review the requirement for new advice.
  482
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of drivers who (i) undertake truck driving during the day and taxi driving at night, (ii) work for two companies, with consequences for their total tachograph entry and (iii) run more than one tachograph. [9853]

  Mr. Bowis
  None; we have no way of quantifying this.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into roads which have a higher than average incidence of sleep-related vehicle accidents. [9855]

  Mr. Bowis
  Current casualty data do not allow a clear identification of roads with a higher than average incidence of sleep-related accidents. We are midway through a research programme into accident causation which is seeking to develop methods which will more accurately identify the incidence of such accidents. This will report later this year.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which rumble strips are effective in alerting sleepy drivers of large-wheel coaches and heavy goods vehicles with power transmissions. [9854]

  Mr. Bowis
  Rumble strips—raised rib markings—were initially introduced on motorways to separate the edge of the hard shoulder from the main carriageway, by improving the visual delineation in wet conditions at night. They also provide an audible/vibratory warning to vehicle drivers should they stray from the carriageway for any reason. Their effect in alerting sleepy drivers is an additional benefit.

  We have not made an assessment of the effectiveness of rumble strips in alerting drivers; US studies suggest that they can reduce run-off-road accidents by 20 to 50 per cent.

  Railway Station Car Parks
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of the High Court decision of 29 November in the case of Clarke v. Kato and others with regard to the status of railway station car parks and the possible future role of local authorities in designating taxi ranks in such car parks; and if he will make a statement. [11046]

  Mr. Watts
  The decision was made on the particular facts of the case in question and does not lay down a general principle. The significance of the decision is that if a car park is a "road" under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the general provisions of road traffic law will apply to it, such as the requirement for compulsory insurance. The case does not mean that land which is a road within the meaning of the Act because the owner permits the public to use it—as distinct from land over which the public have a right of way—no longer remains under the control of the owner. He remains free to decide what traffic is to be allowed over the land and for what purpose.

  The decision therefore has no bearing on the designation of taxi ranks at railway station car parks, which remain a matter for the appropriate station operator.

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations are being carried out on his behalf, and by which organisations, into issues raised by the lorry fire in the channel tunnel on 18 November 1996, to ensure the safety of future passengers crossing under the English channel. [11264]

  Mr. Watts
  The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority is conducting an investigation Into the channel tunnel fire. This investigation is being undertaken on behalf of both the French and UK Governments in line with the duties and responsibilities of the Intergovernmental Commission and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, established in articles 10 and 11 of the treaty of Canterbury 1986, Cmnd 9745.

  Bus Emissions
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many inspections of bus emissions have been made in the South Yorkshire area during 1996; and how many of these have resulted in(a) prosecution and (b) a fine; [11047]

  (2) if he will list the prosecutions brought and fines levied against bus companies, by region, which have breached the diesel emission limits during each of the past three years. [11048]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Helen Jackson, dated 20 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of inspections of bus emissions made in the South Yorkshire area during 1996; and how many of these have resulted in (a) prosecution and (b) a fine; and the prosecutions brought and fines levied against bus companies by region, which have breached the diesel emissions limits during each of the last three years.
  478 inspections of bus (PSV) emissions were carried out in the Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire area during the 1995/96 financial year which resulted in the issue of 5 delayed prohibition notices. No immediate prohibitions were issued.
  It is not usual practice for breaches of PSV emissions limits to be dealt with by a prosecution or fine. The issue of a prohibition notice is considered an effective means of dealing with emissions failures in respect of licensed PSV operators. Prohibition notices issued to licensed operators are available to the Traffic Commissioners to consider whether disciplinary action is required.

  Vessels and Passengers (Requests for Assistance)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests for assistance from ships containing refugees in the Mediterranean have been reported to his Department since December 1996. [11179]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance is given to United Kingdom-registered ships concerning the assistance to be offered to vessels or passengers in distress. [11182]
  484
  Mr. Bowis
  The annual summary of admiralty notices to mariners and volume 5 of the admiralty list of radio signals, which are mandatory carriage on UK-registered ships, give explicit guidance to the masters of British ships. UK law provides that
  "the master or person in charge of a vessel shall, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his own vessel, her crew and passengers (if any), render assistance to every person, … who is found at sea in danger of being lost."
  The master of a British ship, on receiving at sea a distress signal or information from any source that a vessel or aircraft is in distress, must proceed with all speed to the assistance of the persons in distress—informing them, if possible, that he is doing so—unless he is unable, or in the special circumstances of the case considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to do so, or unless he is released from this obligation under certain conditions.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the estimated sums to be paid by way of subsidy in the financial year ending 31 March 1997 to the British Railways Board and each of the companies formerly owned by the board which have been privatised or franchised in the past five years. [11427]

  Mr. Watts
  My current estimate of the net payments of support, excluding payments under the performance regime, to be made by the franchising director to the British Railways Board and to franchise operators in the financial year 1996–97 is listed in the table.

  Estimated payments in 1996–97

  Payments to franchise operators

  £ million

  Anglia Railways Train Services Ltd.

  8.777

  Cardiff Railway Co. Ltd.

  10.014

  CrossCountry Trains Ltd.

  30.675

  Gatwick Express Railway Co. Ltd.

  -4.192

  Great Eastern Railway Ltd.

  5.778

  Great Western Trains Co. Ltd.

  61,825

  InterCity East Coast Ltd.

  61.468

  Island Line Ltd.

  0.937

  LTS Rail Ltd.

  25.146

  Merseyrail Electrics Ltd.

  7.703

  Midland Main Line Ltd.

  16.188

  Network SouthCentral Ltd.

  73.610

  South Wales and West Railway Ltd.

  37.625

  South West Trains Ltd.

  63.207

  Thames Trains Ltd.

  18.780

  The Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd.

  11.650

  The South Eastern Train Co. Ltd.

  59.257

  West Anglia Great Northern Railway Ltd.

  14.208

  Total Payments to Franchise Operators

  502,655

  Payments to British Rail

  1,260.367

  Total Payments

  1,763,022

  Marine Accident Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he sets the marine accidents investigation branch for the time scale for producing reports following accidents or incidents. [11513]

  Mr. Bowis
  Major accidents require an inspector's inquiry to be conducted, leading to a chief inspector's report being produced. The chief inspector's target is to
  485
  submit the final report to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the date of the accident. Consultation with those considered by the chief inspector to have been adversely affected by the report may sometimes prevent this target being met.

  In other accidents requiring full and detailed examination, summary reports may be released generally or to interested parties. Where these are to be published, the target is to do so within 10 months from the date of the accident.

  MV Canberra (Inquiry)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlay the delay in producing the marine accidents investigation branch report into the incident involving the MV Canberra in December 1994. [11514]

  Mr. Bowis
  This was a complex investigation which involved not only the causes of the power failure but the actions of the master and officers with respect to navigational decisions and communication.

  In addition, the consultation and validation process was complex, and some time was spent in exploring the legal implications of publishing the report in the light of the consultation.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those airlines found to be(a) using unapproved parts and (b) flying without maintenance releases during the last two years. [11511]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Civil Aviation Authority routinely audit both airlines and their maintenance organisations. All CAA-approved maintenance organisations have procedures to reject on receipt unapproved parts and prevent their fitting to aircraft. However, the CAA has recorded one case in February 1995 where a part fitted was found not to be in full accordance with approved standards. The part presented no hazard to the safety of the aircraft, which was operated by Maersk Air, and appropriate action has been taken to prevent any recurrence. Procedures for the strict regulation and control of aircraft parts were outlined on 22 March 1996 by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)Official Report, column 392.

  In the past two years, one case has been found where a UK-registered aircraft has been released into service from routine maintenance without there being in force a certificate of release to service as required by Joint Aviation Authorities requirement JAR-145. This one case is currently under investigation by the CAA. It would be inappropriate to name the airline concerned while the investigation is under way.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned to be carried out into the structural safety of the Jubilee line extension to the London underground system during its construction, and by which organisations. [11265]
  486
  Mr. Bowis
  This is a responsibility of London Transport, for which safety is the top priority. I understand that the Jubilee line extension construction safety record is commendable by the standards of the construction industry nationally.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions, during the current parliamentary Session, answers to parliamentary questions which reveal information of a sort which is not normally disclosed, as defined in paragraph 5 of the guidance to officials on drafting answers to parliamentary questions, have been referred to him for a decision on whether or not a reply is given. [11285]

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Coastguard Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the coastguard stations which are currently only on day watch; and what plans he has to restrict other coastguard stations to day watch operations over the next five years. [9761]

  Mr. Bowis
  No coastguard stations are currently on day watch only. There are no plans to restrict coastguard stations to day watch operations over the next five years.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which coastguard stations he is planning to downgrade; [9763]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the Coastguard agency five-year plan in the Library. [9762]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no five-year plan for the Coastguard agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the agency's chief executive to develop a strategy for using the benefits of new communications technology to meet the expected requirements for distress monitoring and search and rescue co-ordination by Her Majesty's Coastguard into the 21st century. No strategy has yet been submitted. Coastguard staff will be consulted before any decisions are taken. In the meantime, we have no plans to downgrade any coastguard stations.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on the M11 link road to date; and what is the current estimated total cost. [11058]

  Mr. Bowis
  Total spending to date is £176 million. The current estimated total cost is £340 million.

  Driver Eyesight Standards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers of groups 1 and 2 vehicles he estimates will be unable to meet the new eyesight standards set out in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996. [11525]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are no changes in eyesight standards for group 1 drivers as a result of the new regulations. However, from 1 January 1998, group 1 drivers who obtained their licence before 1 January 1997 who, when renewing their licence, wish to retain the associated D1
  487
  entitlement—minibuses—will have to meet the higher group 2 eyesight standards. It is not possible to determine the numbers of licence holders who may be affected.

  Drivers of group 2 vehicles who obtained their licence before 1 January 1997, who are unable to meet the revised eyesight standards for such vehicles in the new regulations but who can continue to meet the standards applicable when they obtained their entitlement, may renew their licence provided that they are able to satisfy the Secretary of State that they have not been involved in a road accident in the preceding 10 years where defective eyesight was a contributory factor and that they have had recent adequate experience of driving these vehicles. The number of existing group 2 drivers falling below the new eyesight standards is estimated at 3,000. It is not possible to determine how many of these would be unable to satisfy the Secretary of State that their licences should be renewed.

  Personalised Number Plates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11412]

  Mr. Bowis
  There are none.

  Marine Pollution Incidents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents involving the discharge into the sea by merchant shipping of(a) noxious liquid substances and (b) pollution hazard substances took place in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many successful prosecutions were brought. [11523]

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1996, 347 incidents of suspected discharges of noxious liquid or other polluting substances in contravention of international regulations were reported to the marine pollution control unit. The source of these suspected violations was identified on 30 occasions, of which 23 involved oil and seven involved other substances. Of these 30 cases, three were referred to the Treasury Solicitor or procurator fiscal and in eight cases it was considered more appropriate to refer to the relevant flag state for action. Ten cases remain under investigation.

  Radar Equipment (Milford Haven)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to ensure the effective operation of radar equipment operating in the area of Milford Haven; what reports he has received regarding the effectiveness of the equipment on St. Ann's head since 1 January 1996; and if he will make a statement. [11350]

  Mr. Bowis
  The operation of this radar equipment is a matter for the Milford Haven port authority.

  Overloaded Aircraft
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those airlines found to be operating overloaded aircraft during the last two years. [11512]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Civil Aviation Authority audits UK airlines to ensure, among other things, that aircraft are operated within the weight limitations specified in their 488
  performance manuals. Incidence of operations outside these limitations is very low. Details of such operations are not held centrally and the information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Ministers are entitled to use child care facilities supported by his Department. [11596]

  Mr. Bowis
  The only child care facilities provided by my Department in central London are provided through the interdepartmental Westminster holiday playscheme, which is subsidised by the Department. Ministers may apply to use the facilities in the same way as members of staff.

  Driver Accident Rates
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the accident rate for drivers over the age of 70 years, and for each 10-year age group below 70 over the past 10 years. [11489]

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available estimates are shown in the following table. The table shows that driver involvement rates in road injury accidents, in relation to the number of driving licence holders in the age group, fall with age. However, older car drivers and younger, mainly novice, drivers, drive fewer miles per year. When this reduced exposure to accident risk is taken into account, the table shows that, in relation to miles driven, the driver involvement rate increases for age groups over 60, and in relatively higher for 17 to 20-year-olds. There has been little change in relative rates between age groups since 1985–96.

  Rate of car driver involvement in road injury accidents

  Age band

  1985–86

  1993–95

  Per thousand1 car driving licence holders

  Per million vehicle kilometers

  Per thousand1 car driving licence holders

  Per million vehicle kilometers

  17–20

  30

  3.3

  27

  3.4

  21–29

  15

  1.4

  14

  1.3

  30–39

  11

  0.9

  10

  0.8

  40–49

  9

  0.7

  8

  0.6

  50–59

  7

  0.6

  7

  0.5

  60–69

  6

  0.7

  5

  0.6

  70+

  6

  0.9

  5

  0.9

  1 The rates for each car driver age group are expressed as car driver involvements in injury accidents in relation to the number of full licence holders in each age group. The 17 to 20 year age group does not take into account provisional licence holders because their driving mileage is relatively very low, and accompaniment while learning could reduce their accident involvement risk. Inclusion could unduly bias comparisons between age groups.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the programme of bridge inspection and strengthening associated with the use of 40-tonne lorries will be completed by 1 January 1999; and what is the present estimate of the cost of this programme. [10903]

  Mr. Watts
  The current programme of assessment and strengthening of highway structures is not associated purely with the use of 40-tonne lorries; it is also aimed at ensuring that these structures continue to be safe for use by the large numbers of 38-tonne vehicles that now use
  489
  them. It is not the case that every structure on every road must be strengthened by 1 January 1999. Our objectives are that all assessments should have been completed by that date and that routes carrying significant flows of international traffic, including all trunk roads, should be capable of bearing 40-tonne lorries.

  The trunk road network is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The agency's latest estimate of the cost of assessing and strengthening trunk road structures alone is £450 million.

  Other public roads are the responsibility of local highway authorities. Since 1991–92, my Department has made some £700 million available to local highway authorities for assessment and strengthening and a further £112 million is to be provided under the 1997–98 transport policies and programmes settlement. It is not possible at the present to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of outstanding assessment and strengthening work for local authority structures.

HEALTH

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average salary by decile for NHS dentists. [9012]

  Mr. Malone
  General dental practitioners are largely paid through fees—such as item of service fees and continuing care—rather than salaries. The table shows average gross fee earnings by decile for dental rates study group, DRSG, dentists in England.

  Average gross fee earnings1 by the decile for DRSG2 dentists in 1995–96 in England

  Decile3

  Average gross fee earnings1£

  Bottom

  8,000

  2

  26,000

  3

  43,000

  4

  61,000

  5

  75,000

  6

  87,000

  7

  99,000

  8

  112,000

  9

  131,000

  Top

  188,000

  1 These have been rounded to the nearest £1,000. Gross fee payments do not account for all NHS earnings, which can include other payments such as maternity payments, long-term sickness payments and seniority payments. These additional payments amount to about £2,000 per practitioner on average.

  2DRSG dentists are those who have been in practice throughout 1995–96. Dentists who have joined or left during the year have been excluded, as well as some other small groups.

  3There were 13,687 DRSG dentists in England in 1995–96. Each decile comprises about 1,369 dentists.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 165–66, how many adult patients and children were registered with the highest paid NHS dentist in each year from 1991–92 to 1995–96. [11890]

  Mr. Malone
  The dentist with the highest level of gross earnings in each of the years 1991–92 to 1994–95 had a very small number of registrations, and was engaged 490
  mainly in orthodontic treatment. For 1995–96, the dentist with the highest level of gross earnings had 8,991 adult registrations and 2,258 child registrations.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 220, in which London postal district the practice of the highest earning NHS dentist was situated in 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, and 1994–95. [11889]

  Mr. Malone
  Giving this information would be in breach of the open government code of practice, which exempts information which could facilitate an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for consultation draft proposals for making extensive and wholly unnecessary dental treatment a criminal offence. [11900]

  Mr. Malone
  Extensive and wholly unnecessary dental treatment can constitute an assault for the purposes of the criminal law and there is therefore no need to introduce any further legislation.

  Pay Parity
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with the Department for Education and Employment on the matter of pay parity between clinical and academic medicine. [10839]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have discussed this issue. We fully support the arrangements announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to enable pay parity to be maintained between clinical academics and their counterparts in the national health service.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with the Treasury on the matter of pay parity between clinical and academic medicine. [10838]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Anti-malarial Tablets
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has made available about the side effects of mefloquine anti-malarial tablets. [11241]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the side effects associated with mefloquine is provided to health professionals in the manufacturer's product information which is authorised by the Licensing Authority. An information leaflet for patients is also provided.

  In July 1996, information on neurological and psychiatric side effects associated with mefloquine was published in a bulletin called "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance". This bulletin is distributed to all doctors and pharmacists and a copy is placed in the Library.

  The British National Formulary also provides information on the side effects of mefloquine and the Department of Health pays for this to be sent to general practitioners twice a year. Information on mefloquine was

  491
  circulated to all doctors in the chief medical officer's update—10 May 1996—and in the book "Health Information For Overseas Travel", a copy of which has been sent to every general practitioner.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the amount spent by each NHS trust on consultancy fees for every PFI project costing £5 million or more. [11255]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) on 25 November 1996,Official Report, column 119.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS from the blocking of acute beds by patients awaiting assessments or care arrangements from social services. [11195]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on costs is not collected centrally. An extra £16 million has been allocated to 69 health authorities for continuing care in 1996–97.

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Greenwich Healthcare NHS trust will be required to pay for public transport arrangements to the Queen Elizabeth hospital. [11254]

  Mr. Horam
  Greenwich Healthcare NHS trust has agreed to underwrite the excess costs of certain specified public transport services to its new site at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, up to a fixed limit, for a maximum period of 18 months.

  Damages and Ex Gratia Payments
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total sum paid out in damages and ex gratia payments by each health authority and trust in England for each of the last five years arising from litigation initiated against that health authority or trust and the total annual legal costs incurred in respect of such claims. [11078]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not centrally available.

  NHS Trusts (Joint Responsibilities)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many locations in England more than one NHS trust is responsible for activities taking place on the same site. [11252]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally.

  Personalised Number Plates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many personalised number plates there are in the ownership of the executive agencies operated by his Department; and if he will list them. [11418]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the NHS of purchasing the use of an MRI scanner for an NHS patient at a private hospital. [11883]

  Mr. Horam
  No details of the costs of magnetic resonance imager scanning are held by the Department of Health.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MRI scanners are available in the NHS; and what estimate he has made of the number in the private health sector. [11884]

  Mr. Horam
  Data on the numbers of magnetic resonance imager scanners in the national health service and the private health sector is not held centrally by the Department of Health.

  Photo-refractive Keratectomy
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the(a) effectiveness and (b) risks of photo-refractive keratectomy; and if he will make a statement. [11822]

  Mr. Horam
  The effectiveness and risks of photo-refractive keratectomy have been the subject of considerable research both in the United Kingdom and abroad, and the results have been made widely available in the professional literature. The decision on whether to provide this treatment in an individual case is primarily a matter for the patient and doctor concerned.

  Refugee Children
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of refugee children who have been taken into care or whose families have been supported by social services due to their prospect of destitution. [11178]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Drug Wastage
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of the amount(a) in volume and (b) in value of drugs prescribed by doctors in the NHS and then not used by patients in the course of a year; and what plans he has to ensure that wastage is minimised. [11242]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not collected. However, following publication last year of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—now Office for National Statistics—report "Residual Medicines", the Department is currently engaged in setting up repeat dispensing trials to test whether this would reduce drug waste. The Department, thorough a variety of measures, seeks to encourage general practitioners to review and effectively control their repeat prescribing. Repeat prescribing has been identified as a priority area in the Department's research programme.

  Mental Health
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report,

  493
  column 175, relating to funds returned to the general allocation for 1997–98, if he will provide the information separately in respect of patients with mental illness and patients with learning disabilities. [11638]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what extra allocation has been given to health authorities for 1997–98 in respect of(a) mental illness and (b) learning disability; and if he will list the authorities receiving such extra funding; [11637]

  (2) if he will list by health authority and other appropriate bodies the reductions in 1997–98 in the special allocation which funds (a) the care of patients with mental illness admitted before June 1970 and (b) patients with learning disabilities admitted before June 1970 in (i) hospital-based and (ii) community-based accommodation. [11639]

  Mr. Horam
  All health authorities have received increases in their general allocations for 1997–98. It is for individual health authorities to decide the level of resources to allocate to mental illness and learning disability.

  In addition, £25 million has been set aside centrally to support the further development of mental health services, comprising a new challenge fund of £10 million, and £15 million for further facilities for mentally disordered offenders. Details of the health authorities that will benefit from this extra funding will be announced shortly.

  Changes for 1997–98 in the level of funding to health authorities for the old long stay—OLS—special allocation, which funds the care of patients with a mental illness admitted before 1 January 1971 and patients with a learning disability admitted before 1 January 1970, are shown in the table.

  Some 0.1 per cent. of the growth in health authority general allocations is in place of the net reduction in the OLS special allocation to ensure that spending on mental health and people with learning difficulties can be maintained. These increases are shown in the table.

  £000s

  Health authorities

  A 0.1 per cent growth in general allocations

  B Increases in OLS special allocation

  C Reduction OLS special allocation

  Avon

  400

  —

  2,095

  Barking and Havering

  179

  70

  —

  Barnet

  147

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  102

  —

  271

  Bedfordshire

  208

  —

  387

  Berkshire

  286

  896

  —

  Bexley and Greenwich

  211'

  —

  599

  Birmingham

  475

  —

  643

  Bradford

  213

  35

  —

  Brent and Harrow

  226

  99

  —

  Bromley

  127

  —

  36

  Buckinghamshire

  245

  —

  14

  Bury and Rochdale

  172

  —

  108

  494

  £000s

  Health authorities

  A 0.1 per cent growth in general allocations

  B Increases in OLS special allocation

  C Reduction OLS special allocation

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  254

  —

  197

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  158

  —

  200

  Camden and Islington

  238

  —

  287

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  212

  —

  217

  County Durham

  277

  —

  124

  Coventry

  133

  —

  —

  Croydon

  143

  —

  627

  Doncaster

  129

  —

  241

  Dorset

  308

  —

  54

  Dudley

  126

  —

  396

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  340

  —

  1,296

  East and North Hertfordshire

  192

  231

  —

  East Kent

  269

  222

  —

  East Lancashire

  236

  —

  93

  East London and the City

  340

  —

  —

  East Norfolk

  253

  —

  176

  East Riding

  244

  —

  252

  East Surrey

  173

  —

  2,680

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  348

  —

  729

  Enfield and Haringey

  233

  —

  772

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  176

  —

  71

  Gloucestershire

  229

  46

  —

  Herefordshire

  68

  —

  95

  Hillingdon

  110

  —

  296

  Isle of Wight

  64

  —

  15

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  196

  —

  1,148

  Kingston and Richmond

  148

  —

  184

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  413

  —

  8

  Leeds

  316

  —

  Leicestershire

  352

  —

  1,470

  Lincolnshire

  262

  —

  240

  Liverpool

  239

  —

  52

  Manchester

  236

  —

  420

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  305

  —

  184—

  Morecambe Bay

  143

  —

  —

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  232

  —

  —

  North and East Devon

  209

  —

  363

  North and Mid Hampshire

  206

  —

  1,333

  North Cheshire

  143

  —

  —

  North Cumbria

  135

  —

  106

  North Derbyshire

  158

  —

  —

  North Essex

  344

  —

  221

  North Nottinghamshire

  162

  —

  278

  North Staffordshire

  207

  —

  318

  North West Anglia

  167

  80

  —

  North West Lancashire

  218

  —

  235

  495

  £000s

  Health authorities

  A 0.1 per cent growth in general allocations

  B Increases in OLS special allocation

  C Reduction OLS special allocation

  North Yorkshire

  298

  —

  156

  Northamptonshire

  236

  —

  101

  Northumberland

  132

  —

  74

  Nottingham

  266

  —

  169

  Oxfordshire

  217

  —

  69

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  226

  1,087

  —

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  218

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  112

  71

  —

  Salford and Trafford

  209

  —

  27

  Sandwell

  137

  —

  156

  Sefton

  135

  —

  54

  Sheffield

  254

  41

  —

  Shropshire

  166

  —

  77

  Solihull

  79

  —

  232

  Somerset

  197

  83

  —

  South and West Devon

  263

  259

  —

  South Cheshire

  274

  —

  38

  South Derbyshire

  230

  —

  19

  South Essex

  281

  —

  682

  South Humber

  137

  —

  63

  South Lancashire

  131

  —

  —

  South Staffordshire

  226

  —

  43

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  218

  171

  —

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  150

  —

  26

  Stockport

  117

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  264

  —

  274

  Sunderland

  138

  262

  —

  Tees

  250

  46

  —

  Wakefield

  143

  134

  —

  Walsall

  112

  —

  3

  Warwickshire

  207

  —

  159

  West Hertfordshire

  221

  —

  826

  West Kent

  381

  55

  —

  West Pennine

  210

  —

  —

  West Surrey

  260

  55

  —

  West Sussex

  318

  —

  553

  Wigan and Bolton

  252

  —

  360

  Wiltshire

  238

  —

  35

  Wirral

  152

  —

  Wolverhampton

  110

  —

  —

  Worcestershire

  211

  —

  14

  Total

  21,412

  3,942

  23,742

  1. All figures are at 1997–98 prices.

  2. Figures may not sum exactly due to roundings.

  3. Columns B and C show changes between the 1996–98 OLS special allocation.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the decisions of mental health review tribunals that are contrary to the advice of the responsible medical officer. [11494]

  Mr. Burns
  Mental health review tribunals are independent judicial bodies and there is no provision in the Mental Health Act 1983 for review of tribunal decisions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  496
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if mental health review tribunals are advised whether the patient has a history of violence. [11495]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on whether a patient has a history of violence is provided for mental health review tribunals in the context of the statements by the responsible authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State required under the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require mental health review tribunals to obtain the opinion of a doctor approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in addition to that of the responsible medical officer. [11496]

  Mr. Burns
  None.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if mental health review tribunals are required to ensure that proper provision and support, in accordance with the care programme approach, has been made before deciding to discharge a patient. [11497]

  Mr. Burns
  Legislation under the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for mental health review tribunals to receive up-to-date reports on the patient's medical condition and social circumstances. Such reports will include recommendations for continuing care. The tribunal must take account of this information in deciding whether a patient should be discharged, and may direct a patient's discharge on a future date to allow time for aftercare arrangements to be put in place.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what activities he has initiated in preparation for a review of the Mental Health Act 1983. [11498]

  Mr. Burns
  Officials will, from time to time, as with any other major policy area, meet individuals with a key interest to discuss issues relating to the operation of the Act.

  Secure Accommodation (Young People)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average monthly cost of keeping a young person in secure accommodation in the last year for which figures are available. [10924]

  Mr. Burns
  Local authorities in England spent £31.5 million gross on the provision of secure accommodation during the year ending 31 March 1995, while the average number of children accommodated during the year was 245. The average monthly cost per child was therefore approximately £10,700.

  Children's Health
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the occurrence in children of(a) tuberculosis, (b) rickets, (c) iron deficiency and (d) gastroenteritis. [11839]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commissioned a comprehensive survey of diet and nutrition in pre-school children in 1993 entitled "National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Children Aged 11/2to41/2. This
  497
  showed that no particular socio-economic group was malnourished, and that average heights and weights continue to increase.

  The Department is aware of occasional cases of rickets, caused by vitamin D deficiency. To address this issue, vitamin D has been made available to pregnant women and new mothers, and children under the age of five. Asian infants are thought to be at the highest risk of rickets, and a current departmental survey, "Infant Feeding in Asian Families", will determine whether further action is needed. The results of the survey are due in February.

  The Department's policy research programme—PRPis funding a research initiative into improved nutritional health, with a budget of £2.4 million. Target groups covered by this include children. The research initiative is jointly managed by the Department and the Medical Research Council.

  On a regional level, South West region has funded research into "Infant anaemia—who should be screened and when?", which was undertaken at the university of Bristol with a contribution of £50,000 from the NHS.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by month and year for each of the last five years the number of(a) diagnosed and (b) newly suspected cases of the new strain of CJD; to what extent the trends enable him to make assessments of future numbers; and what assessment he has made of likely future numbers. [11719]

  Expenditure

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £million

  £million

  percentage change

  £million

  percentage change

  £million

  percentage change

  Surgical specialties

  5,158

  5,258

  1.9

  5,574

  6.0

  5,856

  5.1

  Non-surgical specialties

  9,281

  6,426

  1.6

  9,700

  2.9

  10,133

  4.5

  Accident and emergency

  567

  642

  13.3

  650

  1.1

  686

  5.7

  Notes:

  1. Surgical includes: total of surgical specialties; renal transplant; heart transplantation; and surgical supra-regional services.

  2. Non-surgical includes: total of medical specialties; maternity; psychiatric specialties; other specialties; renal dialysis; national poisons information services; psychiatric services for deaf people; and retinoblastoma services.

  3. Figures are taken from purchaser expenditure data, but the breakdown between specialty groups has been derived from NHS providers' financial returns.

  4. The 1995–96 figures are provisional.

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of national health service trusts.

  2. The annual financial returns of the directly managed units of health authorities.

  3. The annual financial returns of the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  4. Hospital and community health services programme budget.

  Regional Health Authorities (Management Expenditure)
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by each regional health authority on(a) conference registration fees, (b)lease cars for
  498
  Mr. Horam
  The latest figures on the number of confirmed definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United Kingdom, including the new variant, were published in a Department of Health press release on 6 January 1997, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures on suspected cases are not available. The classification of cases changes as the course of the disease proceeds and a definite diagnosis is usually possible only after death. In the past, about half the cases referred to the unit have turned out not to be CJD.

  There is still very little known about new variant CJD, including important information on the incubation period, the route of infection, the level of exposure required to cause disease and the role of genetic susceptibility, so it is likely to be some years before we have sufficient information to make firm predictions of future numbers of cases.

  Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of expenditure on (i) intensive treatment units, (ii) surgical departments, (iii) non-surgical departments, and (iv) accident and emergency departments for each year since 1992(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands in (1) cash terms and (2) as a percentage change on the previous year. [10310]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: It is not possible to identify separately expenditure on intensive treatment units, because expenditure is measured by consultant specialty rather than type of treatment. The details requested of expenditure on other hospital services are in the table. It would be possible to provide data for the west midlands region only at disproportionate cost.

  Managers,(c) United Kingdom and overseas air travel, (d) hospitality and (e) business travel within the United Kingdom in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96. [11718]

  Mr. Melone
  The information is not held centrally.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Attorney-General when he next plans to meet officials from the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the work of the office. [9942]

  The Attorney-General
  I meet the director of Serious Fraud Office regularly to discuss matters of departmental interest, including particular cases.

  Court of Appeal (Judgments)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the advantages, in cases considered by the Court of Appeal on grounds of undue leniency, of the reasons for judgments being given at the same time as or within a short time of the judgment. [9944]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is for the Court of Appeal to decide in each case what is the appropriate course. When the court wishes to formulate detailed reasons, for example, in an important guideline case, it may announce its decision at the conclusion of the hearing but promulgate its reasoned judgment later.

  Rights of Audience
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has for securing rights of audience in the High Court for barristers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. [9945]

  The Attorney-General
  An application by the Law Society for higher courts rights of audience for employed solicitors, including Crown prosecutors, is at present being considered by the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges. A decision relating to employed banisters has been postponed until this application has been determined.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General how many qualified lawyers are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. [9946]

  The Attorney-General
  As at 31 December 1996, the Crown Prosecution Service employed the equivalent of 2,010 full-time lawyers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Veterinary Laboratory, Omagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the saving from the proposed closure of the veterinary laboratory at Omagh; and if he will make a statement. [10835]

  Mr. Ancram
  The proposed closure of the veterinary science division, Omagh laboratory, would have made an annual saving of up to £320,000 in departmental running costs and a one-off saving of approximately £250,000 for the installation of a new incinerator, to meet emission standards required by the anticipated legislation and stemming from Council directive 84/360/EEC.

WALES

  Road Improvements
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been constructed since that year. [9917]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Since 1979, total spending on the roads programme in Wales is nearly £3 billion, including £510 million transport grant, 36 miles of motorway and 171 miles of trunk road have been completed or improved. Three major improvement schmes totalling another 16 miles are under construction.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many GP fundholders there are in Wales; and what plans there are to extend this scheme. [9918]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 210 and a further 25 are expected to become fundholders from 1 April next. Fundholding now covers 52 per cent. of the population of Wales and I expect its popularity to continue to increase.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the population in Wales is served by fundholding GPs. [9932]

  Mr. Jones
  Fifty-two per cent. of the Welsh population are now covered by fundholding GPs, and this will rise to 55 per cent. by next April.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on the NHS in Wales in 1996 as a percentage of that spent in 1995. [9920]

  Mr. Hague
  In 1995–96, spending on the NHS in Wales as a percentage of that spent in 1994–95 was 105.8 per cent.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the treasurers of Welsh county and county borough councils to discuss local authority finance for 1996–97 in Wales. [9921]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance was held on 16 December 1996.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further representations he has had about the introduction and implementation of nursery vouchers in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales. [9922]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Since my reply to the hon. Member's question on 15 July 1996 the Welsh Office has received some 1,700 further letters and some 20 petitions about the scheme, including some 60 letters and two petitions from the area covering the former Clwyd.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's road programme for 1997–98. [9923]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of improvements to the road network in 1997–98 will be published in the Welsh Office's departmental report in the spring.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the proposed expenditure on assisted places in 1997–98. [9924]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Welsh economy in 1997. [9925]

  Mr. Hague
  Prospects for the Welsh economy in 1997 are very good indeed. Employment is rising and unemployment continues to fall; independent forecasters expect GDP in 1997 to grow faster in Wales than in the UK as a whole; and for Wales to continue to have the strongest manufacturing growth of all regions. Business surveys show that businesses in Wales remain very confident.

  Income Statistics (Carmarthenshire)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will express the income per head in Carmarthenshire as a percentage of the United Kingdom figure. [9926]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no official data on income per head in Carmarthenshire. However, in April 1996, the average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Carmarthenshire were 87 per cent. of the UK average.

  Burgner Report
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish his response to the Burgner report; and if he will make a statement. [9927]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published the Burgner report on 18 October 1996. On that date he announced the Government's response to some key recommendations of the report in a speech to the annual conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services. He also announced that a more detailed response will be included in a social services White Paper, which the Government expect to publish in February.

  Meningitis (Cardiff University)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with(a) university authorities and (b) Bro Taf health authority concerning meningitis at Cardiff university in autumn 1996. [9928]
  502
  Mr. Hague
  I have asked for reports from the vice-chancellor at the university of Wales and Bro Taf health authority on the outbreak. Both reports are expected by the end of January.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has made of the trends in funding of further education between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [9929]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 12 December regarding public expenditure in Wales for 1997–98, the Department's officials wrote to the chief executive of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales giving details of the council's grant for further education in 1996–97 and 1997–98 and indicative funding for the next two years. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about youth unemployment in Wales. [9930]

  Mr. Hague
  Claimant unemployment among under-25s in Wales fell by 3,900, 12.3 per cent., in the year to October 1996. The rate in Wales is significantly lower than those in France, Italy and Spain, as well as below the EU average.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money he expects to be raised through PFI projects in the next three years. [9931]

  Mr. Hague
  I expect the initiative to bring about £350 million of private sector capital investment in Welsh Office schemes.

  Local Government Services
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the effect of the Budget settlement on local government services. [9933]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I discussed our proposals for the local government revenue settlement and capital spending plans for 1997–98 with representatives of local government at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 16 December 1996. In addition, my right hon. Friend and I have received around 20 written representations from the Welsh Local Government Association, Members of Parliament and individual local authorities.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new units of social housing were provided by Tai Cymru in the past 12 months for which figures are available; and how many he forecasts for the next 12 months. [9934]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  During 1995–96, 3,802 dwellings were completed. Tai Cymru's target for 1996–97 is 3,500 dwellings.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to ensure equity of distribution of job-creating inward investment between the east of Wales and the west of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9935]

  Mr. Hague
  I will continue to work hard for the whole of Wales. Decisions on location are ultimately a matter for the companies concerned. I have, however, set targets for the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales to attract investment to areas outside the east of Wales.

  A465 Construction
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he estimates the A465 Aberdulais to Glynneath road construction will be completed. [11034]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member shortly, inviting him to the opening ceremony for this scheme, which is planned for the end of February.

  Health Authority Savings Targets
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 588, on savings by health authorities, if he will list the principal elements of the savings targets for the health authorities which will be achieved in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [11807]

  Mr. Hague
  It is a matter for health authorities to determine how to make the savings, and when, provided that they achieve the overall target by the end of 1998–99. Progress towards the £8 million savings will be monitored through health authority annual accounts when the information becomes available.

  Health Service Car Leasing Schemes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities and health trusts on car leasing schemes for executive staff; and if he will make a statement. [11837]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance was issued in March 1996 in circular DGM(96)59 and repeated in DGM(96)125 issued in June 1996. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the car leasing scheme of Dyfed-Powys health authority which was amended in 1996; and if he will make a statement on that scheme. [11836]

  Mr. Jones
  None. The scheme is a matter for the health authority.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring his Department has made of health authorities and health trusts, car leasing schemes for executive staff. [11838]

  Mr. Jones
  Statutory auditors examine schemes, and Welsh Office officials do not undertake any specific monitoring.

  North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in the negotiations between his Department and the North Wales health authority regarding the operational running costs of the proposed cancer treatment centre at Glan Clwyd national health service trust. [11720]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office officials are discussing revenue funding with the North Wales health authority and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Sea Fisheries Committees
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake to meet any future funding deficit of the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee. [11782]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No. Provision for the funding of sea fisheries committees is included in the annual local government revenue settlement. The funding of committees is a matter for the participating authorities.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to support the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee to allow it to fulfil its increased statutory responsibilities as manager of the marine environment. [11783]

  Mr. Evans
  Sea fisheries committees are one of a large number of fisheries and conservation groups which have been granted relevant authority status under EU conservative directives. It will be some time before the committees can assess what, if any, specific role they will agree to accept under these directives, and they have been advised that any resource implications will be discussed with them at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effects of the reorganisation of local authorities in Wales on the funding and effectiveness of sea fisheries committees. [11784]

  Mr. Evans
  Ministers and officials have met sea fisheries committees on several occasions to discuss this matter, and a further meeting is planned for this week. We have also written, on a number of occasions, to all the local authorities concerned, inviting them to advise us of any proposals they have for the future of sea fisheries committees. No proposals have come forward which have the support of all the authorities involved.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources will be made available if sea fisheries committees are given additional powers to develop regional management of fisheries as part of a review of the common fisheries policy. [11785]

  Mr. Evans
  There are no plans for sea fisheries committees to develop regional management of fisheries as part of a review of the common fisheries policy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total

  505
  number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9491]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  97,966

  30,948

  855

  49,335

  16,828

  Figures as at 1 October 1996.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of incapacity benefit also receive disability living allowance. [10215]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  As at 31 May 1996, 641,0001 claimants of incapacity benefit were also in receipt of disability living allowance.
  1Five per cent. scan of the incapacity benefit and disability living allowance computer systems. Excludes a small number of cases paid clerically.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls received by the benefit fraud hotline can be related to the Sheffield area; and if he will make a statement. [10303]

  Mr. Heald
  The numbers of calls for each individual area are not recorded separately. However, for the Sheffield area, the number of referrals for fraud investigation, generated by calls to the hotline, is 1,169 as at 22 November 1996.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance was issued in respect of new arrangements affecting maximum earnings and allowed expenses for those in receipt of invalid care allowance; and on what date; [10332]

  (2) when the new arrangements for invalid care allowance come into effect. [10333]

  Mr. Burt
  The Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 and Social Security (Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996 came into force on 25 November 1996.

  For those claiming invalid care allowance for the first time after this date, a leaflet explaining the changes has been inserted in the claim pack. After the regulations had been laid before the House, but before the changes came into force, the Benefits Agency issued a loose-leaf notice in copies of the autumn edition of "Touchbase" magazine. "Touchbase" goes to approximately 90,000 organisations and bodies including libraries, citizens advice bureaux and associations representing carers. Additionally, when a case is due for review, and it appears that the customer will be affected, the customer is notified of the changes.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employers sought to avoid 506
  the payment of national insurance contributions by using shares and share options in ways which the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1996 will prohibit in the last year. [10415]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, these provisions are expected to increase contributions revenue by about £30 million a year.

  Centenarians
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women who are over 100 years of age living in the United Kingdom are in receipt of a state retirement pension. [10883]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at 31 March 1996, there were 1,440 men and 7,960 women who were over 100 years of age living in Great Britain and in receipt of a state retirement pension.

  For the numbers of men and women who are over 100 years of age living in Northern Ireland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Notes:1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample.2. State retirement pension comprises contributory retirement pension, non-contributory retirement pension and graduated retirement benefit.Source:"The Retirement Pension Bi-Annual Enquiry" at 31 March 1996.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the results of the survey of service standards in the Benefits Agency medical services. [10992]

  Mr. Burt
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual running cost of the Benefits Agency medical services. [10995]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 5 November 1996,Official Report, column 555.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that weather stations situated in Wales be used for monitoring in respect of cold weather payments for all postcode areas in Wales. [11425]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. Postcodes are linked to specified weather stations based on expert advice from the Meteorological Office as to similarity of climate and not according to administrative boundaries.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what work has been carried out for his Department to determine the effect of wind chill on
  507
  buildings; what has been the role of the Building Research Establishment executive agency in this work; and if he will make a statement. [11277]

  Mr. Evans
  Traditionally, wind chill is a concept designed to show the impact of wind on humans in the outside air and not its impact on buildings.

  Advice received from the Meteorological Office—recommendations by the Meteorological Office for the summer of 1996 review of the cold weather payment scheme (August 1996)—placed in the Library, October 1996—suggested that, for much of the country, the effects of wind are too small and highly variable for there to be merit in reviewing the cold weather payment scheme for it, but invited the Government to decide whether further work was appropriate.

  As said—to the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (18 December 1996, Official Report, column 10) and in the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill Second Reading debate (17 January 1997, Official Report, column 593)—the merits of this approach will be considered as part of this summer's review.

  Benefits Agency (Property Sales)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the Benefits Agency offices which have been assessed as (i) core, (ii) flexible and (iii) surplus in his Department's proposal to sell the property estate. [11002]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  The proposed transfer of responsibility for the DSS estate aims to improve value for money, increase ability to match accommodation to changing operational needs, and bring in private sector expertise in managing estates, leaving the Benefits Agency to concentrate on benefit delivery.

  The Benefits Agency has reviewed its future estates needs and, for the purpose of the procurement, categorised its accommodation in three ways:
  Core means an expected continued need for accommodation over the full 20-year duration of the proposed contract;
  Flexible means that the agency will be able, but not committed to, vacate such property over a period of years should that reflect operational needs. It does not mean a formal decision to leave the accommodation at any particular time;
  Surplus means it is not required from the start of the contract. The agency is currently paying for a considerable amount of unoccupied space.

  Any proposed office closures continue to be subject to the normal consultation process, including ministerial approval.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the bidders for the Benefits Agency's property estate are led by British companies. [11003]

  Mr. Evans
  The three consortiums bidding to provide the DSS with serviced accommodation are:

  Mapley Holdings Ltd.

  Partnership Property Management Ltd. (PPM)

  OPUS.

  508
  The first two are led by American banks, Goldman Sachs and Nations bank, and the third by the Japanese bank, Nomura. However, each consortium bidding to provide the Department with serviced accommodation, includes property and facilities management companies, many of which are British and all the consortiums have appointed British chairman and are likely to appoint British chief executives.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has had with trade unions regarding the sale of the Benefits Agency's property estate. [11004]

  Mr. Evans
  The departmental trade unions have been consulted on the outcome of the feasibility study regarding the potential for such a transaction, the decision to implement the transfer of the estate to the private sector and the progress of the project since that decision.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultation period he has provided before determining the nature of the sale of the property estate of the Benefits Agency; what estimate he has made of the revenue accruing from the sale; and what redundancies he estimates will ensue. [11005]

  Mr. Evans
  In September 1995, the Department commissioned a feasibility study to identify and consider options for the future ownership and management of the departmental estate and announced the decision to implement the transfer on 28 June 1996. The details of the transfer, which is part of the Department's estate transaction, are part of the on-going negotiations with three consortiums and will continue following the identification of the single preferred supplier.

  The successful consortiums will be required to pay £250 million on completion of the contract to realise the immediate underlying value of the estate and the remaining value will be achieved through reduced running costs.

  If jobs transfer to the private sector, it is envisaged that the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. It will be necessary to reorganise the contract management arrangements and we will always seek to redeploy staff. Compulsory redundancies will be avoided wherever possible.

  Income Support (Mortgage Interest)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Treasury's current assumed rate of interest on mortgage repayments used to assess payments for people in receipt of housing benefit on their mortgages. [11052]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The standard rate of interest used to calculate payments of income support mortgage interest is currently 6.89 per cent. This figure is the weighted average of the rates charged by the main building societies; it is based on statistics provided monthly by the Office for National Statistics. Movements of plus or minus 0.25 per cent. trigger a change in the standard rate.

  Help with mortgage interest is paid with income support and not as housing benefit.
  509
  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the dates and changes made in the Treasury assumed rate of interest on mortgage repayments used to assess housing benefit over the past 12 months. [11053]

  Mr. Evans
  Changes in the standard interest rate set by the Department and used to calculate income support mortgage interest—not housing benefit—over the past 12 months are as follows:

  Rate (per cent.)

  Date of commencement

  8.00

  21 January 1996

  7.74

  21 April 1996

  7.48

  23 June 1996

  7.16

  25 August 1996

  6.89

  15 December 1996

  War Pensions
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of Social Security if he will make a statement on the proposals to change the rules on backdating of awards to war pensioners in respect of ex-military service men who face a disablement not originally recognized as being caused by military service where medical evidence proves at some later date that military service was the cause of the disablement with particular reference to Gulf war syndrome. [11362]
  510
  Mr. Heald
  Under the war pensions scheme, awards may be made in respect of any disablement which is attributable to service. Where a claim is made within seven years of termination of service—which is the case for all claims received so far in respect of service in the Gulf—the onus is on the Secretary of State to show beyond reasonable doubt that service has played no part in the cause or course of the claimed disablement. The benefit of any reasonable doubt is always given to the claimant.

  Where a claim has been rejected solely on the ground that medical opinion is that the aetiology of particular condition is such that it is not caused by service, and there is a subsequent change in medical opinion on that issue, the Secretary of State may review his decision and make an award. He has the discretion to make the award for any period preceding the date of his review.

  In order to simplify administration of the scheme and reduce the cost of delivery, it is proposed that where there is a change of medical opinion, any resulting award will be backdated for a maximum of one year preceding the review. No final decision on this proposal will be taken until comments from members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions—who have been consulted on the change— have been fully considered. Any amendment to the law will apply to all changes of medical opinion, including any which affect conditions claimed due to service in the Gulf.

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

Public Interest Immunity
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for encouraging bodies not covered by the Statement made on 18th December on public interest immunity certificates to adopt practices and procedures similar to those now adopted by the Government.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, my Statement to the House on 18th December last set out the Government's new approach to public interest immunity. Although their policy is not binding on non-governmental bodies, the Government believe that their new approach, as explained in the report which has been placed in the Library, is likely to inform the approach taken by non-governmental bodies. It will continue to be for the courts to supervise public interest immunity claims both by the Government and by non-governmental bodies.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for that Answer. Does he not agree that the key basis for that Statement, which was made just before Christmas, was that the only ground for claiming public interest immunity was the belief that the disclosure would cause real harm? How do the Government expect that policy, which is to be enforced at governmental level, to be practised by the police, local authorities, health authorities and others? Is it simply a wish on the part of the Government, or are any guidelines to be issued? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether requests for public interest immunity certificates by non-governmental bodies show an upward or a downward trend?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the principle underlying the sustaining of public interest immunity certificates by the courts has been well understood as being damage likely to be caused to the functioning of the public service by the disclosure of the document in question and, in a case where it is sustained, that it is greater than the damage that would be done to the cause of justice by not disclosing in that particular case. I believe that the Government's Statement simply emphasised—perhaps more clearly than before—that that would also be the leading criterion in practice and, in particular, that an automatic reliance on classifications might obscure the real principle behind the doctrine. As I said in my Answer, I think that, once explained, that principle will inform the approach of non-governmental bodies in the future.
376
I am not able to say at present whether there is any particular trend in applications by non-governmental bodies in this respect.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in the recent Court of Appeal decision, Taylor v. Anderton, a claim for public interest immunity was successfully advanced by a chief constable for a class of documents—reports of officers investigating complaints against the police? Is any means available to the Government, short of legislation, to ensure that such claims—which the Government under their new policy would not themselves advance—stop?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain, but I rather think that the Police Complaints Authority may have made that intervention. On the general law, in my submission, the principle is plain: the Court of Appeal was applying it in the case to which the noble Lord referred. It is perhaps worth pointing out in this connection that in his report on the matter Sir Richard Scott stated in the opening sentence of section K6.1:
"The law on public interest immunity in civil and in criminal trials is judge made. I do not believe that legislative intervention is necessary or, at present, desirable".
That is a part of the report which was instrumental in producing the result of the government Statement to which I have referred.

EU Policies and Developing Countries
2.41 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made within the EU on the rationalisation and integration of aid, trade and development policies towards the third world, and also on the reform of internal EU policies where these inhibit development in the third world.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the European Community's trade and development co-operation policies towards developing countries are brought together in the Lomé Convention and in other formal agreements with particular countries and regions. We shall continue to press for greater coherence in this area, including improved access for developing country products and further reform of internal policies such as the CAP.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she not agree that as a matter of urgency we must bring together the triplicated aid administration within the European Union into one directorate which can be clearly accountable and efficient? Does she also not agree that it is high time that the EU aid programme was genuinely poverty focused, both geographically and within individual countries, and that trade preferences were geared to helping the poor; to promoting sustainable development; and, perhaps above all, to

377
ensuring that the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy, with subsidised exports being dumped on the third world and undercutting local agricultural production, were reformed once and for all so that they work in harmony with the aid programme and not against it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to each of the noble Lord's questions is yes. Perhaps I may add that it is crucial that we get three things right: the framework for European development assistance, its allocation, and the management arrangements. I have pressed for that for a very long while, including in a speech last October at a Bradford University conference on future EC policy. We have put it on the agenda for next month's informal Development Council so that we can discuss the coherence which is so vital and which underlies all of the noble Lord's questions.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is trade through increased inward investment, not aid, that should drive both donors and recipients? Is that a likely approach for any successor Lomé Convention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that that is so. A substantial work programme on trade liberalisation, particularly through the WTO, has been agreed. However, we need far better trade arrangements under the successor to Lomé IV. A Commission Green Paper on EU relations with the ACP post-2000 sets out various possibilities for future trade arrangements and is now being considered by member states. My concern has always been that some countries within the Community do not accept that access for developing country products is one of the most valuable ways of helping those countries to stand on their own feet. All British aid is devoted to that end.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House what proportion of the total British aid budget is channelled through the European Union? Is the Minister satisfied with the direction that that aid takes and that a disproportionate amount does not go to eastern European countries instead of deserving third world countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, just over 50 per cent. of aid is channelled through multilateral institutions. I am satisfied that there is now better management. We have put a great deal of effort into achieving better management of spending by Brussels of member states' money. We have made monitoring and evaluation systems and personnel available to the European Commission. We have tried to work with the Commission in the best interests of developing countries. As far as concerns the split between the emerging countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and the rest of the world, we have insisted that the European Union concentrate its aid where it can do most good—on the poorest—and that means the
378
poorest within countries. I believe that the balance is about right, but it is something that must be watched. I have never made any secret of that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that all of the nations in the European Union make a reasonable contribution to the policies referred to in the Question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that most countries try their best. Some countries with wide bilateral programmes have greater experience than others with limited bilateral programmes, and have a better chance of succeeding, but we try to help one another.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree it is ridiculous that Britain should give aid to a country like Zimbabwe which produces very good tobacco but hamper its trade in tobacco by subsidising the growth of very inferior tobacco in Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we need greater coherence in all Union policies. The British aid programme has not provided any assistance for tobacco growing for many years. We believe that there must be rationalisation of the kinds of inconsistencies that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what proportion of our bilateral and EU aid to the poorest countries of the world goes to the poorest people, that is, the social sector, to give them the help that they really need so that they can stand on their own feet? I am referring to health and education. Has that aid gone up or gone down in real terms rather than simply as a proportion of our diminishing bilateral aid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, approximately 70 per cent. of British bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries. We have increased the amount spent on primary education, health and family planning. I cannot give the noble Lord the exact percentages at the Dispatch Box, but I will drop him a line on the subject. Within the particular country we seek to choose our projects with non-governmental organisations to target those who can benefit most. Undoubtedly, they will be the poorest. However, it is a very complicated matrix and generalised answers do not always provide the detail of how much is being done in primary education and particularly in family planning and primary health care—which are the essentials—together with water conservation and simple sanitation systems. We intend to continue to concentrate on those areas and persuade our colleagues in other member states to do likewise.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the Minister say more about the co-ordination of policy within the European Union? There are very disturbing reports that the common fisheries policy is undermining fishing communities in third world countries which are utterly

379
dependent on fishing for their livelihood. Does the Minister agree it is absolutely mad that British taxpayers should pay money through the aid programme to support people who are victims of the common agricultural policy by the dumping of food on the third world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, so far as the common fisheries policy is concerned, there is an EC third country fisheries agreement. Those policies should always be consistent with the Community's wider policies towards developing countries. As the noble Lord will know, a committee of this House is now studying EC third country fisheries agreements and will publish a report shortly. We look forward to that report. We believe it will help us make the case that we have already been making in the Commission.
We asked the Commission for a proposal for the reform of the beef regime, and indeed the dairy regime, this year. We await that proposal. We also feel it absolutely crucial to stop the nonsense of subsidised exports of beef to southern Africa which impede local beef production and exports, particularly in Namibia. All those matters are being managed. However, it is quite a battle to make the whole business coherent. That is why I made the comment about holding a discussion on coherence at the informal Development Council at the beginning of next month.

EU Law: Budget Proposal
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Commission's proposal to spend approximately £4 million to help lawyers and judges improve their knowledge of European Union law was featured in the Commission's budget for 1997 and, if so, under what title and chapter; and whether the proposal was made at the specific request of the Council of Ministers or any individual member state.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proposal was included in the 1997 European Communities draft budget. The title was, B5-3 Internal Market, and the chapter heading was B5-30 Measures concerning the internal market. Under the proposal, 5.6 million ecu, equivalent to £4.2 million, would be provided during 1997-99, of which 1.6 million ecu or £1.2 million would fall due in 1997. This is a Commission initiative. It was not the result of a request by the Council of Ministers or by the United Kingdom, and the Government are not aware of any request from individual member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I express my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government on having rejected the Commission's proposal? However, are the Government aware that there is no such thing as European common law or European statute law? The treaty is all that there is. All that lawyers are invited to do is distinguish the significance that the European Court of Justice is likely to place on the use of the
380
preamble to the treaty, and the preamble and recitals of each regulation directive that comes forward. In most cases those exceed the text of the so-called law itself.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all Community legislation might be regarded as statutory in the sense that it is made by organs of the Community. In so far as it has effect in this country, it is by virtue of the European Communities Act and Acts amending the same. So far as the construction of European legislation is concerned, the preamble, where there is one, may be of consequence along with the other parts of the instrument in question. The European Court of Justice, which is not exceptional, seeks to construe the instrument as a whole, including its full text and preamble.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the complexity of European law is due mainly to the obligation on the part of member states to harmonise their law under the Treaty of Rome, as amended; and that with 15 nations with 11 different languages and a number of different legal systems, that process has become very nearly impossible? Is my noble and learned friend further aware that Herr Rolf Wagenbaur, the eminent German lawyer who was largely responsible for advising the Commission on this matter until his retirement 18 months ago, advised that there should be fewer European laws, and that they should be better?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to dissent from the very succinct advice that my noble friend quoted at the end of his question. The first consideration relates to the need for a law. Where it is shown to be necessary, it should be as clear and succinct as possible. Where there is complexity, we should aim at simplification; however, where the existing law is complex it has to some extent to do with the nature of the problems being addressed by the law. Some areas of our own law might, for example, be regarded as somewhat complex.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does this attempt to train lawyers also apply to other professions that will work across the boundaries; or is it the case that the well-known moderation demonstrated by lawyers in relation to their charges will not be able to stand the cost of their training themselves?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the short answer (though I am tempted to give the longer one) may be the wiser. This particular initiative deals only with lawyers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I accept the interpretation given of the whole question by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. However, will he accept that the complexities to which he refers are in part due to the powers given to the Commission to be the sole interpreters, short of the court itself, of the provisions of the treaty? Does he further accept that the

381
Commission's advice on various sections is very often contradictory and sometimes, I regret to say, unintelligible?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps the more unintelligible the interpretation, the less harm it can do. I agree that these matters are difficult. Anything that can properly advance understanding, skill and simplicity is to be supported. On the other hand, for reasons set out in the memorandum on this proposal, the Government took the view that this is not a particularly wise way to spend this sort of money.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say whether the Government are sympathetic to the view that those in initial training in the legal profession face very difficult financial circumstances, and that were money to be spent, it would be better spent at that stage to enable the rising generation of lawyers to be fully conversant with European laws?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the subject matter of European law is included in syllabuses for those seeking to enter the legal profession. Sustaining those aspects of the syllabus costs money. It is desirable that on entry to the profession those who seek to qualify should have an understanding of European law.

Northumbrian Water: Fluoridation Decision
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the board of directors of Northumbrian Water is entitled to refuse to accede to the request from eight health authorities to improve the dental health of their clients by extending fluoridisation of their water supplies to some 1.7 million residents in the north east.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the interpretation of Northumbrian Water's powers and responsibilities under the Water Industry Act 1991 is a question for the water undertakers initially, but ultimately for the courts.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Do the Government agree that failing to fluoridate water supplies is contrary to the interests of public health? Does the Minister further agree that legislation needs amending in order to make fluoridation mandatory once health authorities have decided that the move would have significant public health benefits to the population and particularly to children?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we agree with my noble friend that fluoridation is a very cost-effective and
382
clinically effective way of preventing tooth decay. That is especially true in children, but it also has long-term effects in adults. We also believe that it is a matter for local decision. Legislation is already in place to enable water companies to fluoridate at the request of health authorities once they have consulted with the general public. We encourage water companies to consider such requests very carefully.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the water authority took this action were the people in the area receiving fluoridation? If so, is it not high-handed for the water authority to withdraw such a measure, which is a proven health guard for children's teeth on a massive scale?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that Northumbrian Water is an amalgamation of previous water boards and that parts of the area which it now covers were receiving and continue to receive fluoridated water. However, the areas which were not previously fluoridated remain that way, which is a decision of the water company.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the three water companies in northeast England, which are now joined together as Northumbrian Water, have consistently over many years accepted the guidance of health authorities in this regard and that fluoridation has always been a highly controversial subject? The problem for the companies is that they must make the final decision and, as this is a social rather than a business issue, they strongly believe that legislation needs to be altered. Is my noble friend aware of the recent discussions between the Water Companies Association, the Fluoridation Society and the British Dental Association, all of which agreed that there should be legislative change?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying the situation as regards Northumbrian Water. We believe that the legislation is adequate. We understand that between water authorities there is some difference in regard to its interpretation and the department has prepared guidance which is almost ready to be circulated. It is still in draft form and we have consulted widely on it. We hope to circulate it in the spring.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, as honorary president of the Fluoridation Society—I receive no emoluments—I am disturbed by the Minister's interpretation of the Water Act. Is the Minister aware that the Act was amended to make it perfectly clear that if the health authorities do their work correctly—that is, get in touch with all the persons concerned, have a public meeting at which fluoridation is agreed, and then ask the water authorities for that to be done—fluoridation can be put into operation and the water companies cannot say, "No, we are not playing the game"? It seems strange that the Government do not know whether they are coming or going.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government are definitely

383
coming. She has clearly stated the situation as she sees it as honorary president of the Fluoridation Society. It is a matter for local decision-making and we believe that Northumbrian Water has acted within its powers. However, we believe that there is room for further clarification and that is why we shall be publishing a circular in the spring.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, her time being limited, did not of course mention that Birmingham has had fluoridated water for longer than any other area of the country and has by far the best dental health in the country. Has my noble friend seen the press release on this subject which was put out by Northumbrian Water? In that it gives its doubt about the legality as its reason for refusal. Following the lengthy Strathclyde case, it was made plain that there was no clear right to put fluoride in the water. For that reason, in 1985 the Fluoride Act was passed by Parliament. Therefore, is it not wrong for the water authority to make a commercial decision—it is quite entitled to make a decision on such grounds—but then to hide behind the test of possible legal doubt when Parliament has passed an Act to permit the measure?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that Northumbrian Water acted within its powers. It also acknowledged that fluoridation improves dental health. However, if the health authorities are concerned that the decision was unreasonable they have recourse to the courts.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is good news that the Department of Health will be issuing further guidance on the matter. However, can the noble Baroness today give a little more clarification to local health authorities? Are the Government prepared to allow the situation which appears to have developed in Northumbria and elsewhere throughout the country, in which local health authorities are spending hard-pressed, much valued NHS resources on local consultation as regards fluoridation, only then to be told by privatised water companies that that cannot go ahead? There appears to be a strange balance of priorities.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the situation is clear with regard to the Act. As I have said, as with a lot of legislation, people choose to interpret it differently. The guidance which will be issued in the spring will set the matter clear once and for all.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all the water from natural sources in this country contains fluoride—it is a natural ingredient—and that the optimum percentage already exists in certain areas? Does she agree that if the matter is left to individuals to ingest fluoride they can take far too much, resulting in, for example, discolouration of the teeth?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as my noble friend said, fluoride is a natural product in some water. However, the intention of the Act is to ensure that where
384
there is not sufficient to prevent dental caries more can be added. Mottling occurs when fluoride is at a much higher level. Although that is not harmful it is certainly found to be unattractive. I believe there is nothing further to say.

Architects Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It consolidates the law relating to architects which dates back to two pre-war Acts which established a system of registration of architects and prohibited use of the title "architect" by unregistered persons. Those Acts have since been amended both by primary legislation and by Orders in Council implementing the EC directive on architects, providing for the recognition of architects qualified in other EC states.
Most recently, a number of reforms were carried into law last Session as Part III of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The main purpose of the changes to the law relating to architects made by that Act was to rename and revise the composition of the Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom, the body responsible for the registration of architects, and to modernise the arrangements for disciplining registered architects. The changes were effected by large-scale textual amendment of the pre-war Acts, adding to the desirability of the present consolidation. The relevant professional bodies have been consulted about the Bill, and it has been welcomed by the Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom and by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
In common with the two following consolidation Bills, this Bill will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills if your Lordships are content to give it a Second Reading. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in thanking the draftsmen of all three Bills for continuing their important work in preparing consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will be aware that Her Majesty appoints a lord lieutenant for each county in England and Wales or area in Scotland. The lord lieutenant appoints deputy lieutenants. Her Majesty may also appoint one or more "lieutenants" for each county or area. The lord lieutenant, lieutenant and deputy lieutenants of a county or area perform a number of statutory and non-statutory functions in the area for

385
which they are appointed. The system is slightly different in the City of London and in certain cities in Scotland.
This Bill consolidates provisions in the Reserve Forces Act 1980 relating to the lieutenancies. Those provisions, themselves a consolidation of numerous earlier enactments dating back to 1662, have been heavily amended since 1994 in relation to local government reorganisation. Further amendments to the 1980 Act are made by Schedule 6 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and this consolidation is therefore a timely one.
As lords lieutenants now have relatively few functions relating to defence, it is thought more appropriate for the law relating to them to be separated out from the legislation governing the reserve forces. The Bill contains all the general statutory provisions relating to the appointment, jurisdiction and functions of lord lieutenants, lieutenants and deputy lieutenants in Great Britain. It does not include a few remaining provisions conferring specific functions on lord lieutenants or deputy lieutenants; these are best left in their existing statutory context. Most of the functions of lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants are now non-statutory.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I take it that this consolidation Bill has been brought about because of reorganisation in local government as much as anything else. Clause 5 on page 3 of the Bill relates to the clerk of the lieutenancy. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether it is correct that, where a new authority is created, deputy clerks cannot be appointed as well as clerks.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on this aspect of the matter the Bill is a consolidation of the existing law and therefore the statutory provision to which the noble Lord refers to in Clause 5 on page 3 is the present statutory position. If a power to appoint deputy clerks were implied, it would be implied in this respect also. No change in the law is made in this respect by the consolidation.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 established the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and National Boards for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and made provision for the administration of the three professions. The 1979 Act has been extensively amended by the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1992 which reorganised the statutory bodies and
386
made other changes. A considerable number of more limited amendments have been made by other legislation. This Bill, which extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, consolidates the 1979 Act with all these amendments.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Appointment of Members of the Service of Authorities.]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Other Provisions about Members of Service Authorities.]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 58, line 8, leave out ("appointed by the Authority") and insert ("or of any other member of NCIS or, as the case may be, the National Crime Squad (other than a member appointed by the Director General by virtue of section 9(8) or 55(8))").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 already prohibits the police members of the service authorities from voting on motions to censure the directors general of NCIS and the National Crime Squad. This reflects the concerns of the police service itself that the police members of the service authorities should not sit in judgment on their senior colleagues running the two services. The amendment extends the prohibition to include other permanent senior police members of the services who will hold the rank of assistant chief constable and the senior civilian members of the services appointed by the service authorities. This ensures that the police members of the service authorities are unable to vote on motions censuring any of their senior police colleagues in the two services. The

387
extension to the senior civilian members who will hold posts of roughly equal status is consistent with the wider policy aim of ensuring that the civilian staff are treated, as far as possible, the same as their police counterparts.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 'Removal of Director General by the Authority.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 22, after ("to") insert ("section 21 or to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 14, 19, 20 and 186. I have already given notice of these amendments and provided a brief explanation of the reasons for them, which I will now repeat for the record.
Clauses 21 and 66 enable the service authorities to pay to their employees and officers pensions and gratuities. The directors general and permanent police members of NCIS and the National Crime Squad will be appointees and the amendments to Clauses 21 and 66 put beyond doubt that the service authorities will be able to pay pensions to them.
It is the Government's intention that pensions paid to the directors general and the permanent police members will be consistent with the pensions they would have received had they remained with the police force. These amendments will therefore require the service authorities to have regard to the Police Pensions Act 1976 or the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions in exercising their powers to pay pensions to the directors general and the permanent police members.
As an additional safeguard, the service authorities will be required to seek the Secretary of State's consent before exercising their powers to pay pensions to the senior police members. In practice the Secretary of State will be able to assure himself that the pension scheme to apply to the senior police members is consistent with the scheme for their senior colleagues in police forces.
The amendments to Clauses 7 and 53 are consequential on the amendments to Clauses 21 and 66.
It is not necessary for the Bill to make similar provisions for the police officers seconded to NCIS and the National Crime Squad. Police officers from forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain members of their police forces for pensions-related purposes while seconded to the services. The amendments to Schedule 9 ensure that the same applies to Scottish police officers seconded to NCIS or to PITO. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Levies Issued by NCIS Service Authority.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 59, line 38, leave out ("the Secretary of State may prescribe") and insert ("may be prescribed").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 5, 1 shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 17 and 18. These amendments to
388
Schedules 3 and 5 are concerned with levies issued by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad service authorities respectively.
The amendments are required to ensure clarity and consistency of drafting within and between the two schedules. Amendments Nos. 5 and 17 ensure consistency with the definition of "prescribed" which appears at paragraph 1(5) of Schedules 3 and 5. Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are further technical amendments to ensure consistency of drafting, and Amendment No. 15 replaces an erroneous reference to "regulations" with "an order" and ensures consistency with Clause 62. Amendment No. 16 is consequential upon this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 60, line 30, leave out ("may specify") and insert ("considers appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Pensions and gratuities]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
("(1A) The NCIS Service Authority may—

(a) pay, or make payments in respect of, such pensions or gratuities as it may determine, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to or in respect of any persons who are or have been the Director General of NCIS or police members of NCIS to whom section 9(2)(a) applies;

(b) provide and maintain such schemes (whether contributory or not) as it may determine, with the consent of the Secretary of State, for the payment of pensions or gratuities to or in respect of any such persons.

(1B) Before exercising its powers under subsection (1A), the Authority shall have regard to any provision made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 or section 25(2)(k) of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.").
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("Authority's officers or employees") and insert ("persons mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Aid by and for NCIS]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 23, 183, 184, 185, 187 and 189. Clause 23 mirrors Section 24 of the Police Act 1996. It enables NCIS to assist, and to receive assistance from, police forces in England, Wales and Scotland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the National Crime Squad, in order to meet special demands on resources. This assistance may take the form of the provision of constables. Clause 23(4), as currently drafted, ensures that a constable provided by NCIS to a police force or the Royal Ulster Constabulary is under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which the NCIS constable is loaned. The amendment to Clause 23(4) will ensure that a constable provided by NCIS to assist the National Crime Squad is under the direction and control of the National Crime Squad director general.
The director general of the National Crime Squad will be liable for any wrongful acts of constables provided in this way. An amendment to Clause 86(5) is required to ensure that the National Crime Squad service authority is able to meet from its service fund any costs or damages awarded against constables loaned by NCIS in connection with proceedings for wrongful acts committed while serving with the National Crime Squad. The Bill already makes adequate provision for constables loaned from police forces.
Minor amendments are also needed to Schedule 9 to ensure that a police authority in England, Wales or Scotland and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland are similarly able to meet from police funds any costs or damages arising from the chief constable's liability for wrongful acts committed by officers loaned to the force or constabulary by NCIS. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 11, line 30, after ("Constabulary") insert ("or the National Crime Squad").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 11, line 33, at end insert ("or the Director General of that Squad").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Appeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 16, line II, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 12 and insert ("Where the Director General of NCIS, or a police member to whom section 9(2)(a) applies,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 21 and 22. These amendments ensure that the directors general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad will have access to the same appeals tribunal machinery as the permanent police members of these services, and will also place them on an equal footing with their senior colleagues in police forces.
Your Lordships will recall that following a government amendment in Committee, Clauses 38 and 82 of the Bill already ensure that permanent police members of both services will have access to a police appeals tribunal when facing dismissal or a requirement to resign. It was always our intention that this should include the directors general themselves who are permanent police members holding the rank of chief constable. These further minor amendments are necessary to bring the directors general within the scope of Clauses 38 and 82. They will in this way ensure that, as with the other permanent police members, the directors general will have access to the same appeals tribunal machinery as their senior colleagues in police forces.
As I said in Committee, similar provision is not needed for police officers seconded to NCIS or the National Crime Squad because they would
390
automatically have access to the usual police appeals machinery in their home force if there was any question that they might be dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 13, after ("37") insert ("he").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Removal of Director General by the Authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 23, line 18, after ("to") insert ("section 66 or to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Levies Issued by NCS Service Authority]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 18:
Page 62, line 18, leave out ("regulations") and insert ("an order").
Page 62, line 18, leave out ("require") and insert ("requires").
Page 62, line 44, leave out ("the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations") and insert ("may be prescribed").
Page 63, line 30, leave out ("may specify") and insert ("considers appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 66 [Pensions and gratuities]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 27, line 17, at end insert
("(I A) The NCS Service Authority may

(a) pay, or make payments in respect of, such pensions or gratuities as it may determine, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to or in respect of any persons who are or have been the Director General of the National Crime Squad or police members of the Squad to whom section 55(2)(a) applies;

(b) provide and maintain such schemes (whether contributory or not) as it may determine, with the consent of the Secretary of State, for the payment of pensions or gratuities to or in respect of any such persons.

(1B) Before exercising its powers under subsection (1A), the Authority shall have regard to any provision made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 or section 25(2)(k) of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.").
Page 27, line 20, leave out ("Authority's officers or employees") and insert ("persons mentioned in subsection (I) or (I A)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 82 [Appeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 30, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 42 and insert ("Where the Director General of the National Crime Squad, or a police member to whom section 55(2)(a) applies,").
Page 30, line 43, after ("81") insert (", he").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 86 [Liability for wrongful acts of constables etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 33, line 4, after first ("of") insert ("section 23 above or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 91
(".—(1) Where an entry on or interference with property is in respect of premises and the consent of the occupier has not been obtained to that entry or interference, an authorisation by an authorising officer given in accordance with section 91 shall, subject to subsection (2), not take effect unless it has been approved by a Commissioner appointed under section 95.
(2) Where it is not reasonably practicable to apply to a Commissioner for advance approval under subsection (1), the authorising officer may authorise the action under section 91(2) but must as soon as reasonably practicable apply to a Commissioner for approval, specifying the reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to do so before.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, and the amendments grouped with it, we move to Part III of the Bill which is almost vulgarly known as intrusive surveillance although the title of this part in the Bill is rather more bland. I apologise to the House for the lengthy list of amendments which are grouped for consideration together. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I start by explaining why there are so many and what they do.
Amendment No. 24, which, in our view, is the key amendment in this group, refers to prior judicial approval of intrusive surveillance in the form of approval by a commissioner appointed under Clause 95. In order to make that amendment workable it is necessary that there should be not one commissioner but a body of commissioners. The provisions of Clause 95 and other clauses which provide for a body of commissioners rather than a single commissioner are contained in a whole series of amendments starting with Amendment No. 51.
I should say at this stage that the Government have also produced a version of this series of amendments which starts with Amendment No. 50 and includes all the amendments grouped with it. The Government's intention in increasing the office of commissioner from one person to a body is virtually identical to ours, except that they propose that there should be a chief commissioner and other commissioners rather than a body of more equal commissioners as we propose. I
392
have no strong feelings on the matter. If Amendment No. 24 is accepted and there is to be more than one commissioner, I should be quite content to follow the form proposed in the Government's amendments rather than that proposed in our amendments, if the Government feel strongly enough about the matter to press me to that conclusion.
However, our amendment on prior judicial authorisation by a commissioner also requires that the whole role and remit of the commissioner, or the body of commissioners, should be strengthened. Amendments in this group seek to do that.
Amendment No. 65 refers to the need for an assurance that the commissioners would have enough staff to do the job that is required of them. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 69, which would provide that the commissioners rather than the Secretary of State would decide on the size and composition of the staff.
My Amendment No. 74 refers to the need for the commissioner to review every authorisation which is given. That, in turn, is echoed by government Amendment No. 76. I do not feel strongly about whether my amendment or the government amendment should be the one accepted.
Amendment No. 77 provides that any complaints against the decision of the commissioner should be considered under rules laid down in the relevant section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment No. 80 would restore the right of appeal of a complainant against the determination by a commissioner. Finally, although I summarise, Amendment No. 89 would remove the restriction in the commissioner's activities which require him only to operate under judicial review criteria. It provides instead that he should act, as necessary, in accordance with the circumstances in the case rather than having to rely on a decision, of which he is disapproving, being perverse.
In addition to those amendments in my name, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has indicated that he wishes Amendments Nos. 26, 29, 34 and 39, which stand in his name, to be considered in the same debate. I readily agree to that. It is clearly sensible that the different options for judicial authorisation of intrusive surveillance should be considered together. The noble Lord will recognise that if my amendment is carried that does not mean that his amendments are consequential upon my amendment. Indeed, they propose a different version of authorisation from that which I propose.
With that rather lengthy introduction, for which I apologise, I return to the debate on the most fundamental issue, which exercised not only Members of the Committee but also a large part of the broadsheet and tabloid press and the people of this country over the past weeks. I do not in any way regret that debate. When I spoke on this matter in Committee I said that we had not made up our minds on a number of the issues which give rise to this debate. I hope that your Lordships will agree that in our position today we have recognised the force of the arguments put forward in particular the arguments against the Government's Bill.
I recall the words in Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who said that, contrary to what otherwise might be suggested, he was strong on crime. The noble and learned Lord said that he was steely on liberty, and supported the surveillance powers which are made statutory in this Bill and which have been exercised without statutory authority for a very considerable time. However, he said at the same time, and I agree with him, that the statutory basis, as opposed to the guidelines which were issued first in 1977 and then in 1984, is very much better than action under administrative procedures, as was provided in the previous guidelines.
The noble and learned Lord said that the fundamental principle must be that officers of the Crown cannot invade our property, and if they do so their action would be illegal. That, I believe, is the fundamental issue that your Lordships wish to address and which we, in these amendments, now address.
The fundamental point is that there should be not just independent judicial authority for intrusive surveillance, but that such authorisation should be in advance. That is the difference between us and the Government despite the welcome amendments, to which I shall return in a moment. However, if there is to be judicial authorisation of intrusive surveillance, that judicial authorisation must be effective in the sense that it is not merely nominal formal authorisation but real authorisation by somebody who knows what he or she is doing. It also must be effective; it must not hold up recognition of the need for being tough on crime, for effective policing in pursuit of the prevention and detection of serious crime, a view which we all share.
That is why there are a number of differences in our approach and that of the Government, and of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. The first difference is that our amendment is more concerned with premises than with property. I am not a lawyer but there are legal definitions of premises and property, and in common parlance we all know what we mean. The term "premises" includes private residential homes. But it also includes workplaces, doctors' surgeries, lawyers' offices, the confessional, lock-up garages, hotel lounges and all places in which the consent of an occupier would have to be obtained before it would be possible to plant a bug without trespass and without committing an offence. Therefore, we believe that the prior judicial authorisation procedures should cover all premises, not just private residential premises, to which most of the judicial concern has been addressed.
At the same time we do not believe that it would be appropriate for prior authorisation to apply to all property. Property includes, for example, vehicles. Intrusive surveillance of vehicles would include not just the bugging of a vehicle but also the tagging of a vehicle in order to determine where it is and where it is going. There is no difference in principle between that and following a vehicle either in another vehicle, a helicopter, or by some other means. There is no issue of civil liberty involved in that.
The issue is a practical one: can a judge or a body of judges be expected to authorise such everyday activities as the tagging of vehicles? It is for that reason that we have chosen to address in our amendment premises rather than property.
Secondly—this differentiates us from the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—we recognise that from time to time occasions arise when the police must take emergency action, where there is simply no time to go to a judge for approval before intrusive surveillance takes place. If, for example, there has been a police action against a group of drug smugglers and those people have holed up in a house where it is expected they will make plans for the next shipment, how to dispose of the last shipment, or whatever it may be, it is no good the police waiting until they have been to a judge for authorisation before they plant a bug. If they are to catch those people before they go away they will have to put a bug in straightaway. Our amendment provides that a chief officer of police can authorise a bug under those circumstances, but that he has to go as soon as is practicable to a judge for retrospective authorisation. That is an important proviso in reaching a balance between effective policing and civil liberties.
There is then the question of who the judges should be. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, proposes that they should be circuit judges. As I understand it, there are 540 circuit judges. There may be about 2,000 such authorisations a year. That means that on average each circuit judge concerned may be authorising four a year. Under those circumstances, can circuit judges acquire the expertise which enables them properly to question the case put before them by a chief officer of police? I suggest not.
It is preferable to have a body of people—in this case the surveillance commissioners—which is made up of senior judges—in other words, of a higher rank than circuit judges—who are recruited for that purpose, of whom there are, by the Government's admission, enough to do the job effectively, who will know what questions to ask, who will know what problems to identify, who will be much more confident in allowing or disallowing applications from a chief officer of police. That third difference from the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, again identifies the balance that we strike between civil liberties and effective policing. It meets both sides of the argument.
I turn now, briefly, because we shall have a later opportunity to debate them, to the Government's proposals. On Thursday of last week, shortly after we tabled our amendments, the Government changed tack considerably. I pay tribute to them for their flexibility in this. They acknowledge, as I have already said, that there should be a body of commissioners—I nearly said a corps of commissioners—rather than just one commissioner. That is welcome. They also propose in Amendments Nos. 76, and 101 to 103 that there should be a procedure of immediate notification to the commissioner of any authorisation of intrusive surveillance, and that under certain circumstances there should be the power to quash an authorisation if it is inappropriate or illegal. Those are welcome changes.
I in no way wish to criticise them, but they do not provide for the fundamental principle of prior judicial authorisation of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, reminded us, and which we have been reminded many times in recent weeks is critical to civil liberty in this country.
We are concerned not just that serious crime be pursued, but that we preserve the principle first enunciated, although not originated, in the case of Entick v. Carrington: the Englishman's home is his castle, and that officers of the Crown or the state have no right to intrude into that home without some independent justification or authority. I believe and commend strongly to your Lordships that this package of amendments provides a proper balance in a way that neither the Government's proposals nor the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, do. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has sat down, but perhaps I could say technically "before the noble Lord sits down", and ask him about a point that was not covered by him in presenting the amendment, which is pretty important to the debate. As I understand it, by Amendment No. 80 the noble Lord has removed Clause 96(4). If that is the case, it suggests that the commissioner, who, as the noble Lord knows, will be or will have been a senior High Court judge, could be called to court. Is that what is being suggested? He could be called to court to give evidence to justify his decision to authorise intrusive surveillance. If that is true, it would be a new departure. Would it not remove the separate function between the judiciary and investigative agencies and bring the judiciary wholly into the investigative process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the Minister's difficulty. We are on Report. It is true that, although this amendment was moved in Committee, that point was not raised from the Government Front Bench. The House is now considering the matter for the first time.
The fact that chief constables have in the past been called to court to justify their intrusive surveillance activity has been caused primarily because they were operating under administrative guidelines rather than legislation. The extended role of the commissioners that we propose largely removes the necessity for that sort of justification in court. In the Government's own proposals, and our proposals, there is a whole series of measures relating to the accountability of the commissioners, both in their action at the beginning with prior authorisation and in the way in which they consider the whole range of intrusive surveillance activity.
Nothing in our amendment takes away from the responsibility of the chief officer of police, which is provided in Clause 91, to satisfy himself that he is acting in accordance with the law in authorising his subordinate's application, which in turn goes for
396
approval to the commissioner, who is a senior judge. Our view is that there is no conflict between what is proposed for or by the commissioner and the rule of law.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, with the leave of the House, that was not the question I asked. I was asking the noble Lord whether the authorising officer—in this case the commissioner, who would be or would have been a High Court judge—would be available to be called to the court to defend the authorisation and become embroiled in the criminal investigation, as opposed merely to defending the authorisation that was made. In other words, chief constables can be brought into court to defend their decisions and to answer questions that drag them straight into the investigative process. Is the noble Lord saying that this particular commissioner would not be available to do that or that in certain circumstances he would be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is in danger of raising matters which she should raise in her speech rather than by interrogation across the Table. The answer to that question is that we have deliberately not changed the wording in Clause 91; in other words, the authorising officer is still the chief officer of police, but he needs the prior approval of the commissioner. Therefore there is no question of the commissioner being called into court.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained, for the convenience of the House I have grouped Amendment No. 26 with this group. I should perhaps make it clear now that, irrespective of the decision of the House on Amendment No. 24, my present intention is to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 26 when the time comes.
I say first to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I welcome his support, even at this late hour, for prior judicial authorisation of electronic surveillance. There is always joy when a sinner comes to repentance. I will not dwell on the long and clearly painful process through which the noble Lord has gone; I only say that I sympathise with him in relation to the difficulties created by his master in another place. Without pursuing that further, I only say—I must make this point—that my regret is that the practical proposals to which he has just referred in moving this amendment fall a long way short of what I would have hoped, given the conversion on the principle itself.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, fairly represented the differences between his amendment and the one standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lester, but I want to refer first to his and then turn to Amendment No. 26.
In the first place, I believe that we are all agreed—and this is a point which has been made constantly by the Minister herself—that decisions on bugging must be implemented with the minimum justifiable delay. That is a point she has made before and will no doubt make again. I do not want to dispute that argument from these Benches, but this would simply not be possible if some 1,300 cases, the figure for England and Wales in 1995

397
to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already referred, are to be referred to three or some other small number of commissioners. The noble Lord has not explained the actual process by which recommendations would be made by police scattered across the country and by customs officials to the judges, the commissioners, who would have to make the decisions.
On the face of it, the recommendations and the decisions would be made by fax, which is hazardous in itself and, more important, excludes any of the arguments which will necessarily have to take place between the authorising officer, if a—judicial one, and the police who make the recommendation. So far as I can judge from what we know and from what the noble Lord has said, this process would be cumbersome, unreliable and slow. It would be very unlikely to work.
The noble Lord himself drew attention to this second point: the recognition in subsection (2) of the new clause that there are circumstances when it may not be "reasonably practicable"—they are the words in the amendment—to authorise action through a judicial source. I find this profoundly disturbing, because if we believe that urgent action is always necessary and it is necessary to reconcile operational needs with the need for judicial authorisation, then to have a let-out subsection of this kind is very dangerous. It will certainly allow the police sometimes to act without judicial authorisation; and, beyond that, given that the police will have to give approval and that the commissioners will have to give approval at a later date, it seems to me to be a formula for indecision and muddle. Indeed, it would be the worst of all worlds.
The third point is the most powerful one and one which I hope your Lordships will examine this afternoon. That is the dual role for the commissioners which now seems to be proposed. In the Bill as it stands, the police decide, the commissioners review. In Amendment No. 26, my amendment, the police recommend, the judge decides, the commissioners review. But in the amendment on the Marshalled List by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the police recommend and the commissioners decide, except when the police still decide, in which case the commissioners approve and the commissioners review. Therefore, the commissioners will be both making the decisions in most cases and then reviewing them after an interval—reviewing their own decisions.
If it is right to believe, as we do, that the police should not recommend and approve, then it must be wrong for the commissioners to be in a position of deciding and then reviewing their own decisions. I believe that this is a very serious flaw indeed in the new clause put before the House by the noble Lord. He may not have intended it to have that effect. We shall wait and see. But if indeed he means what he says in this amendment, that alone is a sufficient reason for saying that these proposals do not meet the need for judicial authorisation without introducing another and very dangerous drawback.
I turn to the amendment standing in my name, put down in Committee but not then pressed to a Division. I say to those noble Lords who have not previously
398
given their mind to this very difficult matter that it takes nothing away from the fight against serious and organised crime to which this Bill is mainly addressed. It does not deny the need for electronic surveillance for bugging. (It is an ugly word for an ugly deed.) It does not deny the need for this in the fight against crime. It does not oppose giving statutory form to a practice previously regulated only by Home Office guidelines.
The amendment is clear, it is simple, it is narrow. It says that if we are to incorporate into statute law the right of the police to bug our homes, a judge should make that decision. I well understand that in drafting the Bill Ministers on advice believed that it was reasonable to incorporate into statute arrangements which they understood had already worked well. I make no heavy-handed criticism of Ministers on that point. However, we all caught up with the full implications of this matter in our debates in Committee. Six weeks have since elapsed, and I am sorry that there has been no ministerial change of heart on the essential central principle of judicial authorisation.
The first argument against judicial authorisation was put by the Minister herself on Second Reading on 11th November. She said:
"There is the danger of the judiciary becoming too involved in the investigative process and of its impartiality being called into question".—[official Report, 11/11/96; col. 837.]
This seems so improbable that Ministers were asked whether consultations had taken place with the judiciary to determine this point of view. The reply of the Minister in her letter dated 18th December, which she placed in the Library, was this:
"We have taken account of what several judges who have been involved in this type of work have said".
However, I am not quite clear what type of work that is, as judges have not been authorising bugging hitherto. It seems a very casual and flawed way of approaching such an important and sensitive matter. With the passing of time the argument of impartiality has receded. It does not really stand up; I believe that Ministers know that it does not.
There is then the argument that judges are busy people and do not have the time. They are certainly busy people, but as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there are 500 circuit judges in England and Wales; there were 1,300 police authorisations in 1995, and indeed there were 2,100 throughout the United Kingdom in 1995, including those recommended by police and customs officers. This means, as the noble Lord himself said, fewer than three authorisations per head, which hardly looks like an intolerable burden, although obviously, and I concede this, the load would not be so evenly spread and some judges would have a considerably heavier load than others.
What I do not understand, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may return to it at a later stage, is why the circuit judges are expected to develop some special expertise. The recommendation will come to them. There will, I hope, under the proposal in Amendment No. 26, be dialogue between the police and the circuit judges and the circuit judges will make a decision. Although the Minister herself has argued that

399
operational experience seems to be relevant, without that being substantiated in any significant way I cannot see how it carries weight.
The third argument is that in an operational matter—that is the expression used by the Minister—the judges will lack the relevant practical experience, which I suppose means experience which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says they will have no time to gain. But, as I said, it is not at all clear why the judges, faced with the recommendation from the police and with the guidelines in front of them, will not be competent to make such decisions.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in Committee that the circuit judges would not have in-depth knowledge of a particular police force. He did not explain why they needed such in-depth knowledge of a particular police force and it may well be that he will do so today. But until that is clear, again I can see no objection of substance to a circuit judge being competent to perform that function.
As for the commissioners, to whom I have already referred, let me say again that it is, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, for them to review whether those who have granted authorisations have acted properly. That is entirely retrospective, after the bugging has taken place and any damage has been done. I do not believe that the commissioners can be expected, under the Bill as written, to perform the function of judicial authorisation, which is not what they are there for. But, as I said, I feel that there are grave objections to the commissioners both authorising bugging and then reviewing their own actions, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would have it.
Finally, faced with the fact of successful judicial authorisation abroad, the Minister said in her letter of 18th December—for which I thank her:
"We understand that such systems tend to be slow and bureaucratic".
But, as the Minister herself knows, that is a cautious verdict. When Ministers say "I understand", it means "I am led to believe but I cannot put my hand on my heart and say it is so. I understand very much at second hand and then it is a view which could still be disputed". But even if that is sometimes the case, there is no reason why we should not do better with a procedure which is both effective and speedy.
The Minister said in her letter of 18th December that:
"given our system and traditions, it would not be right to extend the role of the judiciary in this way".
But one of our traditions—it is a great deal more than that because it is one of our freedoms also—is that an Englishman's home is his castle, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, reminded us so cogently at Second Reading. If two traditions conflict, surely it is the freedom of the individual that must prevail.
Very rarely does the Daily Telegraph agree with the Guardian, The Times with the Observer, the Daily Mail with the Financial Times or the Economist with the New Statesman—and there are others. They all say that this Bill as it now stands must be amended to provide for judicial authorisation. But, if noble Lords are disinclined
400
to be influenced by the unanimity of newspapers, let me remind them of what their own committee on delegated powers said in its report of 13th November last. Of the powers in Clause 91 of the Bill it said that many of them would characterise them as "a constitutional change". The issue is as important and grave as that.
Perhaps I may just offer one final word. This is a House of Lords Bill. It started in your Lordships' House and has not been discussed in another place. We have a duty—why else are we here?—to send it forward after scrutiny in what we believe is the best possible form. If we amend the Bill there is no conflict with another place. We are not second-guessing the views of elected Members. I hope that Amendment No. 26 will be judged on its merits. I hope that your Lordships' House will choose judicial authorisation. If so, I hope that your Lordships will believe that the amendment standing in my name is the best one to support.
4 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I rather regret that we have had to start this debate on the basis of arguing which is the better of two propositions put forward by the Opposition. So far as I understand it, we have not yet convinced the Government of the essential principle that is involved. That is what I want to draw attention to, while thanking my noble friend Lord McIntosh and also the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for putting forward propositions, both of which are worthy of consent. I happen to believe that perhaps the amendment of my noble friend Lord McIntosh is better, but I could cheerfully support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. Indeed, I go further and say that I could support the Government's amendment. All of them—some are more timid than others—ought to be supported by us all.
But the point of principle to which I return is a very simple one. I do not believe that chief constables should be given statutory authority for authorising the warrants when they intend to commit entry upon the premises of a private citizen. The security services have to secure warrants in order perhaps to intrude on the privacies of an enemy agent, and I do not see why we should give less protection to our own citizens by not requiring chief constables to follow the same rule.
Therefore I see two principles. I am willing to support any amendment by anybody—I do not believe that this is particularly a party matter; as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, it is a constitutional issue—which will secure first that a person other than a chief constable is required to authorise entry upon private premises and, secondly, that that authorisation should be prior to the event itself. Those are the essential elements to which, in my view, we should seek to convert your Lordships.
I appeal to your Lordships as well as to the Government. The Government have shown a willingness to move. The amendments put down last week were a move in the direction of the public disquiet that has been shown since this issue first came to our notice. I must apologise for coming to this Bill at such a late stage. I confess that nowadays I do not follow

401
these matters so closely as perhaps I should. It was not until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, drew attention to it that I recognised the importance of this matter. It is a procedure that to me is completely novel. That may surprise some of your Lordships. I was astonished to read—the number seems to vary—that 1,300 warrants for England and Wales and 2,000 if Scotland is included are issued every year. I was absolutely flabbergasted to learn that. Indeed, one question that I should like to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is to ask how the figures have increased. Does she have figures for previous years? I should be very glad to hear them. The figures for which I ask, if they are available, will show the rate of increase. What has been the rate of increase?
We all understand that serious crime has increased, as has its sophistication. In no way do either of the amendments put forward seek to deny the police the powers that they should have. But in my judgment they do not impede the police in performing their duties and getting the authorisation that is required.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder if it would help the House to put forward information which could be used during the course of the debate. When the noble Lord was Prime Minister in 1977-78, there were for England and Wales between 500 and 600 in that last year of the Parliament and there are 1,300 now. So there has not been a disproportionate increase in activity.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I shall come to that point later, although there are perhaps some aspects to which I can refer now. To be absolutely frank, I was not aware that guidance had been issued in 1977. I was referring to the fact that in 1967, when I was Home Secretary, I had no recollection of any such warrants being issued. I have no recollection at all. I was certainly not informed that chief constables were issuing their own warrants. So it is a practice that has grown up certainly after 1970 when I ceased to be Home Secretary. I understand that the Home Office was asked what the record was during my period as Home Secretary and, alas, the records could not be discovered. I assure the noble Baroness that I did not take them with me.
It is my profound conviction that the warrants must have started—certainly in any numbers—round about the 70s. I had no knowledge at all that it took place and one of the things which worries me is that the practice did grow up. No doubt somebody went to a Home Secretary—I do not know whether it was a Labour Home Secretary or a Conservative Home Secretary—and said, "This is a very important matter. We must have a warrant to execute it." And he said, "I agree. I have the authority to issue such warrants, as I do for others." My guess, and it is only a guess—I am trying to take the House into my confidence—is that from that a mountain has grown and we are now facing a situation which was totally unknown 30 years ago.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I shall not give way to the noble Lord. If I give way I shall take
402
too long and be sidetracked down all sorts of byways. I want to make an essential point. I hope he will forgive me.
I welcome therefore the Government bringing forward proposals to put this matter under statutory authority. The Government deserve credit for putting it under statutory authority. Indeed, the Government deserve credit for bringing the security and intelligence services all within the mandate of parliamentary authority by putting this matter in the form of statute. I willingly say that to the noble Baroness.
Since my days in the 60s, public opinion has moved very considerably in the direction of more openness and requiring more information. And, fair play to the Government, they have moved with public opinion. We also have to thank Mr. Peter Wright who, with his no doubt exaggerated account of how he burgled and bugged his way across London, certainly awakened me as well as others to what can happen when there is laxity at the head of MI5 and when officers there are not properly controlled as they should be. That is one of the real reasons why the head of the services in all cases should be subject to statutory authority.
The care and intensity with which Home Secretaries consider applications for warrants cannot be underestimated. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carr, nodding in agreement. He has had similar experience in this matter. When I had to sign warrants, both as Home Secretary and later as Foreign Secretary, if I was unsure I would have had discussions with the Permanent Secretary, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We would sometimes ask the head of the security service for more information and request that he come and see us. I remember particularly consulting Sir Maurice Oldfield. At weekends we would walk around the grounds of the country house which was then conferred upon me in order that we should not be overheard by anyone when discussing these matters. We accepted most warrants, but rejected some after very careful consideration.
I do not know that chief constables have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters. If the security and intelligence services and GCHQ are required to secure warrants before they may invade private premises, why should the police be the only service excused from that responsibility? I cannot see the logic of it. I certainly do not believe that it is wise that we should so exempt it now that the matter has been brought into the public purview. Many of us have learned what we did not know before, and we are proposing to give it statutory authority.
Perhaps I may be permitted one more observation. This weekend I have been engaged in discussions with a number of representatives from countries in central and eastern Europe. I hope this is not far fetched, but let me tell you what they said. We had been discussing their problems on transition to full democracy. We rehearsed all the standard requirements of a democracy—an independent judiciary, a free press, the capacity to change government, all the things that we all know and use on these occasions. But one issue arose which had not been at the forefront of my mind, although it should have been, and I put it now to your Lordships. Gradually

403
it became clear that, whoever they were, they all prefaced these essential instruments with one other matter—the importance of having trust restored in the police service. The right to personal privacy, the right to security and the right not to be invaded by the secret police were things they considered a precondition to ensuring that institutions worked.
That is very true. That is not just a truth related to the secret police in eastern Europe. It applies much more widely, although certainly not to the police in this country. The police service knows that I would never think of it in that way. But there must be trust in the police. They must not be given powers which are not in some ways checked and accountable. If you give statutory authority in that way, no Home Secretary—Mr. Howard or anybody else—is going to abuse the powers. But what can we see down the road? Who knows what can happen? By the usage of such powers, the familiarity of such powers, gradually an exceptional case may become a more general rule.
This is a matter of the utmost constitutional importance. I will cheerfully vote for my noble friend's amendment. I could even be persuaded to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, because I believe that even the slightest protection in this field is better than nothing. As there is argument about what is the best way to give protection, I hope that the Government will undertake to review these matters most carefully before the next stage is reached in the Commons where this matter will undoubtedly come up again. I hope most sincerely that the conclusion is reached that a chief constable should be accountable to someone for what he is signing and that he should have prior authorisation, as every other service has to have, before doing so.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the police are fighting an increasingly difficult and often dangerous battle against increasingly sophisticated criminals, including the whole gamut of hackers in information technology, and they need all the available techniques to help them establish evidence and effectively carry out investigations. This Bill contains the vital provision of intrusive surveillance which will help the police fight crime.
Intrusive surveillance is a covert intelligence gathering technique which the police and security services have been using for years. They have been able to use these facilities through common law where courts have upheld the admissibility of evidence derived from such activities. The Home Office has strict guidelines about how the practice should be conducted.
The Security Service Act 1989 formally established a procedure and clearly placed into statute how intrusive surveillance could be carried out by the Security Service. The Police Bill is intended to bring in a statutory authority for the police.
Intrusive surveillance involves searches and specialised surveillance methods concerning property such as cars and premises. As part of an inquiry the police may need to track a suspected stolen vehicle or
404
monitor thieves returning to a garage full of stolen property. The law regarding admissibility of evidence often means that the police have to have proof of the criminals actually committing an offence. Clearly, where serious organised illegal activities are concerned, sophisticated and up-to-date procedures are needed by the police to catch the cunning criminal.
The Bill seeks to enact a formal system of authorisation for police use of intrusive surveillance. It provides for an independent commissioner to oversee the activity, ensuring that the police are accountable for their actions. Currently the police carry out such surveillance methods with the authorisation of a chief police officer in accordance with the Home Office guidelines. However, that may put the police at risk of civil trespass and possibly, in some cases, criminal damage or theft. The Bill will remove those risks. The commissioner will review all applications for the use of surveillance and deal with any complaints from the public. The code of practice, together with standard application forms, will ensure that surveillance is carried out to high professional standards, with a full explanation of why the authorisation is necessary and why other techniques are inappropriate. The checks and balances needed to ensure consistency and fairness will therefore be in place. The material gathered from intrusive surveillance will be used for intelligence purposes and can be submitted as evidence in court.
During the passage of the Police Bill two specific issues have arisen. I should like to comment on them. They are the issues of who should authorise the warrant permitting the surveillance, and where or who may be subjected to it. First, I should like to deal with the issue of the warrant. There are three potential authorising bodies; namely, the judiciary, the executive and the police themselves. The judiciary have expressed the view that they should be the authorising body. However, intrusive surveillance concerns the gathering of intelligence and evidence. To involve the courts at this early stage of an inquiry could be perceived by the public as compromising their impartiality. In addition, the judiciary are experts in the law and not necessarily in the operational practicalities of policing. The judgment of whether or not to allow intrusive surveillance involves the operational experience of a chief police officer to which the judiciary do not have access.
The option of ministerial warranting would introduce an independent element into the decision-making process and would be similar to the current practice of the Security Service. However, Ministers becoming involved in the operational decisions of the police could be perceived as interfering in their independence. The Security Service is directly accountable to the Home Secretary but the police are not. It is also of concern that quick decisions in urgent cases may not be possible because of the administration required in applying to the ministry.
Let us consider the option of placing the authority with the chief officer of police. He or she is the person with the operational experience to decide whether or not the intrusive surveillance is appropriate. A chief officer is readily available, and in urgent cases it is proposed to

405
allow an officer of ACPO rank to make the authorisation. This ensures that the judgment to permit the surveillance to go ahead is made at the highest level. In my opinion, the appropriate authority to undertake intrusive surveillance should come from the chief officer of police, as the Bill proposes.
Secondly, I should like to deal with where and on whom such surveillance should take place. Highly organised criminals will take advantage of any legal way of avoiding being caught. Their knowledge of our legal system is often very good and any loopholes or exemptions are taken advantage of. It is clear, therefore, that any exemptions made, whatever the circumstances, will offer the criminal the means of continuing to conduct illegal activities and to make profit, particularly from those in society who can least afford it. Therefore, the use of the surveillance should be applicable to all premises.
It may be that the press has reflected the concerns of members of the legal profession who believe that the use of surveillance within their chambers and offices will undermine the right of people to consult their lawyers in confidence. However, the police are accountable for their actions to the judiciary and will have strict Home Office guidelines to follow. Furthermore, I believe that criminals would exploit those premises if they were exempted.
In conclusion, I believe that the Police Bill should be given our full support if the police are effectively to combat serious organised crime which poses a real threat to the fabric of our society.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I wish to say a few general words before reaching the question of who should authorise the covert surveillance proposed in the Bill.
There is no doubt, either in the House or throughout the country, that the police need special powers to use electronic and other means of surveillance in dealing with serious organised crime. That is not the issue. I thought until this morning that it was agreed that at present the police have no power to enter, bug or steal from the property of the private individual. Perhaps the ignorance of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, of these processes during his time as Home Secretary was due to the fact that the activity was unlawful and is today unlawful. There has been, to my mind, too free a use of euphemisms, like "administrative procedure", which have concealed the fact that, possibly not to the great credit of this country, we have been tolerating a system of unlawful interference with the freedom of the individual for a long time.
I say that I thought that was clear—it has certainly been the basis on which discussions have been going on in this House and elsewhere—but this morning I happened to hear the "Today" programme in which the Home Secretary said that the Bill was not designed to confer new powers but merely to regulate powers which have been in existence for a long time. That is rather an important matter because my objection to the Bill has been throughout that it was eroding and cutting down
406
individual freedoms which currently exist without sufficient cause being shown. If, as was said this morning, the police already have these powers, then I would take a different view. It would be entirely a beneficial regulation of existing powers. I would invite the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at some stage—I am not saying now—to confirm one way or another whether it is the Government's view that entry by the police onto private property or the seizure of private property without prior court warrant is currently lawful. My understanding—and, I believe, the understanding of the overwhelming majority of people here, both lawyers and others—is that that is not lawful and has never been lawful and that the Act will legalise it. The question is: on what terms should it be legalised?
It has been said, and rightly said, that this is a constitutional issue. I do not wish to take time on this point—I have said it before but there appear to be rather more people present today than there were previously—but our freedom in our home, in our premises and in our property depends entirely on judicial decision of common law. The famous case is Entick v. Carington. It established that the police, the military or any organ of government have no greater right to enter our property than has any private individual. That is the sole constitutional right we have to prevent the state interfering with our lives in relation to property. That is the bastion of our constitution. It has been adopted by all other common law jurisdictions as the bastion of their freedom. If that freedom is to be taken away, it is my view that the clearest possible need has to be demonstrated for that to be done and the biggest possible safeguards placed to protect our freedom.
This Bill does take away those rights. It is bound to do so because to the extent that the powers are needed to combat really serious crime, such as organised drug dealing, money laundering, white collar fraud, obviously we lose part of our freedom. But this Bill goes so much wider. It is not serious crime in that sense. Most of your Lordships are probably aware of the fact, which has never been controverted, that theoretically the actions of the Newbury bypass protestors, being the actions of a large number of people in concert to cause a breach of the peace or an obstruction of the highway, constitute serious crime within the meaning of this Bill.
Those are people who could be bugged and burgled. Likewise, it is assumed that the people in whose property these bugs are placed are the villains, the suspected villains, the "druggies". Not so. The powers under this Bill authorise the taking of action in relation to any property within the area if the chief constable is satisfied that it is necessary for the prevention or detection of crime. So the bug can go into your Lordships' House, my house or my lawyer's offices, the journalists' offices, our employers' offices and so on, provided that the chief constable has seen a link with something. Therefore the intrusion is not just on the villains' privacy but potentially on everybody's privacy: I am not saying this is going to happen all the time because of course it is not. What I am saying is that it seems to me we have to try to prevent that happening.

407
I will not go into further detail because I have already taken too much time anyway. What has always been the guardian of individual freedom as against the proper requirements of the state to interfere with individual freedom has been the judge issuing the warrant, a prior authorisation by an independent party. Somebody said that judges were keen to have the job. I suspect if I took a poll there would be a 100 per cent. answer: "We are not in the least interested in having the job."
What is needed is an independent person; not the policeman anxiously and properly doing a job, but an independent person to strike the balance as to where the impairment of freedom is justified by the need, in that case, to interfere with it by bugging. That is what both these amendments are designed to achieve. I find it unhappy that we have two aiming at exactly the same target and hitting with what appears to be double vision two rather separate ones. For myself, I would pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. Ever since this matter was raised—not, if I may say so, by me but by those two admirable organisations, Justice and Liberty, for whom I was merely a voicepiece—the noble Lord has fought this battle as a matter of principle. I believe that he has fought it on this amendment to reach a good conclusion. You have a simple requirement for prior judicial warrant, easy to operate and easy to get there.
However, in substance the Labour amendment now before your Lordships achieves largely the same result in the sense that you have an enlarged body of commissioners; they are all judges or ex-judges; they have to give prior consent before the invasion takes place. I hope that, if it is accepted, the Liberal amendment might be tidied up in one respect. It is my understanding—that perhaps is the euphemism which means "I don't believe it to be true". I take it back. I "believe" that surveillance can now be carried on through listening to what is happening inside a room without any physical entry on to the premises at all; some magic by way of vibrating windows and so on, transmitting. It has to be pointed out that the Labour amendment will not require prior authorisation for such type of surveillance because it does not involve interference with the premises. I would be unhappy to see that position, but that is a minor point.
The substance of the matter is that both amendments require prior authorisation, which to my mind is the only true defence against the enormously wide powers which are sought in this case. Without it, I believe that we are suffering a serious erosion of our constitutional rights. I have been accused of inventing one platitude,
"an Englishman's home is his castle".
I would merely conclude with another platitude which I have not invented but which, like all platitudes and all truisms, is true:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Unless every attempt to take away individual freedom is looked at carefully we will not have freedom. I would invite your Lordships to vote for either or both of these amendments. I have no idea what is going to happen in due course.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, surely all Members of this House would have to agree that
408
neither here nor in another place is there any possibility of having heard a more persuasive or more authoritative speech than the one we have just heard from the Cross Benches. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I had no intention of intervening until I heard certain comments and later read some of the observations made by the Minister and also by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, literally at Committee stage. They made my blood run cold and I still cannot believe that they both seemed to be entirely oblivious of the dreadful implications of what they were saying. Perhaps with some long experience in the criminal courts of England I might be able to point out the implications of what was said by the Government at Committee stage.
I will refer only to two passages. The first is at col. 837 on the 11th November where the Minister said:
"Intrusive surveillance is used at an intelligence gathering stage. It may also be important to conceal that it has ever taken place."— [Official Report, 11/11/96; col. 837]
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at col. 225 on 26th November said this:
"the accused … may be prosecuted and convicted in court without anyone being aware of the existence of the authorisation … it would be of the utmost importance to keep the existence and use of authorisation absolutely secret."—[Official Report, 26/11/96; col. 225.]
What does this mean? It means a totally secret intrusion, either physical or electronic, into the house of any citizen by agents of the state, the police—whenever and wherever the police, to quote the clause—
"think it necessary for the detection of any offence serious enough to carry three years of imprisonment."
The words "secret" and "police", here writ large without exaggeration in an Act of Parliament, appear to be the advent of the secret police; the Big Brother has at last arrived, with the Orwellian presence behind, of the surveillance commissioner. What are the implications of those words? They mean that any person can be tried, convicted and imprisoned on a case based on information about which the judge, the jury and the advocate will know nothing, which might be information which was utterly mistaken, utterly false and indeed, one may say nowadays, utterly corrupt. Suppose the identification was a mistake or the name of the person was a mistake; suppose the substance being discussed was not a drug at all? The foundation and the origins of the prosecution would be built on a mistake or dishonesty; and of course there are cases where people are, to use the jargon, specifically "set up".
Two basic reasons have emerged for the spate of miscarriages of justice over the past 10 years. One is the fatal process of the police suspecting a person of having committed an offence and then building up the evidence to support that suspicion. The other, as we all know, is the unscrupulous, over-zealous or dishonest police officer who gives evidence of false confessions.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may have had very little experience of the rough and often brutal realities of the world in which the police operate. There are few Queensberry Rules and the fact that intrusive, illegal bugging has been going on uncontrolled and in secret is, in my opinion, simply a disgrace. It reminds me of the case where we brought

409
into daylight the fact that the Crown had been secretly vetting jury panels in all secrets cases in order to remove what were known as "subversives" from the juries which were to try the cases. When that was discovered, the judge ordered a new, "unknobbled" jury to be sworn in, and the matter was then regularised. It also reminds me of the certificates, to which we shall refer later today, signed by Ministers to suppress evidence and to keep evidence secret—that being blown open by the circuit judge who tried the case, and by Scott. That matter has also now been regularised.
We must also face up to the realities of the on-going programme which has existed throughout my career as an advocate, of corruption in the major police forces, such as the Metropolitan Police force and, as my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Knights, will know so well, in the West Midlands and North West too. We must be a little careful when assessing those paragons of virtue who have, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, passed exams and faced selection boards and who, under this Bill, will authorise intrusions.
It is said that the police will not target people who are not criminals. But who are criminals? Criminals are people the police think are criminals. Was Robert Maxwell a criminal? Members of this House worked happily for him, so would we have had bugs throughout the Palace of Westminster? Let us consider the Official Secrets Act. Were those seemingly respectable clients of mine, Mr. Blake and Mr. Vassal, criminals? No doubt they were, but what of my later clients who were charged under the same section and sat in the same dock at the Old Bailey, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and later the future editor of the New Statesman, both with many friends in this House and in another place? Would there have been bugs in the Palace of Westminster? What of Mr. Anthony Blunt—no better place to hatch a plot than within the protection of the Titians in Buckingham Palace? And there can be no exceptions for the placing of bugs, we are told.
What about the political implications of the clause? Surely this lies close to the heart of the Labour Party. The protesters involved in the miners' strike, the protesters against the poll tax and those at Greenham Common and at Newbury would all be criminals under Clause 91(5)(a). We are not very far from the original Wilkes case involving sedition and the security of the state.
What about the nightmare of the secret police, the listening in for one thing but hearing a lot of other things? What happens if the police listen in with a view to discovering a drugs offence but then discover an offence relating to pornography, sex or tax evasion? What is to happen to all the information obtained by using these bugs but which has no relevance to the original reason behind the use of the bugs? Will the Minister tell the House what is to happen at a trial when an advocate asks a police officer, "Did you bug my client? If so, I wish to see the tape and I want to know the dates and the times". Is the police officer to lie to the court in order to maintain that essential secrecy?
410
People with previous convictions need the protection of the law although they are described by the Home Secretary as "criminals". They often come to one to seek advice, saying, "I am going straight. I have a business. I have been turned over three times by the police. What can I do to protect myself?" Some of the most serious miscarriages of justice have involved such people.
I turn now to the role of the surveillance commissioner. As the noble and learned Lord said, the question is: are the police to authorise themselves? The commissioner's intervention is triggered by a complaint. If an operation is secret, there can be no complaint. Surely that highlights the inanity of the commissioner's role! Once this clause is part of the law, how can the commissioner say that the police acted illegally or improperly if the police officer genuinely thought that the intrusion was necessary? The commissioner will be bound by the words of the statute.
I turn finally to the issue of the judicial warrant. We have been told by the Minister that judicial warrants are in quite a different category from what is required in other cases because they always follow the commission of an offence whereas we have been speaking of the build-up to an offence. That is simply wrong. There are in existence a whole raft of statutes, including warrants, to see whether an offence is being committed and, in many other cases, to prevent an offence being committed. It is simply not the case that the procedure exists only once an offence has been committed. Such procedures are there to discover whether, for example, a child is being ill-treated, whether indecent photographs are being taken, whether the documents in question relate to a transaction involving drugs which, if carried out, would be a drugs offence, and, above all under the Official Secrets Act, whether an offence is about to be committed. The circumstances of an offence can hardly be more serious than those in which the police have to obtain prior judicial authority when it is a question of the safety of the realm. If the police are uniquely qualified to authorise intrusions for the gathering of evidence, one must ask why on earth we have judicial warrants in all those other cases across the criminal process.
In all the years that I have been a Member of this House, I can think of no decision more important than that which we have to take today. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said these chilling words in Committee:
"it is necessary … to move the show on from what we have traditionally regarded as inviolate".—[Official Report, 26/11/96; col. 227.]
Surely this House has the wisdom and the good sense to know that some traditional principles which guard democracy and freedom are, in fact, inviolate.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, like noble Lords in every part of the House, I fully accept that special powers of the kind about which we are talking today must be given to the police. It is regrettable, but I believe that it is a fact that we must face. The whole question is how those powers should be given to the police.

411
Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—whom I followed as Home Secretary four or five years later—I, too, was ignorant about what was going on. I was astonished when I saw figures of 1,300 and even higher quoted in what appeared to be reasonably authoritative reports. I can only assume that what was going on was unlawful. I find that shocking. I am also shocked that I did not know about it, but that is another matter which for the moment I do not want to press. I am grateful to the Government for the fact that they have taken the initiative in making lawful that which was unlawful so that at least the unlawful work can stop. But I cannot agree with the way in which they propose to do it.
I welcome the substantial amendments tabled by the Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I do not disagree with them. However, they fail to get to the root of the problem. I have great difficulty in knowing what I should vote for, but I know what I must and will vote against. I must vote against the police being given greater authority to do these awful deeds—which I agree they must have authority to do—by anything other than judicial authority. That is an absolutely fundamental point. If we went the other way we might not regret it in three or four years. But perhaps 20 years from now our successors will look back and regard our allowance of the provision as something of which we should be thoroughly ashamed.
I believe that the House has a difficult decision to take. Do we really have to make a final decision today? If I have to vote for one of the amendments, on the whole the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, convinces me more than the Labour amendment, simply because of the practicalities: the number of cases involved and the need to get a judicial opinion quickly without too many exceptions as permitted in the Labour amendment.
However, I would rather not make a final decision today. I am far from an expert on procedure; I must be one of the greatest inexperts in the House. I understand that the House has very flexible methods of procedure and that it can do things which can never be done in the other place as late as Third Reading. Is it not possible between now and Third Reading to have all-party consultations to try to arrive at a proposal that is acceptable to all? I honour what the Government are doing but I shall vote against it because I must vote against anything that permits authority to be given other than in a judicial manner.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may intrude a dissenting note into the debate. I become increasingly worried about the tone of some of the speeches that have been made. I yield to no one in this place in being very proud and relieved to live in a tolerant and stable democracy. It follows from that that the authorities in the nation, of whichever party or government, have to be watched. The organs of state power must be constantly watched, whether they are the Army or the police. All evidence indicates that when that is not done democracy is at risk.
But the speeches that I have heard paint a picture of a nation that is faced with a major threat from the police. I am not so worried about the police. From time to time,
412
there are bad eggs who usually finish up serving a very unpleasant period in gaol, and rightly so. I have no quarrel with that. I recognise also that there are bad eggs in the legal profession. In a rhetorical question the noble Lord asked whether Robert Maxwell was a criminal. I am not qualified to say whether or not he was, but I am convinced that if he had come to trial there would have been a queue of advocates prepared to swear that he was not.
We now face the problem of sophisticated crime which enjoys the patronage of whole governments and financial resources from drug dealing. I am very worried about three particular problems. First, I am worried about organised international drug dealing which controls whole governments in parts of the Far East and South America. During Christmas and New Year I was in the Far East. In the so-called golden triangle one is not dealing with small groups of criminals but armies of 25,000 men under arms and governments that are totally and completely in the pockets of dealers of considerable sophistication and wealth. I am also concerned about terrorists. Our domestic terrorists used to be located in Northern Ireland, Eire and the UK mainland. Their activities are now worldwide. They are frequently trained by other nations, for example, Libya. The third leg of the threat is international money-laundering.
I recognise that one has to surrender some traditional values. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, under whom I had the honour to serve when he was Home Secretary, the world has changed since those days. If anyone had suggested during that period when Labour was in government that the City of London would be surrounded by a ring of steel it would not have been accepted. In those days school children stood outside No. 10. There are now steel gates and armed police outside No. 10. I had never seen an armed policeman until the 1960s. Today, if one goes to Gatwick to take one's kids on holiday one sees the place full of policemen carrying sub-machine guns. That situation is reflected throughout the entire world because major crime today is different. This Bill is concerned with direct challenges to the state, not burglars or those who steal car radios or petty criminals. To deal with that the police must have powers to combat it.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, no one is saying that they should not have such powers.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, says that no one suggests they should not have such powers. I totally agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, summed it up very well in a letter to the Guardian in which he said that the difference between us was whether the police should have to seek prior support or authority for the actions that they took. That is a very narrow and clear issue. I express it in terms of accountability. One cannot manage any operation efficiently unless the people who take the final decision are clearly and absolutely publicly accountable. One cannot hold those people accountable if they are second-guessed by someone else. The judges have powers and roles that are crucial, but on the whole they do not have operational experience. They have not been

413
involved in exercises that may have taken place over weeks, months or even years in great detail and complexity; nor do they have the feel for it. If we have lack of faith in police officers at the level we are discussing then we should look at a complete reorganisation of the police force. We cannot expect to have proper policing if, against the resources with which those people are now faced, and in such circumstances, they have to keep asking a judge, "Is it all right if we take the next step?"; and the judge may well be wrong.
I apologise for interrupting this tirade about the police. To return to my opening point, I share all the worries, desire and jealousy of the society in which we live. Our society is under threat as never before from internationally financed and organised crime on a major scale. The days of Dixon of Dock Green are long gone. We are now forced to take another step.
It is said that we want to protect our privacy. Every time I walk through an airport I have my luggage X-rayed and my hand baggage searched. I am personally searched, and when returning from the Far East the chance of being searched for drugs is even higher. We all accept that—not because we want to, but because that is the reality of modern life. If we ask police and Customs officers to risk their lives and fight this battle, let us not tell them that they may do it only if they seek judicial authority from someone who carries no responsibility for the operation and has never been involved in operational activities before they can take the steps they believe are necessary.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is known and liked in this House for his eccentricity. I most respectfully point out to him on behalf of the very respectable profession to which I have the honour to belong that it is not a habit in our criminal courts for advocates to swear as to the innocence of their clients—
Lord Marsh: They imply their innocence.
Lord Mishcon: I promise the noble Lord that, in the unlikely event of his appearing before any court, civil or criminal, he will appreciate the services of the advocate who appears on his behalf in order to present the best case that he can. That is an advocate's duty.
It has already been said, by way of slight interruption to the noble Lord's remarks, that nobody has so far advanced a case for the non-inclusion of the rights of the police such as we are discussing. Therefore, to tell the horror story of what would happen if these powers were not given does not exactly help the debate.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. I obviously did not express myself clearly. As I said in answer to an interjection from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I make no argument that
414
police powers are being restricted or blocked. I am simply saying that, very narrowly, the argument relates to whether the authorisation should be after or before.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I appreciate that point. However, I say most courteously that had the noble Lord merely uttered the last part of his remarks instead of the first part, I should have had no complaint. The first part was directed to the horrors that now exist and surround us in this country which make these powers necessary. Unfortunately I have to agree with him, like everyone else who has spoken, that the House must determine whether or not the police should have powers which presumably they have exercised without the knowledge of two very fine Home Secretaries whom this House is privileged to have in its midst. Both noble Lords said that to their horror these powers were exercised without the necessary statutory authority.
The wording of Clause 91 is slightly relevant to that point; namely, that,
"No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be unlawful if it is authorised under this section".
The positive is not put before the House; the negative is. It shall not be unlawful. Is that a hint of the acknowledgement that up till now—and the cases are many—the powers of the police have been exercised unlawfully, as the noble and learned Lord said, and without the knowledge of the Ministers responsible for such measures? Does that not indicate that something has gone terribly wrong with the way in which administration has been carried out? If that practice has been going on, to the horror of two past Home Secretaries, is it not our duty to see that at least in future things go right and are under proper control and supervision?
The answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and others—a point that has to be faced—is: do judges have sufficient experience of operational matters to be consulted and give their sanction before orders are made? I cannot see that argument coming from the Government Front Bench, if only because they are the people who say that commissioners should not be ex-policemen but High Court judges. They are the people given responsibility by the Government for review. What are these poor, inept people who know nothing about operational matters doing reviewing the decisions of those who do know? I therefore have some difficulty accepting that argument.
We have a difficult task, one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, most Members of this House find embarrassing. The embarrassment is this. I believe that every one of us would say that we have to impose some control on this power. I am so sorry to concentrate on the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, which is not really fair; however, he spoke in terms of accountability. He said with great emphasis that it is accountability that is important. The Minister nods her very comely head. I am afraid I do not understand the reason. Where is the accountability? It will all be done in secret. Nobody will know about it unless there is an application for review. One does not know how people will ask for a review if the whole matter is so secret; however, that is another point. How in the name of heaven is accountability to

415
come about unless it is in front of a commissioner or a judge of some status? Where will the question be asked? In this House? Are we to know? Even Home Secretaries have not known in the past. Ordinary Members of this House will not know. Where is the accountability?
Most of us, honestly and frankly I believe all of us, consider that there must be some proper limitation. The tragedy—and I say that advisedly from the point of view of every noble Lord who treasures the liberties that we enjoy in this country and who does not want them impaired—is that we are faced with two amendments. That is a tragedy. The way out, which, I hope, will give the Government cause for second or third thoughts, is to vote for both amendments. That is the way to show to the world at large, which otherwise will not understand, and to another place, where this House stands when liberty is at stake.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I shall detain the House for a very short time. I have never been in the ranks of hostility to the present Home Secretary. In some of what have been described and portrayed as disputes between my friends the judges and the Home Secretary I have at times been surprised by decisions that have been made by my friends the judges. I have never been hostile to the Home Secretary: some of the hostility has become personal and sometimes rather disreputable. On this occasion, however, I am sure that the Home Secretary is wrong.
I will not engage in the histrionics that we have heard from noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat and Cross Benches. I ignore all histrionics, but I believe that we must get this matter right. The priority must be liberty. It must be that prior authority should be given; and it can be given only by the independent branch of our constitution, the judiciary.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I too welcome Part III of the Bill. They are powers which undoubtedly the police need for all the reasons which have been given. However, with police bugging running at 1,300 operations a year—a figure which surprised me as much as it surprised the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—it is high time that something was done. There can be no doubt that each one of those operations involved an unlawful trespass on private property. They were no less unlawful because they were carried out, I have no doubt, in accordance with Home Office guidelines. Home Office guidelines are admirable and very welcome, but they cannot change the law.
Police bugging should have been put on a statutory basis as long ago as 1985 when telephone tapping was for the first time put on a statutory basis as a result of the decision of the European Court in the Malone case. The analogy between telephone tapping and placing a bug in the telephone itself, or in the room, or wherever, is obviously close. It is an analogy which I hope to develop briefly.
I do not wish to appear to be in any way grudging in my support of Part III by suggesting and hinting that it is long overdue. Particularly welcome is the provision
416
that the product of a police bugging operation will be admissible in court to convict the criminal. I can see no conceivable point in using these processes to detect crime if we do not also use them to convict the criminals once they have been detected. Therefore, I am all the more depressed that the Government have not taken this opportunity to amend Section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act which forbids the product of the telephone interception to be used in court. What possible difference can there be between a conversation which is intercepted on a telephone and a conversation which is intercepted in a man's own home? Why should one be admissible in court and not the other?
I do not expect the Minister to deal with that point today. I hope only that it will not be overlooked because it is important. I mention it now only in order to emphasise the close connection between the two methods of intercepting conversations. Therefore, so far I entirely support and welcome Part III of the Bill, but I am afraid that that is as far as I can go. I cannot accept that it is right for one police officer to authorise another police officer to enter our homes, no matter how senior the first police officer may be. I still have a sense of wonderment that any of your Lordships can accept that principle because it seems to cut across so seriously one of the basic concepts of freedom.
One can test the matter in this way. Let us suppose that in 1985, when the Interception of Communications Act was passed, the Government had proposed that one police officer should be able to authorise another police officer to intercept our telephone calls or to open our correspondence. Such a proposal would have got nowhere. In 1985, Parliament required—and rightly required—that each new telephone interception required the authorisation—and the personal authorisation—of the Home Secretary of the time. I can say from my experience that that is a responsibility which every Home Secretary since 1985 has taken very seriously.
What has changed? The definition of "serious crime" in the Bill is exactly the same as the definition of "serious crime" in the Interception of Communications Act. The need to do something about organised crime by every legitimate means is no greater now than it was then. So why is it that telephone tapping requires the independent personal authorisation of the Home Secretary but bugging does not? Can it really be said that the intrusion into our homes and the opening of correspondence—once the police officer is lawfully in our homes he will be able to exercise all his powers of search under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—is in some way less serious than the interception of our telephone conversations? Clearly, it cannot. I ask again, what is the difference?
I do not suggest that the Secretary of State should himself authorise police intrusions. I do not see how he can. As we have been told, they are running at a rate of 1,300 a year. What will probably surprise the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is that the number of warrants now issued by the Home Secretary under the Interception of Communications Act is just below 1,000. To be precise, there were 997 in 1995. Therefore, the Home Secretary has got enough on his plate in ensuring that the Interception of Communications Act is properly

417
complied with and that warrants are properly issued, without troubling himself also with police intrusions. No, I would not suggest that, because the solution is such a simple one; it is the solution which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in his amendment.
It seems that the Government have some kind of difficulty about prior judicial authorisation. I have read the debates and the correspondence subsequently circulated but I am quite unable to see what the difficulty is. Obviously there needs to be secrecy, but there is no problem there. My own solution would be that authorisations in London would best be granted by the chief stipendiary metropolitan magistrate, in Scotland by the sheriff of Lothian and Borders and elsewhere in the United Kingdom by a designated circuit judge. That is what happens in every other country which I visited during the inquiry I carried out into terrorism and in every other country of which I have knowledge. I cannot see why it should not be be possible here.
I accept that there will be cases in which there is great urgency; but equally there are cases where there is great urgency in telephone tapping. I can remember many examples where an application has been made by the police, saying, "We must have the answer by tomorrow", and there has been no difficulty. The police make their application; the Home Secretary is a busy man but he finds time to deal with the application personally. If the Home Secretary can do that in the case of telephone tapping, surely the designated commercial judge can find time to do it in the case of police bugging.
What are the other objections? It is said that somehow it would involve the judiciary in operational matters. How could a judge, for example, be satisfied that the police had exhausted all other methods of obtaining the information which they wanted? Exactly the same situation applies under the Interception of Communications Act, yet the Secretary of State is able to satisfy himself that the police have exhausted all other methods of acquiring the information. Surely a circuit judge would be able to do the same without difficulty?
Then it is said that circuit judges should not be involved in the early stages of an investigation because it might prejudice their impartiality at a subsequent trial. To my mind that is the feeblest of all the objections. It has always been the function of judges to stand between the individual and the Executive. It was, after all, the judges who invented the Judges' Rules, which are now replicated in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Surely it should not be beyond the wit of man to arrange that the judge who grants the authorisation should not be the judge who presides at the subsequent trial.
In any event, circuit judges are already involved in the early stages of investigation proceedings. Under Section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act it is the circuit judge who grants access to the so-called special procedure material; and it is that material and that power exercised by a circuit judge which has proved so very useful in the prosecution of drug cases.
418
That procedure involves the circuit judge in operational matters and nobody has suggested that that system does not work well.
I should like to take time to mention one point which I know will be like a red rag to a bull to many of your Lordships—namely, the European Convention on Human Rights. It seems to me inevitable that police bugging will be challenged in the European Court, just as telephone tapping was in the Malone case. Indeed, I am surprised that it has not been challenged in some cases already, but I think the reason for that is probably that it was only recently that the Appellate Committee decided that the product of a police bugging operation was admissible in evidence. Whatever the reason, it seems inevitable that this legislation will be challenged and almost inevitable that, if it is challenged, it will fail the test under Article VIII of the convention. There will be no chance of our derogating from the convention as we were able to do in the case of police procedures in Northern Ireland. The result will therefore be that sooner or later—sooner rather than later, I suspect—this Bill, if passed in its present form, will come back for amendment. What sense does it make to pass a Bill now which we can say will be doomed under the European convention?
I now come to the amendments. I say nothing about the government amendment since it achieves nothing. As for the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, it has the great merit of requiring prior authorisation. However, my criticism of it is that it is too complicated and in some ways almost too clumsy. It adds yet another bureaucratic layer, while the alternative is so simple. I do not know what these commissioners will cost, whether they be one or three—they will not come cheap—but I do know that a circuit judge will grant an authorisation for nothing. Surely it makes sense that the circuit judge should grant the authorisation and that the commissioner should be held in reserve, as was the position with Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in the case of the Security Service Act or my noble and learned friend Lord Nolan in the case of the Interception of Communications Act, to see that the legislation is being operated properly. Indeed, the commissioner might even hear an appeal if the circuit judge has refused an application from a chief commissioner.
I hope to have the opportunity to vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, which seems to me to be the simplest, cheapest and most obvious answer to the problem. I still nurse the hope that all the Opposition parties, as well as some Cross-Benchers and even some Members on the Government Benches, might unite behind that amendment. It would not mean that we were being soft on crime; this has nothing whatever to do with being soft on crime. I fear that, if we pass the Bill in anything like its present form, it will mean that we are being soft on freedom.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has more intimate and authoritative knowledge of these

419
matters than any of the three Home Secretaries who have intervened in this debate, including myself. I was very struck by the point which he took—and which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, also took—about the apparently remarkable contrast between dealing with telephone tapping and dealing with this matter of intrusive bugging.
I was a little surprised—as was the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about another figure—at the number of telephone tapping cases, now at just under 1,000. In my day there were just over 200, but the most determined efforts were made to obtain the signature of the Home Secretary when a case of urgency arose. I remember a poor assistant private secretary of mine being sent down to a remote village at the northern end of Dartmoor late on a Saturday evening in January in order that I might sign the warrant and he might return to London before the Sunday morning. It seems rather extraordinary that in relation to telephone tapping—which is certainly no more intrusive, perhaps less so, than putting a bug in someone's house—this procedure should be gone through. Goodness knows what has been the exact position so far, but in the future it will be done on the ipse dixit of a police officer, and according to the provisions of the Government.
I am glad to take part in this debate, in particular following the speech of my noble friend Lord Callaghan. There was a time when the ministerial careers of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and I were closely intertwined. I believe that I am now the senior living Home Secretary; he is the senior living Chancellor of the Exchequer. Between us we also occupied the number two slots in relation to both those offices. I mention that not for autobiographical reasons but because increasingly, on reflection, I am convinced that while the Chancellor is, while he holds the office, more at the fulcrum of politics, the Home Secretary's work, and particularly the Home Secretary's legislation, lasts longer. The work of a Chancellor is mostly swept away like a sandcastle by the high tide of his successor, whereas the work of the Home Secretary goes on.
On the whole my record is regarded as a liberalising record. I am by no means ashamed of that. But the fact that one cares for the liberty of individual conduct does not—to take up the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—mean for a moment that one is soft on crime. Indeed, I would hazard the guess—the boast, if you like—that majority verdicts in criminal trials (introduced against considerable Conservative opposition, with the noble exception of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was a sound ally on that) have done more to convict serious criminals than all the innumerable crime and police Bills which Michael Howard has brought forward. That measure was carefully thought out but it quickly became non-controversial, I venture to suggest, because it carried the support of informed opinion. However, I believe that what is here proposed most signally does not.
The peculiar duty of the Home Secretary is to hold a balance between the upholding of the authority of the law and the rights of the individual, and to do that without regard to headlines in tabloid newspapers or
420
applause in conference halls at Brighton or Blackpool. Because of a certain fear that perhaps the Home Secretary does not always maintain that admirable balance, it behoves us to be particularly vigilant in this House about the proposal that is before us today. However, our vigilance must be co-ordinated if it is to be effective. We have an amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank which has long been tabled. We believe it to be better and neater, and that it does not confuse the role of the commissioner or commissioners, as a source of prior permission, with his or their subsequent review authority. But what is perhaps still more to the point is that it is clear from the debate so far that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is preferred by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Lloyd.
How can we deal with this difficult matter? The overwhelmingly important thing is that your Lordships' House today—if it is so disposed, which I believe that it may be—should give clear notice to the Government that what is proposed by them is not acceptable. How do we deal with this matter? I urge flexible ecumenism between us and the Labour Party. I believe our amendment is better but I am not so convinced of its overwhelming virtue that I cannot vote for the Labour amendment. I shall vote for the Labour amendment and so, I believe, will every one of my noble friends on these Benches who are present today. What I greatly urge my noble friends on the Labour Benches to do is the following. If their amendment is carried, that is well and good. We may have to discuss a little tidying up at a later stage, but that is a clear expression of opinion. Our amendment then falls. But, if a Labour amendment is not carried, I not merely urge, I beg of noble Lords on the Labour Benches, then to vote for our amendment and not to let the—
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will permit me to finish. I beg of noble Lords on the Labour Benches then to vote for our amendment and not to let the Government get away with it and to allow the measure to slip through due to a lack of co-ordination. I believe that that would be tragic as regards the merits of this issue. It would also be symbolically damaging to relations between the two parties. I beg Labour noble Lords to do what I shall do; namely, to be ecumenical and each vote for the other.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding on advice from the Clerks of the House is that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, does not fall if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were accepted. It is not a consequential amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out. The amendment does not fall. It is technically possible for this House to vote for both amendments.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that expository and helpful intervention. Therefore, if the Labour amendment is

421
carried, let us still vote for the amendment of my noble friend. Let us sort matters out afterwards. We will have struck a blow, indeed, two important blows. I would be prepared either to discuss what is decided or, better still, to put it to arbitration. We have the most eminent arbitrators in the country here. I should be happy to put the matter to arbitration conducted by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Browne-Wilkinson, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, if he desired that. In any event, let us not snarl ourselves up. I shall vote for the Labour amendment, and I hope that Labour Members will vote for ours.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord has not quite sat down. I may have misunderstood this matter, but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the Labour amendment did not involve prior consent to the police, and that when an emergency arose the Labour amendment implied that the police did not need prior consent. Is that what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as I understand it, the Labour amendment—this is one of its deficiencies—does not in all circumstances require prior approval.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate in which we have heard such a series of eloquent speeches from members of the legal profession and from three former distinguished Home Secretaries. However, it will not have escaped the notice of those who read the correspondence columns of The Times that this Bill is a cause of serious concern to the medical profession. The problem is the following. On the face of it, this Bill would allow a senior police officer to give authority to carry out surveillance on a doctor's premises without that doctor's consent, and to have access to confidential medical records.
Confidentiality lies at the heart of the doctor/patient relationship. Indeed, a doctor who can be accused and found guilty of breach of confidentiality relating to a medical consultation without consent can be called before the General Medical Council, disciplined, and in the last resort could be erased from the medical register.
Confidentiality between doctor and patient in this country, however, is not as rigid as it is in France where, under the Code Napoleon, for example, it is virtually absolute. It does not have the same protection in law as does the consultation between a lawyer and his or her client, because no privilege attaches to consultations between doctor and patient in law in this country.
As a result of concerns in a number of situations, some years ago the General Medical Council introduced, in its guidance to the profession, a number of circumstances in which it was proper that such confidentiality might be breached. For example, if a patient suffering from intractable epileptic attacks refuses to accept the doctor's advice to give up driving, then it is the doctor's duty, after telling the patient that he will do so, to report that individual to the licensing authority.
422
In 1983, when I was President of the General Medical Council, I and a number of colleagues had consultations with the then Home Secretary, Mr. William Whitelaw, now the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, over the issues and provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. We agreed at that time to recommend to the medical profession that it was proper to breach confidentiality to assist the police in the investigation of a grave or very serious crime. That advice still stands.
Can you envisage a situation where a doctor, being aware that he or she may be having a consultation with an alleged criminal, and having been informed by the police that this is likely, gives permission to the police to bug that consultation? How can it be ascertained that that consultation, and that consultation only, will be recorded by the intrusive surveillance of the police? How can one avoid the situation, for example, where the next consultation in that surgery which is now being bugged, is between the doctor and a 14 year-old girl who is seeking the doctor's advice about abortion? Let us suppose that the officer who is monitoring that surveillance happens to be the father of that particular girl who is seeking the doctor's advice. Of course, the consultation under surveillance is confidential, but if, naturally as a parent, that police officer then goes dashing along to the doctor's surgery and asks him what business he or she had in discussing this issue with his daughter, is that doctor then to be brought before the General Medical Council for breach of confidentiality in that medical consultation?
How can we ascertain or ensure that surveillance is limited to surveillance of transactions or consultations between a doctor and the putative criminal? Of course, I accept wholly that there will be circumstances—exceptional circumstances—in which a doctor may be thought to be dealing in inappropriate or excessive prescribing of dangerous drugs, and the doctor may therefore have to come under surveillance. I wholly understand the reasons why this Bill is now being debated.
On the question of the protection of medical confidentiality, the profession as a whole would much prefer that no such provisions for surveillance of medical consultations were necessary, and in an era of universal trust they would not be, but I accept the need for the police to have these powers. We wish in medicine that such would never be needed in our society, but they will be needed and it is crucial that the medical profession should, therefore, do its best to collaborate with the police and the authorities to enable them to investigate grave or serious crime, as the General Medical Council recommends.
Surely, that is something which should not be subject to the authority solely of a senior police officer. Surely, it is something which must, at the end of the day, be subject to judicial agreement.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the question of voting may I put in a respectful plea for a measure of sanity? We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as I am sure the whole

423
House is, for his objective introduction. He truly described the fundamental and crucial distinction between the Labour amendments, if I may call them that, and the Liberal amendments. The main objection, as I see it, to the Labour amendments is a question of accountability, of the police revising their own decision, whereas the main objection to the Liberal amendments is the question of the security of the material which is used in the authorisation. They are two wholly distinct types of objection. Of course, if any party, as a matter of tactics, wants to vote with another party there is nothing one can do about it. Everybody can do what they like, but will that be seen as a rational exercise? I ask your Lordships to consider how this may be seen outside this House.
I shall be brief because by this time all the main arguments have been raised and discussed. The issue is a narrow one, as accepted by at least four of the noble Lords who have spoken. The Government's amendments propose judicial scrutiny. The Liberal amendments propose judicial authorisation. That is the difference.
Your Lordships may think that on objective examination the extent to which there is erosion of the common law is justified in the public interest to enable a requisite system of surveillance to operate, and operate speedily and effectively a system which cannot operate without maximum security. The Government amendments propose that a number of former and/or serving High Court judges should be established as a panel so that one might serve as a commissioner to review authorisations, and investigate complaints. The commissioner has effective powers of sanction. He may require a chief constable to justify his decision under cross-examination, albeit under some special court procedure devised to ensure that sensitive information is not allowed to enter the public domain without sanction of the High Court judge.
The point about medical confidentiality is important. I take on board what has been said by the noble Lord that authorisations under the Government amendments will be notified to the commissioner as soon as possible, and in many cases, including legal confidentiality, medical confidentiality and journalistic confidentiality, they must be notified within 48 hours. That may not be wholly sufficient, and it may not be wholly adequate, but it goes some way towards meeting the point made by the noble Lord. The commissioner may quash an authorisation and order destruction of the material.
As to the Labour proposals, they are very near. There is not a wide difference between them. I think the noble Lord used the term that there is an overlap between the Labour proposals and the Government proposals. The objection is that the commissioner would be both authorising and investigating complaints arising from the authorisations. Your Lordships may think it prudent—this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with whose analysis I so much agree—in these days to rely upon the opinion of more than one chief constable, which supports the Government's proposals as requisite to combat serious crime.
424
The essence of choice among the amendments is of an importance which greatly transcends any political affiliation. That is one of the reasons, with respect, why I sought to ask your Lordships to consider the effect of a nonsensical voting exercise. It is not a political matter, even as we approach the hustings. I support the Government's amendments because, as I see it, they afford a maximum security without which this system, which it is common ground is needed, would be inhibited or could not work at all. I am prepared, like the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to defer to the apolitical advice of the chief constables.
Lord Acton: My Lords, of the two ecumenical amendments, I prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. My stance in opposing the Government's scheme, is fortified by that bastion of conservatism, the Daily Telegraph. In a leading article on 3rd January entitled "Will bugging be warranted?", the Daily Telegraph said:
"For the police to enter or bug somebody's home or office is a very serious matter".
The article continued:
"Quite rightly, Parliament has always previously insisted that the use of such sensitive powers should be subject to outside scrutiny before, rather than after, the event. That is how it should remain. The current system for search warrants works well enough. If the police wish to bug someone, let them likewise get a warrant, from either a magistrate or perhaps even a judge".
I must make it plain that I prefer the latter alternative, and advocate that circuit judges, or perhaps certain designated circuit judges, should be the scrutinising authorities. The words I have quoted are powerful words from a powerful, conservative voice. I commend them to your Lordships.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I believe that all of us who support either of the amendments, as I do, would agree that efficient policing is vital. If I had heard any argument which suggested that prior authorisation would be deleterious to efficient policing—that is, policing which I regard as consistent with the liberty of the citizen—then I would hesitate to support the amendments. But I have heard none. Prior authorisation is absolutely crucial. The clue to that view is, to some extent, the very width of the powers.
Once the Bill becomes law, no one, but no one, in this land will be able to be certain that their home will not be bugged. Most of us will dismiss the idea as fanciful and improbable, but we will not be able to be absolutely certain. Powers which are potentially so wide and so intrusive on the sanctity of the home surely call for stringent safeguards.
I accept and assume that the police would seek to authorise those powers highly responsibly. I have the greatest respect for the police in the toughness of their task. But the underlying impetus of their work is to detect crime. It is inappropriate to ask them to put individual liberties into that balance. So does an authority much wiser than myself. On the same issue, the United States Supreme Court said:

425
"The primary reason for the requirement of the judicial warrant is to interpose a neutral and detached magistrate between the citizen and the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime".
The balance must, I think, be independent and judicial. In the United States such importance is attached to the issue that Article 4 of the United States Constitution enshrines the need for a judicial warrant. My concerns over the Government amendment—I recognise the care with which they have accepted that some improvement on the existing Bill is required—are twofold. First, as I understand it, the commissioner will be able to consider authorisations only on the principles upon which the court applies judicial review. That means that the commissioner will be able to overturn the judgment of the senior police officer only if he or they consider that that decision was plain perverse; in other words, that the police had gone right over the top.
By contrast, a judge would balance individual freedom against police claims that the intelligence was needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has said, he would be able, as they do in Australia, and other countries, to interrogate the police upon their claims and reach a thorough decision.
My second concern about the Government amendment is that the scrutiny of the commissioner would still be after the bugging had taken place. I believe, for all the reasons your Lordships have given, that authorisation should be in advance. I would add one other reason for my concern. In almost all cases, those under surveillance will never know that their privacy is being invaded. To me, that reinforces the need for a judicial warrant.
Judges are available for this purpose. No one has given me any reason why they cannot do the job. On the contrary, the only situation in which they would refuse the police application would be if they believed that the police are going too far. That is why their role is necessary. It is the historic one, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, of preserving the freedom of the citizen against unacceptable Executive inroads.
My own view is strengthened by the experience of other countries. In this country we pride ourselves on individual judgment, but there may be times when the universal views of other jurisdictions are of help to us. In the United States, Australia, New Zealand, France, and Germany, there can be no invasion of property without a prior judicial warrant. That is so even though for the most part in those countries the powers are cast in narrower terms than the very wide powers which are being granted in this country. As I understand it, in those other countries the need to satisfy a judge is seen as a sound discipline on police activity, as protecting the individual, and it meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, of focusing accountability. I have heard no reason why the position would be different here.
I would conclude by warmly supporting the Home Secretary in deciding to put the powers that are to be granted on a statutory basis. It has been fascinating to hear this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord
426
Callaghan, and my noble friend Lord Carr that even in the higher reaches of government they were unaware of some of the action being taken. The Home Secretary is very much to be commended for his approach. I share also his aim as stated in The Times this morning of getting the balance right. For me, and I hope for my noble friends on these Benches, I join in supporting the concern for efficient policing, and I hope they join me in their concerns for the liberty of the individual. I hope that the Government will think again and will provide for prior authorisation. But if they feel unable to do so, I would cheerfully—I know not whether it is ecumenically or irresponsibly—support both amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two great themes which are not contradictory. The first is the necessity, which I absolutely support, of the proper, sensible deployment of police power in dealing with serious crime. But the definition of serious crime in this Bill is very wide indeed. It includes conduct which relates to the use of violence; that is, any conduct across the wide spectrum from the break-in through the newsagent's window to the murderous IRA attack at Canary Wharf.
The second great theme is that we should be ruled by laws, not men. If this Bill passes we move one step closer to a totalitarian system. I have studied with care the letter from Sir James Sharpies, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which the Minister was courteous enough to circulate. Sir James says:
"Judges … have no direct experience of … operational decisions".
They do not. That is not their work or purpose. They have a different role. I submit to your Lordships that their role is to recognise and give effect to something which is infinitely delicate. It is the balance in a free and civil society between individual right and unregulated state interference with private property. I do not speak of property in the narrow, crude sense. I speak of a man's or woman's home. As has rightly been observed, once the intrusion is made into domestic premises or the workplace, documents may be seized and taken away.
No one has spoken with greater experience or authority, I suggest, than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who conducted the recent report into terrorism in Northern Ireland. It was a masterly report. It recommends, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, that material obtained on tapping telephones ought to be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution. It may have been noted by those of your Lordships who read the report that three of those who attended to give evidence to the noble and learned Lord were Mr. Jack Straw, Dr. Mowlam and myself. That was our recommendation to him.
There is no virtue in talking about Colombia or the Golden Triangle since we do not live there and, for my part, I do not wish to. However, one of the distinguishing features between Colombia and the Golden Triangle and our country is that we live by the rule of law.

427
Sir James Sharpies pointed out:
"Chief Officers of police both constitutionally and operationally are uniquely placed to provide the necessary experience and expertise to make proper judgments".
I profoundly and stubbornly disagree. No chief officer of police has a unique constitutional place in this country. The law and the judges have that, and their place is the proper, considered, deliberated protection of individual right against police state intrusion. I have heard no argument put forward that there would be any interference with legitimate police activity.
I use my own experience for a moment, because it is no less in accord with the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. I have prosecuted serious crime: murder, rape, armed robbery, terrorism. There has been no single case when the seeking of prior judicial approval would have interfered with the successful investigation or prosecution of that crime. But if there were, this is the purpose of the caveat in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. If there were this extraordinary circumstance, and there might be, it would be lawful, if the Labour amendment were carried, for a chief constable to authorise intrusion, subject to immediate reporting to a judicial authority.
I do not pretend that the Labour amendment is perfect. I do not believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is necessarily perfect. There is a possible alternative scheme, namely to designate the presiding judges on each circuit in England and Wales, two presiding judges of High Court rank, those of six circuits and three presiding judges on the south-eastern circuit. The average, according to the figures we have been given, is 26 applications a week. I believe that 13 High Court judges could just about manage to deal with that number of applications. That scheme has its attractions, and I offer it not on a political basis but in a genuine desire to affirm the two themes, the principle of individual liberty in a free country.
I put it forward as an idea, consonant, I hope, with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the noble Lord, Lord Can. Who in this House has more experience of operational matters than they? It is put forward with the immense authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. This is not a political matter. It would demean us all if it became that. We should not become confused in the foolish matter of whether we vote for "Lord McIntosh" or whether we vote for "Lord Rodgers". It is infinitely more important than that. I respectfully agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. We shall do wrong if we sit passively and allow the moment's convenience to overtake what we know to be right.
Lord Knights: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise to speak in this somewhat august company, but I feel that I ought to add one or two words on the implications, as I see them, of this debate on policing. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and others were concerned about the number of occasions on which these techniques are used, I share their surprise. I had no idea whatever that this number was in fact taking
428
place. Indeed, I hope that at some point during the debate the Minister may be able to tell us whether there is any breakdown of the figure of 1,200 or 2,000 or whatever it is, indicating exactly what is taking place. Are we talking about 1,200 or 2,000 dwellings, or are we talking about 50 dwellings and 1,150 motor cars that have had a bug placed on them so that they can be traced? We need to be more precise in terms of what we are actually dealing with.
The reason for the increase, if there is one, comes much more from the development of modern techniques rather than that the police have sought to use them more. In the past 10 years or so the technology has been available. It certainly did not exist previously. If it is of any comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Can, to the best of my knowledge, those techniques were not used, at least in one big police force area before 1985. I am afraid that I am not in a position to speak about what has happened since 1985.
Bearing in mind the complete lack of any control over the use by commercial spies, private detective agencies or investigative journalists of the systems and devices which are at the heart of this debate, it may seem somewhat anomalous that the one organisation over whose activities in this field there is already a large measure of control—not that one would perhaps think so from the debate this afternoon—should now be at risk of having its operational abilities to counter organised crime and serious crime restricted by further bureaucratic controls, more particularly when less than 12 months ago the security services were given exactly similar powers for use when dealing with criminal activities as this Bill originally proposed for the police.
The controls currently existing include, I suggest, not only the Home Office guidelines of 1984, which are persuasive, but also the accountability of chief constables for their operational activities to the Home Secretary and indeed to their police authority, with removal from office as an ultimate sanction if they should act unreasonably in whatever field. Added to that, there is the surveillance of the Police Complaints Authority and the discipline code which embraces all officers from chief constable to constable. Also, and perhaps more important, there is the examination of their activities in this field by the courts when deciding whether or not it is fair that the product of those activities should be admitted in evidence. The case of Kahn decided in this House in July last year is a good example of that.
It seems to me that to move the decision whether or not to utilise intrusive surveillance from the chief constable to the commissioner or to a circuit judge would inevitably also remove that element. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to it earlier. The effect would be to move the operational decision from the chief constable to the judge or the commissioner.
I submit that the knowledge that all those requirements exist and that the decision to deploy such techniques may, in the final analysis, have to be defended and justified to a court—maybe even to your Lordships' House—are powerful influences playing on a chief constable when he is considering what action he

429
should or should not authorise. However, although no evidence of past abuse of those techniques has been produced during the past weeks and months when this matter has been debated, it has been exposed to so much public examination that I feel that there should be added some check to the present position. During that period or indeed earlier, no one has sought to keep those techniques under wraps. Indeed, they have been clearly exposed, if not during the past few months certainly during the past few weeks.
It is also clearly necessary to increase the level of supervision to an extent which is commensurate with the continued ability of the police to operate efficiently in this dangerous, rapidly changing and moving area of police investigative work. Above all, that means that no obstacle should be placed in their way so as to cause delay as and when windows of opportunity arise for those techniques to be usefully and properly deployed.
Another factor which should not be overlooked is the extent to which a chief constable can be briefed on a developing situation, perhaps long before the decision to use intensive techniques falls to be taken. One cannot envisage the commissioner or a circuit judge having that advantage. It is a considerable advantage because it means that when the time comes to take the decision it can be taken very quickly. I believe seriously that the decisions in these matters must continue to rest fairly and squarely with the chief constable of the police whose task it is to deal with crime in all its aspects.
The question of delay is, I believe, at the heart of what will be decided one way or the other. Personally, I would not object and indeed would support the introduction of a judicial element into the decision, if I could be satisfied that alternative arrangements exist to enable decisions to be taken urgently in urgent cases. There are occasions when it is urgent. It can be a matter of only hours between the information becoming available and the opportunity being lost. There have been cases in kidnapping, for example, where decisions have had to be taken within a matter of 10 or 12 hours which, if not taken, might have led to loss of life of the kidnapped person. I do not wish to over-dramatise but merely to illustrate the fact that urgency and quickness of movement is of the essence.
For all those reasons I would, at this stage, support the Government's amendments rather than those of the Opposition. But I could be persuaded to change my mind, if the business of urgency could indeed be dealt with.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the Minister for sitting down again with such courtesy. I shall be very brief and put forward a point of view which has not been heard so far in this debate; namely, that of the intruded upon individual.
As noble Lords will know, during the Guinness affair there was considerable surveillance of this type. A Home Office warrant was issued with instructions to intercept 384 telephones. Quite why it was needed to intercept so many telephones has never been fully
430
understood. Quite why colleagues should have their telephone numbers on the list is perhaps a little understandable. Quite why my gamekeepers should have their telephone numbers on the list has never been fully understood.
During the course of a nine-month period, my house was burgled, my office was burgled three times and my London flat was burgled. None of them has ever been burgled before nor since. From the house were taken, we think, papers. From the office, papers were copied, I believe, and from my London flat were taken photographs, which were handed to a London newspaper the day after I was arrested, in order presumably to blacken my name. When we went more deeply into those interferences, we discovered that our offices were not being bugged by the police as such but that one of my secretaries was being paid to hand over information.
Bugging, in those days, was an analogue system with mechanical arms and it was done on a key-word system, which meant that one had to say "Guinness" or "Saunders" or something else to trigger a huge squawk on the telephone. Everyone went into it, because they so enjoyed it but it cannot have been much fun to those who were listening. My children managed to discover 14 such key words.
I went to a colleague's house. He had a telephone van at the bottom of his drive for eight months. I suggested to him that we should go to our local pub and see if those people turned up for a drink, which they duly did being sensible yeomen. We got into talk with them and they apologised for what they were doing but said that orders were orders. They said that the only information that they had had of any consequence was the winner of the Grand National.
Authorisation is badly needed. We discovered—it was certainly to my satisfaction—that not only were the police doing this but also a department of the Home Office, under the direct supervision of a deputy secretary, which ran a team of denials that it paid, presumably in cash, to do its burglary. We have never been able fully to establish the member of the committee who ran this team, but we know some of the names. If in future those actions have to be authorised or investigated, extreme good will come from what has been an absurd abuse of the system for some time.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, we have listened carefully to the arguments which have been advanced. I am conscious that there are some misunderstandings about what is proposed in the Bill, and clearly differences of view as to how serious crime is pursued in this country. It may therefore be helpful if I set out our proposals and the reasons underlying them.
There is much common ground that the threat to this country from serious and organised crime must be dealt with effectively and that the police and Customs must have authority to mount intrusive surveillance operations against those involved in crime. They have been carrying out these operations successfully and with a good deal of restraint for many years. The police are concerned about the invasion of a person's privacy and therefore do not take decisions to act in this way lightly.

431
I was somewhat surprised at the confession, if I can call it that, of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I understood how his memory does not remind him today of what happened when he was in the Home Office and was Home Secretary, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, my noble friend Lord Can and others. But there were submissions to the department in those days about these activities. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was Prime Minister there were submissions—which I have not seen because I am not privy to them—to the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who was the Home Secretary of the day. There was certainly knowledge that circulars were going out in the name of the police to put guidelines in place to ensure that those activities were carried out properly. Those guidelines were strengthened in the early 1980s. It is the police who have pressed Government over some years now to put these activities on a statutory basis.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way.
The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office when I was Home Secretary was the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He was present although he had told me that he would not be able to be here. I have checked carefully with him. The noble Lord tells me that I had no information about this matter. I do not know why that was so. It may be for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, that these methods of intrusion were not then available. It is quite true that it was 30 years ago and those methods were perhaps not used. That is a possible explanation. But what is quite clear is that there was absolutely nothing going on in the Home Office at that time which begins to compare with what is taking place now, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I wish to confirm that my experiences were exactly the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I, too, have checked with the Permanent Secretary during the first part of my term as Home Secretary. He was succeeded in the middle of my term by a successor who has since died. Certainly for the first half or thereabouts of my term as Home Secretary exactly the same applies as regards information that I was or was not given as to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for the record I should read the first paragraph of a letter which went out from the Home Office in 1977 when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was Prime Minister. The first paragraph reads as follows:
"The use of certain equipment in police surveillance operations may involve encroachment on privacy. The principles and procedures relating to such use have been reviewed in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and the following arrangements have been agreed for a trial period of 12 months from the date of this letter."
This particular letter was not placed in the Library until 1982. At the time it recommended a strengthening in the police guidelines. I could go on but this letter is available in the Library.
432
Interestingly, it was probably because Ministers in the Home Office when the noble Lord was Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, was the Home Secretary, genuinely had concern that these activities, first, were important and essential in the pursuit of serious crime, but, secondly, that they should be carried out under some guidance. Whatever that concern was I do not know because it would be some time before we were able to look back at the record, but clearly there was concern. There was a review under the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, guidelines were produced. They were reproduced and strengthened in the early 1980s.
As I said, the police have always felt uncomfortable that there was no statutory basis for these activities. The matter was brought up again in this House during discussion on the Security Service Bill. We gave a promise at that time that once the consultations were at an end, we would come back to the House without delay with a proposition to put these activities on a statutory basis.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not dealt with the period when I was Home Secretary to which I specifically referred. Although I have no personal knowledge and I do not know whether these papers were submitted to me when I was Prime Minister and I do not know whether my initials are on them. They are not; I had thought that probably they are not. I agree that with the change of public opinion and public culture on these matters there has been a growing feeling that these matters should be regularised. The noble Baroness will remember that I said that during the lifetime of this Government they have moved progressively in that direction and that they are entitled to be supported. I offered them credit for that this afternoon. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was also beginning to move in the direction of introducing guidelines prior to statutory action, but now that the matter is in the full light of day, we all know where we are. I know where I stand on that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I would not see any paper that had his signature on it. It is a good thing that this piece of paper does not have the noble Lord's signature.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who was concerned that there should be guidelines and these guidelines were produced, subsequently placed in the Library, subsequently strengthened and now we are here putting the issue on a statutory basis.
The reason that I made a point of that is this. Some very powerful people have spoken today—the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, my noble friend Lord Carr—who all gave an impression to the House that they had no idea that this was going on. If they had no idea in a year when 500 to 600 activities took place—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: No, no, no.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, although I would not care to put

433
a figure on it, I doubt when I was Home Secretary that the figure reached 150. And that was not the police. That was for MI5 and the intelligence services. Not one for the police ever passed under my hand.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that it is not possible for the noble Lord to say that none of these activities were taking place at that time.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I do not think it is possible for the noble Baroness to say that there were.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may complete the point. I have made the point that it was when the noble Lord was Prime Minister. When the noble Lord was Prime Minister and his party were in office, his then Secretary of State was concerned about this activity and initiated the first set of guidelines because there was that concern. In the year following the guidelines there were between 500 and 600 activities. I cannot believe that it went from no activities at all to 500 or 600 activities in that one year. The truth is that it has been going on with, I believe, a high degree of responsibility on the part of the police. To think that the number has gone from 500 to 600 in 1978-79 to 1,200 or 1,300 this year for the whole of England and Wales is not an unprecedented increase.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, with respect, there can be no conclusion about this matter. However, it is my general view that this began to increase in the 1970s when there was such industrial trouble. That is my belief about it and I am as much entitled to my belief about it as the noble Baroness is to hers. That is when it started—when there were a large number of strikes in this country. I take full responsibility for 1977, whether I saw the papers or not, but I do say that it has now reached alarming proportions and that it should be brought under prior authorisation in a statute.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is precisely what we are about and that is precisely the proposal in the Bill.
We believe that those who take operational decisions must be accountable for their actions. The proposals set out in the Bill, together with additional amendments to the Marshalled List today, will provide a robust system which allows for high level independent oversight of every single operational decision. This role will be discharged by a commissioner who is or who has recently been a High Court judge. The commissioner will be informed of every authorisation as it is granted. In addition to having continuous oversight to review and monitor the operational decisions taken by chief officers, he will have powers to quash an authorisation, if necessary, immediately.
I should like to make one other point about the accountability of chief officers. It is that they can be required to give evidence in court to justify the authorisation they have granted. When that occurs, they
434
will be required to explain how they have satisfied the strict criteria which are set out in Clause 91(3) and that they have followed the procedure set out in the code of practice.
We believe also that there must be a clear distinction—this is my key point—between the roles of the commissioners and the chief officers. It is not the job of the commissioner to second-guess the decisions of chief officers, a point that was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It will be their role to ensure that decisions have been properly taken in accordance with the Act and to investigate complaints. How can a commissioner or a judge investigate complaints or actions to which he has been party?
Under the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the role of he commissioners would become blurred and, in our opinion, less effective. If these operations were authorised by the commissioner, then who would review the decision to ensure that it had been properly taken? Under these amendments, it would be the commissioners themselves. They would become judge and jury. And although, under the noble Lord's amendments, the decisions of the commissioners would be subject to appeal, that would happen only in cases where there was a criminal prosecution and the use of these techniques became known. What would happen in these cases or in cases where there was judicial authorisation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, where the commissioners' or judges' decisions were later questioned in court? It would undermine judicial independence for the commissioner to have any function of quashing an authorisation given by a judge and he obviously could not order a judge to pay compensation. With prior authorisation, would this make the commissioner liable to pay compensation? After all, he will have approved the authorisation.
It would also be difficult to see how any complaints system would work. It is unlikely that there would be any public satisfaction with a system where the commissioners would be both authorising an operation and investigating a complaint about their own decision.
The amendments make provision for the prior authorisation of the commissioner in cases involving interference with premises. This could create uncertainty for chief officers about the circumstances in which they had to seek prior approval or, if a window of opportunity arose while approval was still being sought, whether they could lawfully proceed. What, for example, would constitute "premises" and where would a situation be so urgent that it would not be reasonably practicable to seek prior authorisation? Confusion in such circumstances could lead to disastrous operational consequences. Indeed, it is possible, on the very same case, that a chief officer could authorise the bugging of a vehicle and the commissioner would have to authorise the bugging of a garage, an outbuilding or some other premise.
It is the blurring of responsibilities and effective second-guessing of chief officers that we believe could significantly damage the operational effectiveness of these techniques. We very strongly believe that

435
responsibilities must be clear. Chief officers must be free to take operational decisions in accordance with the strict criteria which the Bill and the code of practice will provide. The proper role of the commissioner is to review such decisions to establish whether they have been properly taken. And in taking such decisions, the commissioner should apply the principles of judicial review; that is, that the decision was reasonable, that there was no procedural impropriety in the way the decision was taken and that there was a legal basis for the decision. These must be the most important elements in any oversight process. That is why we have tabled amendments which will significantly strengthen the role of the commissioner but maintain these important distinctions.
We, and the Association of Chief Police Officers, very strongly believe that these amendments could significantly inhibit the ability of the police to fight serious crime effectively, and reducing the ability and effectiveness of the police to fight serious crime is unacceptable to the Government.
The other amendments replace the existing provision for the appointment of an independent surveillance commissioner and provide for the appointment of not fewer than three commissioners. We have tabled our own amendments on this matter, which we consider more effectively achieve this, which will be discussed later. I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about that, but we shall come to those amendments at some point later this evening.
I share the view that more than one commissioner will be necessary. But I believe, with one exception, that the amendments tabled by the Government achieve this objective in a more satisfactory manner. The exception is that I would support Amendment No. 105 providing that the commissioner who finds in favour of a complainant should make the determination specifying what, if any, should be the amount of compensation to be paid.
Perhaps I may touch on some of the points made during the course of debate. In answer to my question about Amendment No. 80, I remain uncertain, from what the noble Lord said, as to whether the surveillance commissioner would or could be called to give account in court for his involvement; that is, giving approval for a surveillance activity in pursuit of serious crime. If he could, then he is being dragged into the investigative process; if not, then who does account for approving the authority of a surveillance activity? I am advised that he could be called to justify his decision before a circuit court judge and this could result in a circuit court judge making the decision that the commissioner was wrong. Where does that leave the commissioner, having been found wanting making a decision when he has the responsibility for oversight of the proper workings of this activity? Although Amendment No. 80 refers to the authorising officer giving the authorisation, the noble Lord said the distinction is that he does not actually give the authorisation. But since this is subject to the approval of the commissioner, then it is the commissioner who has the final say.
436
Much has been said about the freedom of the individual and it is an important and fundamental point to make in the context of this debate. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, the freedom of the individual must be weighed against the protection of people whose freedom to go about their everyday activities is denied by the activities of serious and organised criminals.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked where accountability lies. Chief constables will be bound by the provisions in Clause 91(3). They will be bound by the code of practice in coming to a decision. They will have to satisfy themselves as to all the criteria set out. The commissioner will be informed of every single authorisation a chief constable makes. He will have the power to quash at any time from the point at which he receives notification of an authorisation. He has a role in the review and monitoring of all decisions. He makes an annual report to the Prime Minister—a requirement also set out in Clause 97—and the Prime Minister puts the report before Parliament. The chief constable is of course also accountable to the courts—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says about accountability, but accountability, as I have always understood it in this House, has meant accountability with detail to Parliament. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that the report that would be given by the commissioner would contain details of every case?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course, I am not suggesting that. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that the operations of the police in pursuit of serious crime, perhaps acts of terrorism, should come to this House via the Prime Minister with details of how they were operating? What is important is that they are accountable for the authorisations they give; they are accountable in court when criminal cases are taken there as to how they exercise that authority. But of course it would not be for Parliament to understand all the ins and outs of how the police pursued their criminal investigations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, what I was suggesting before and suggest again now, is that accountability would be there if it was to an independent judicial body, or in fact, an independent judge. As the procedure will now exist there will be no accountability at all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, obviously I have not made myself very clear. The accountability in every single authorisation is to an independent person who has the authority and who in fact has been or is already sitting as a senior High Court judge. It is that person—the commissioner—who will make the annual report to the Prime Minister, who will then report to Parliament. I believe that that is independent judicial oversight of the decisions that are made. The difference between us is about prior authorisation or post-monitoring and review of the way in which the decision was taken. However, I believe it is a robust and rigorous system of accountability concerning the actions of a chief officer.

437
A number of references were made to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He, for example, did not explain how his scheme would work in practice. He has said there should be more than one commissioner to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. We are talking about three, or not fewer than three. I should like to pose the question: how would one get in touch, unless there were many more of them, very, very quickly? Would one have to use fax machines or telephones in order to do this work? If so, then of course there is the very real danger of information leaking. And if not by fax, what would be the other system which would not be cumbersome, unreliable or slow? Subsection (2) proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Amendment No. 24 recognises that the procedure will not cover urgent situations. When the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was speaking I understood that the Liberal Democrats believe that urgent action is always necessary in these events. Therefore I pose the question: is the scheme flawed in that respect? The dual role for the commissioner as set out in the amendments would certainly lead to a conflict of roles.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked for figures for previous years. I am afraid that we have only two figures, which I have given to the House. One relates to the time when there was a review in progress during the noble Lord's term as Prime Minister, and is the figure of between 500 and 600. The other we know came from the Association of Police Chief Officers itself as a precursor for this debate: it is the 1995 figure. I am not able to give him specific figures for the intervening period.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, asked whether the police were acting unlawfully now. We do not accept that they have been acting unlawfully, although, of course, everything will depend on the circumstances of each case. The exercise of intrusive surveillance powers by the police has not, so far as we are aware, been ruled unlawful by the courts and indeed much of the judicial scrutiny that has taken place has implicitly endorsed the exercise of these powers. Even with judicial warranty, much of the—
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, I do not want to take up more time of the House because your Lordships want to vote. However, I would be grateful if by the usual channels at least I could be given a sight of an opinion taken by or given by the law officers, which explains how conceivably the action is lawful, because no lawyer that I know could take that view.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I have made the point about cases that have come to court where the courts have not pronounced on the illegality or otherwise of a case. There are also circumstances when this kind of activity is carried out when it is carried out by the police officer under common law. The point I made about its being a case-by-case judgment is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to a number of concerns, but even with judicial warranting there would be no requirement for the defendant or an
438
accused to be aware of what had gone on. It would not be possible to convict people on evidence recovered by intrusive surveillance but not used in court. It would have to be presented in court; and a jury cannot convict on evidence it does not hear. If the evidence has not been produced it is not available to the court to be used.
Some passing comments were made about my noble and learned friend who has been solidly with me on this Bench throughout this Bill, the Lord Advocate. He has practised in law for 25 years and I can only say that his record is an extremely impressive one.
I was asked whether the revised guidance was issued in 1984 and put into the Library. The answer is, yes, it was issued in 1984 and it was the subject of a Question in this House in December 1984, when your Lordships were told that a copy of the guidelines had been placed in the Library of the House. There was a reference to a note explaining why telephone tapping is different. Under IOCA, the Secretary of State directs a third party to implement intercepts: that concerns the non-law enforcement agencies. In this provision, the police themselves carry out the intrusive surveillance and it is therefore only appropriate for the third party to be directed by the Home Secretary to do something which would otherwise be unlawful.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to the problems and concerns of the medical profession. We simply cannot have exemptions of categories, because this would create loopholes. We have agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers, who understand the point that is being made by the noble Lord on behalf of the BMA, a further amendment to the code of practice which I hope the noble Lord will find helpful. If I may give him the form of words which it is envisaged shall be used, they are:
"When carrying out the intrusive surveillance of premises to which members of the public have access for matters of a confidential nature, for example, a hospital, a doctor's surgery or a lawyer's office, subject to any disclosure considerations, any material obtained which is unrelated to an investigation involving serious or organised crime should be destroyed immediately".
I have one or two final points. My noble friend Lord Alexander has referred to other countries, but some of those other countries where these provisions exist are where the examining magistrate is part of the investigative process. In this country the investigation of crime is entirely within the responsibility of the police and Customs. Our system of law enforcement is built upon the notion of over 50 operationally independent chief officers. I believe that these officers have demonstrated that they are the best equipped to make these decisions.
No one can be certain that their house has never been bugged, as my noble friend Lord Alexander pointed out. The defendant may never know that his premises or his car has been bugged, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. The innocent conversations of third parties, unconnected with the police inquiry, may well be overheard and recorded, but I have given the noble Lord my promise that something will be included in the code of practice to address that point.

439
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, asked me for a breakdown. I am afraid that I cannot give that, except to say that in the majority of cases the bugging or tracking of vehicles is involved, as is entry to non-residential property, such as outbuildings or garages. My "understanding"—if I am allowed to use that word in this context; perhaps I should say "I believe"—is that intrusion into private houses is, in fact, rare.
Perhaps I may repeat a point that I made earlier and advise the noble Lord, Lord Knights, that it is the police themselves who want to have their activities put on a statutory basis. At present, circuit judges, sheriffs and JPs are not called as witnesses to justify their decision to grant a search warrant. However, at present chief constables are called to justify their decision to authorise intrusive surveillance. Therefore, if the ultimate decisions are left to judges, accountability would be reduced and would not be as great as under the proposals in the Bill—that is, unless they are to be put in the same position as chief constables.
Together with our amendments, the proposals in the Bill provide for greater accountability with chief officers having to justify their decisions not only to the commissioner but, in many cases, ultimately to the courts. They provide a clear distinction between the authorisation and the review process, enabling the decisions of chief officers to be carefully scrutinised and monitored, and the maintenance of the separate functions of the judiciary and the investigative agencies without pulling judges into the investigation process. They are effective arrangements which do not lead to any delay in awaiting authorisation and which ensure that the confidentiality of operations is maintained. Again, that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights.
Chief officers are very responsible people who are fully and publicly accountable. It is unthinkable that they would behave in a cavalier fashion or on a whim. Under the proposals set out in the Bill, it would be near impossible for them to do so without serious consequences. Indeed, it would not be in their best interests or in the interests of the high reputation in which our police serve for their decisions to be constantly challenged and overturned. Therefore, this rigorous system of oversight, review and monitoring, together with the power for the commission to quash decisions, will act as an effective pressure on chief officers to act responsibly. I hope that the amendments will be rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate and I would not have missed a minute of it. Despite the obligation on the Minister to respond fully, as she has, I do not think that the House would thank me for attempting to summarise or to comment on each of the issues discussed this afternoon and this evening.
There are two fundamental issues, and the first very much more fundamental than the second. The first fundamental issue is whether it should be possible for the police to authorise themselves to enter people's homes or other premises without outside authority. On
440
that issue, everybody except the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Campbell of Alloway, and, with qualifications to which I shall come in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, has said—and, of course, the Minister—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: And Lord Gisborough!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I beg his pardon. Each has said, "No, it should not be possible for the police to authorise themselves to bug premises". That is the fundamental issue on which the Government have given no ground whatsoever and that is the basis on which I am obliged to seek to put my amendment, Amendment No. 24, to the opinion of the House.
The second issue, which is much less important, relates to the mechanics used to provide prior judicial authorisation. I emphasise that the difference between my amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is nothing like as great as the issue between both of us and the Government. If that is what President Clinton calls "triangulation", so be it.
I remind myself of the difficulties which the Green Party in Germany got into when it was forced to divisions between the Realos—those who believed in collaboration, negotiation and in advancing step by step in order to make progress—and the Fundis—those who believed in the fundamental truth of a pure theological doctrine. In these circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has appealed to what he called "flexible ecumenism", but I am afraid that the position from which the noble Lord argues is the Fundi position, whereas I am the Realo.
Let us consider the difference between us. My amendment deals with premises, not with secondary bugging such as, for example, the bugging of vehicles to discover where they are going and where they have been. In that sense, our amendment is very much more practical than either the Government's proposals or those of the Liberal Democrats. Our amendment proposes that one of a body of commissioners—there is no reason why the commissioner who gives the approval should himself be responsible for checking on that approval afterwards—who is a senior High Court judge should give that approval. This is a realistic point because that proposal provides that the people giving the approval have knowledge of what they are doing and provide consistency throughout the country.
Thirdly and finally—I address this point particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Knights—our amendment provides that in a policing emergency it is possible for the police to go ahead, provided they get subsequent authorisation as soon as it is possible practically to do so.
I want to maximise the vote for civil liberties in this House and I ask all noble Lords who believe in that as well as in efficient policing to support my amendment. However, I have to advise the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and his friends that, because I believe that their amendment is so fundamentally defective, I cannot support it if the Question on it is put subsequent to that

441
on my amendment and that I shall ask my noble friends to join me in not supporting it. Meanwhile, I beg to move that Amendment No. 24 be agreed to—
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, before the noble Lord—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I thought that I could ask a question before the noble Lord sat down. I wanted to ask him the single question: if it came to the choice, would he prefer the Liberal Democrats' amendment or the Government's amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the choice—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not believe that that is the choice. First, I think that the noble Lord will accept that if my amendment is carried, it will be nonsensical to put the Question on a further, conflicting amendment. If the amendment is defeated we must all put our heads together and force ourselves to find a method of maximising opposition to the Government in a way that is acceptable and attractive to all shades of opinion.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 209; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Alderdice, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Carr of Hadley.L.

Annan, L.

Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Chandos, V.

Avebury, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Barnett, L.

Chorley, L.

Bath, M.

Clancarty, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bingham of Comhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cross, V.

Borrie, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brightman, L.

David, B.

Broadbridge, L.

De Freyne, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Desai, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Calverley, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

442

Donoughmore, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNally, L.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Dundonald, E.

Marlesford, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Masham of Eton, B.

Elton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Erroll, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Methuen,L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monson, L.

Fitt, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Freyberg, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Gallacher, L.

Munster, E.

Geddes, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Geraint, L.

Nicol, B.

Gibson, L.

Norton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Paul,L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hacking, L.

Prior, L.

Halsbury, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hankey, L.

Rea,L.

Harmsworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harrowby, E.

Richard, L.

Haskel,L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rix,L.

Hayman, B.

Rochester, L.

Healey, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hemingford, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hertford, M.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell, E.

Hollick, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

St. John of Bletso,L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sefton of Garston,L.

Hooson, L.

Selbome, E.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Serota, B.

Howell,L.

Sewel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shannon, E.

Hughes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Simon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Spens, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead,L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strafford, E.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Kennet, L.

Taverne, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kintore, E

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Thurso,V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tope,L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Varley, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Weatherill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

443

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Winston, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Wolfson, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hood,V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Howe, E.

Ashboume, L.

Huntly, M.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L.

Attlee,E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Knights, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Beloff, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Biddulph,L.

Layton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Leigh, L.

Blaker, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Bowness, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brigstocke, B.

McConnell, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Butterworth, L.

Byford, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cadman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy,L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Chadlington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chalker of WaUasey, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Moyne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Courtown, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craig of Radley,L.

Nelson, E.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denbigh, E.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Pike,B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Derwent, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dilhome, V.

Quinton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rennell, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Feldman, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Rather, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saatchi, L.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Gisborough, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gray, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hogg, B.

Swinfen, L.

Holdemess, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

444

Terrington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wise, L.

Trefgame, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.12 p.m.
Clause 91 [Authorisations to interfere with property etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 33, line 32, at end insert ("or section (Exceptions to section 91)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 33, line 33, leave out ("officer") and insert ("circuit judge").
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Addington, L.

Desai, L.

Alderdice, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Annan, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Bamett, L.

Fitt, L.

Bath,M.

Geddes,L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Geraint, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gibson, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bingham of Comhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grey, E.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hacking, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hampton, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hankey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Calverley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Healey, L.

Carr of Hadley,L

Hemingford, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hollick, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Chorley, L.

Hooson, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hughes, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

445

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kennet, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Kimball, L.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Davids, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lawrence, L.

Selbome, E.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Serota, B.

Lincoln, Bp.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Longford, E.

Slynn of Hadley,L.

Lucas of Chil worth, L.

Spens, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stallard, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNally, L.

Stafford, E.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Taverne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Methuen, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mishcoa L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Molloy, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Monson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Thurso, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Tordoff, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Varley, L.

Norton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ogmore, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Pender, L.

Wharton, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

White, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wigoder, L.

Prior, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rea,L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Redesdale, L.

Winston, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Wolfson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Rochester, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ailsa, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ashboume, L.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Courtown, E.

Attlee, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Balfour, E.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Beloff, L.

Dean of Harptree. L.

Biddulph, L.

Denbigh. E.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blaker, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Derwent, L.

Boardman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bowness, L.

Downshire, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundonald, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brightman, L.

Elles, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Elliott of Motpeth, L.

Brookes, L.

Feldman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Rather, B.

Byford, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Cadman, L.

Gainford, L.

Caithness, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnock, L.

Goschen, V.

Chadlington, L.

Gray, L.

446

Harding of Petherton, L.

Moyne, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Henley, L.

Nelson, E.

Hogg, B.

Northesk, E.

Holdemess, L.

O'Cathain, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hood,V.

Parkinson, L.

Hooper, B.

Peel, E.

Howe, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Quinton, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kitchener, E.

Reay, L.

Knights, L.

Rennell, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Renton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Renwick, L.

Layton, L.

Rodney, L.

Leigh, L.

Romney, E.

Lindsay, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Saatchi, L.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Lucas, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Shrewsbury, E.

McConnell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strange, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Trumpington, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Vivian, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill
7.24 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

United Nations Personnel Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Special Educational Needs) Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, perhaps I may express my support for the noble Lord's Bill. It seems that the intention is wholly worthy, but we need to be assured that pupils who, for various reasons, may have some form of disability are not disadvantaged in any way.
There are some children whose parents and guardians, no doubt for a variety of reasons, do not act on behalf of their children and ensure that they receive their full legal entitlement. There are no obvious problems about enabling those children who can understand the proceedings to represent themselves when parents or guardians do not do so. What we ought to be concerned with is the moral issue of entitlement; how we may enable children to receive what is legally and morally theirs.
Clearly, no one wishes to create a situation in which children are set against their parents or guardians. But, equally, it is important to acknowledge that children have an entitlement for their cause to be pursued. We need to recognise that children who do not necessarily have all the gifts of an active intellectual life can and do have real insights into life itself. They know when they are patronised, when they are not recognised or when they are summarily dismissed.
It is deeply important that the value of each child or pupil is recognised, whether it is at statementing or at a tribunal. We do not fight for them or on their behalf, but we do fight with them, ensuring that they learn and grow. Therefore, we need to ensure that the needs of such children are met, that we have sufficient trained teachers to teach them, and that we have a system which provides them with specialist help when they need it. We need their insight and we need to recognise and rejoice in their contribution and not prejudge it.
We may need also to provide more effective support so that parents feel confident in taking up issues on behalf of their children. Many parents fear tribunals and hearings, and if a special child then becomes a parent he will need help to take up the rights of his children. Many highly articulate and educated parents have trouble filling in forms and dealing with procedures. Perhaps I may make a plea that the Government consider how best to support parents of such children in order to ensure that they receive what is their due.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Bill addresses a specific point—it is the fact that a child has individual rights and is not merely an extension of the parents. The Government did not intend that to occur, but children's
448
rights stopped appearing in legislation. The noble Lord's Bill changes that situation and brings back children's rights for all to see. We had arguments about whether certain children should be included and so forth. The noble Lord has ended up, under a certain degree of pressure, going for an answer which is probably better because it is simpler—namely, that all children should have their rights and views represented when it comes to dealing with their own education. Surely, that is something which should be dealt with, if not in this Bill, at least in legislation very soon. I hope that it is in this Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in conformity with the conventions of your Lordships' House, I must begin by reciting my mantra and saying that, as this is a Private Member's Bill, my party takes a neutral stance on it and I speak for myself alone and not as representing the Labour Party. That is a pity, since I feel like the Irishman passing a pub outside which a group of drunks were deciding a matter of dispute between them in the traditional manner. Tapping one of them on the shoulder, he inquired nostalgically, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?"
The fight, it seems to me, is between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and his noble friends in the Government rather than, in the usual way, across the Floor of the House. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing and persisting with this Bill because he has, in my view, improved it substantially since Second Reading, in particular by removing the phrase "if of sufficient understanding", which several of us pointed out to him was a cause of offence. Yet the objective of the Bill remains the same—namely, to establish conditions in which it will be possible for children to be given a full and independent voice in the appeal proceedings. There are those who believe that the noble Lord's Bill will not have this effect; I suspect that the noble Lord the Minister would number himself among them.
The Bill is designed to take away appeals from the SEN Tribunal and place them far more in front of the High Court. While not wishing to suggest that lawyers may have a financial interest in having cases before the High Court rather than the tribunal—and again it is to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that he has scotched that rumour remarkably effectively and well as the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House—there are those who argue that it is unhelpful to have a body, the High Court, which was not designed to hear SEN appeal cases, taking away appeals from the very body, the SEN Tribunal, which was specifically designed for that purpose. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wished to give children additional appeal rights, they argue, he should have started at the SEN Tribunal and not at the High Court. He will doubtless wish to deal with that issue when he speaks.
Yet even after the Bill's Committee stage there continues to be much concern by local authorities about the operation of the tribunal. It may be that the noble Lord's attempt to move things to another plane would

449
assist the tribunal rather than hinder it. In particular, it is becoming susceptible to organised campaigning by certain pressure groups.
I have received an unsolicited letter from Dudley local education authority which makes this case well. An SEN Tribunal case is quoted in which a boy aged seven who suffers from epilepsy, which is well controlled by medication, has some mild learning and behavioural difficulties. On admission to primary school at the age of five, additional welfare support was provided to the school for three pupils while statutory assessments were completed following school referral. That was in February 1994.
The assessment was completed and the note-in-lieu issued in April 1995. Informal support was then removed from the school. The authority considered that the mainstream school could meet the pupil's needs from its normal resources. There was therefore an appeal to the SEN Tribunal in June 1995. Time goes on like an ever-rolling stream. In November 1995 the tribunal ordered the case to be remitted to the LEA to consider whether to determine special educational provision.
In December 1995 the LEA issued a notice to reassess the pupil's needs. This was completed in February 1996, resulting again in a note-in-lieu indicating that the pupil was making satisfactory progress in the basic skills and that his epilepsy was well controlled by medication.
That would have seemed to be the end of it; but no, there was appeal number two to the SEN Tribunal in June 1996 and the tribunal ordered that the LEA should make and maintain a statement based on the premise that the child's performance was erratic, that the level of support provided by the school would be reduced on transfer into Key Stage 2 and that he required daily support.
The LEA issued a statement providing one hour per day welfare support, thus complying with the tribunal order. This level of support was well in excess of the existing support for the pupil of 2 × 30 minutes group withdrawal and 2 × 30 minutes classroom support.
That would have seemed to be the end of the matter; but no, there was appeal number three to the SEN Tribunal in November 1996. This appeal is based on the parents' view that, as the school has reduced its internal support to the LEA, the LEA's provision of one hour per day is not sufficient. In the words of the press, the case proceeds.
The increase in litigiousness is alarming. I note the concern expressed (judiciously) in the Annual Report of the SEN Tribunal for 1995-96. I quote from the report's introduction:
"The year 1995-96 was the Tribunal's first full year of work, after the gradual build-up during the previous year. At the start of the second year, immediately after the school summer holidays, there was an unexpectedly heavy influx of new appeals. For a time, an already over-stretched secretariat was unable to keep pace, and there were consequent delays in processing the cases. However, the intake of work slackened, and it was possible to recruit and train more staff, some of whom are now working in Darlington. All the same, accommodation problems meant that there was a continuing need to ask staff to work overtime. Towards the end of the year, we were
450
receiving some 35 new cases each week, a figure considerably above the original estimate of the Tribunal's workload. It also became apparent during the year that more chairmen (sic) and members were needed to adjudicate the volume of appeals we were receiving. Further appointments were made, although only late in the year."
It is for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to convince his noble, honourable and right honourable friends that his Bill will alleviate that condition rather than confound it and lead to even more work for the tribunal year by year, and for the High Court as well, which could act to the detriment of the child and family or in their favour. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to convince the Government of that.
Meanwhile I am happy to continue to support the thrust of his Bill and I am very willing to be convinced that it would achieve its objective without increasing these complexities and delays. I fear that his noble friend the Minister may be harder to persuade.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps I may start by reassuring the House and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that this Bill does not represent a fight, whether public or private, between myself and the noble Lord opposite or between my noble friend, myself and the Government. I very much commend the manner in which my noble friend has moved this Bill and taken it through both Houses. We have had some very useful discussions, even if we have not necessarily always agreed.
I have already stated the Government's general opposition to the thrust of the Bill. While the principles behind my noble friend's Bill have much to commend them, these principles are already enshrined in the appropriate legislation and in the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Those who are involved in child assessment and provision and those involved in an appeal about them to the SEN Tribunal are already exhorted to ensure that the child's views are known and represented. I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that the child's needs are there represented and that the local authority is actively encouraged to listen to the views of the child. The tribunal itself is concerned solely—as is right—with the child's needs, and that is what it is established for.
Children with special educational needs are not—as I think has been suggested—disadvantaged by the current system. They are the only children to have their own tribunal which, unlike other forms of address such as local appeal tribunals, the Secretary of State or the courts, is expert in the matters of special educational needs. I believe that this Bill attacks the principle that so far as is possible the tribunal should be the final arbiter in these matters by at least implicitly opening up the prospect of much further subsequent challenge to the courts.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that the SEN Tribunal and its members and chairman (sic)—I hope I may put it like that to the noble Lord; I know how politically correct he is—are independent. The noble Lord knows that they are independent. I know the noble Lord knows well the

451
work that they do and has great admiration for it. Many of them have experience of working in LEAs. The decisions of the tribunal are, I believe, in the interests of each child before it. I do not think it is correct—I suspect I misunderstood the noble Lord if I understood him to say this—to say that it is susceptible to lobbying from any quarter. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish that impression to be gained.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, may I withdraw the word "susceptible" for fear of misinterpretation and substitute for it another word which will come to me in a moment, and say it is subject to pressure from outside?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am only sorry that we do not have the benefit of the expert advice of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who might be able to advise us on the appropriate use of language. I take the point of what the noble Lord has to say. The various words he has used can remain on the record.
I hope I may illustrate what I believe is the success of the tribunal in meeting children's needs. It has, since September 1994, registered something in the region of 3,500 appeals. Only 72 of its decisions have been appealed to the High Court on a point of law and in only 10 of those 72 were the tribunal's decisions remitted for rehearing or conceded. If that does not demonstrate that the tribunal is doing a good job, I do not know what does. I believe—I say this with some care, and I do not wish in any way to offend my noble friend—this Bill would have the danger of making the tribunal more litigious and more formal. I and many others, both inside and outside government, do not want that to happen.
I address one further matter that has not been raised this evening, but I think would be of interest to my noble friend, relating to the question of legal representation at hearings. My noble friend will no doubt be aware of the president of the tribunal's statement on 16th December about representation at tribunal hearings, which is directly relevant to Clause 4(1) of this Bill. I said at Second Reading I would not want to press further on this without knowing the outcome of the president's consultation. The president has now written to me in the department about the conclusions arising from his consultation. He confirms that the regulations are clear in their intention that the parties should be represented in the main by one person. He does not want to compromise the informal approach of tribunals by giving legally represented parties the right to have both counsel and a solicitor, but he will consider the merits of each case.
Alternatively, where parents would like their solicitor to attend a hearing—for example, where they have established a good relationship with him and do not know counsel—he may attend a hearing as a befriender. That seems to me to be a perfectly good solution and strikes the right balance between maintaining informality at hearings while allowing additional support for parents. I hope my noble friend does not mind my putting that message from the president of the tribunal on the record because I think it is an important
452
matter of concern to the House. Having repeated my views on the Bill, I say to my noble friend that I, of course, understand very much the motives behind his moving the Bill, but I have to say yet again that the Government cannot offer their support to it.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I must not take too much time. One ought to pay tribute to the procedures of the House. They enable a Private Member's Bill to be debated fully and with expedition. However, if this Bill be but a means to an end, so be it. Already, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has mentioned, it has had some beneficial effect in certain quarters. Some day, in some form, the substance of this Bill will reach the statute book; of that, there is no question.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for coming to speak on the moral entitlement, the core principle of this Bill, and the reason why it shall reach the statute book, and to speak for the Church, which is of crucial and cardinal importance. So your Lordships have not toiled in vain. Some Cabinet decision will have to be taken some time under some government which overrides the resistance of Sanctuary Buildings whence come the instructions of my noble friend the Minister.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for what he had to say. I do not agree with any of it, as he knows. I understand that he has to restate the Government position. I am not at all happy about the way the tribunal is working. I do not want to enter into an argument— for the sake of the record, a counter argument—at this time of night on this occasion; but I do not accept that all is as well as my noble friend the Minister would suggest. However, I thank him for the good humour and patience with which he has conducted this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who spoke tonight and who has spoken cogently throughout this Bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. I also thank my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) who has spoken from the Cross Benches.
The interest in this Bill is such that it has gone far beyond this House. It is interesting that the majority of noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill are hereditary Peers. In particular the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, at Second Reading were veritable beacons of inspiration and enlightenment and are worthy of the attention of any government and of another place at any time. Another place in due course may well wish to know why Dean's Yard and Sanctuary Buildings, so close to one another, are yet so many miles apart. It may wish to know why representations of the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Lichfield, the Bishop of Ripon and the Bishop of Carlisle and those of Mencap have been rejected out of hand. Another place may wish to know that. It may also wish to know why, in our predominantly Christian, multi-religious society no "theist", atheist or agnostic objection has been raised to this Bill or to the core principle of it.

453
Although my noble friend would not agree, this Bill, in effect, in all its aspects reflects the consensus of basic sociological moral values. I thank all noble Lords again for all the trouble that they have taken. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
7.50 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: 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 Monkswell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT ALLENBY OF MEGIDDO in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Right to dignity at work]:
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to section 5 of this Act, an employer commits a breach of the right to dignity at work of an employee if that employee suffers during his employment with the employer harassment or bullying or any act, omission or conduct which causes him to be alarmed or distressed including but not limited to any of the following—

(a)behaviour on more than one occasion which is offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating;

(b) unjustified criticism on more than one occasion;

(c) punishment imposed without reasonable justification; or

(d) changes in the duties or responsibilities of the employee to the employee's detriment without reasonable justification.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. This amendment is to leave out Clause 1(2) and insert the redrafted subsection (2).
During the Second Reading debate a number of comments were made which suggested that there was some lack of clarity about this subsection. I am grateful to my advisers, and in particular to the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, for their instructive advice in drafting this amendment.
The new subsection (2) identifies that harassment and bullying would constitute a breach of the right to dignity at work, and also gives some examples, which are not exclusive, that could be construed as conduct breaching the right to dignity at work. This right pertains during the employee's employment rather than in the course of his employment. I am advised that this will prevent legal difficulties.
Subparagraph (a) lists some aspects of behaviour which should have no place in a work context, which, if repeated, would constitute harassment or bullying. Subparagraph (b) identifies criticism which, if justified, would be acceptable in a work context, but if unjustified and repeated would breach the right to dignity at work.
Because these things can happen accidentally, it is felt that they should have to occur on more than one occasion to fall foul of this legislation. However, subparagraphs (c) and (d), which identify discrete situations with specific consequences—in fact, punishment without reasonable justification or changes in duties or responsibilities to the employee's detriment without reasonable justification—do not have to be repeated to be construed as breaches of the right to dignity at work.
Lord McCarthy: I am sure the Committee can agree to pass this stage of the Bill. At Second Reading the Government did not seek to deny, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said positively, that it was a real and growing problem with which the Bill seeks to deal. He did not think that we should have this Bill, indeed perhaps any Bill, but it was accepted in the House at Second Reading that the Bill is attempting to deal with a real and growing problem. The only criticisms which were of any substance at that time did relate to the clause which is now amended. I am bound to say that those criticisms have now been effectively met by the amendment which has been put forward by the noble Lord.
We were worried that the list of examples might be thought to be all inclusive, or even additive, so that somebody might argue that you had to offend against more than one of them. That is made quite clear on the face of the clause now and it cannot be objected to on those grounds.
On this side of the Committee it was also thought that some forms of unlawful bullying were described in rather different ways. Some had to be done persistently, and some could be justified and some could not be justified, and we could not see quite why the noble Lord had put it in this way. Now he has clarified that so we can see quite clearly why he thinks that some examples require persistence, more than one incidence, whereas others are capable of justification.
The noble Lord also said—in some ways this was the most important point to make—that there was a great deal to be said for an effective general definition, of what a breach of dignity was to be in terms of the Bill, and we now have an excellent definition, a general definition, of what a breach of dignity is.
Therefore, I think that the Committee could agree, and I hope that we shall see the Bill passed through its remaining stages in this House as soon as possible, and it may even get into the other place during the dying days of this discredited government.
Lord Rochester: I was unable to attend the Second Reading of the Bill, but I have read with interest the whole of the report on it. This is not the occasion on which to speak at any length on the principle underlying the Bill, but I hope the Committee will allow me to say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, at Second Reading, I approached it with mixed feelings. I am not altogether convinced that what it seeks to achieve cannot already be accommodated by Acts that are already in existence, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Rights Act 1996.

455
There is also the Government's Protection from Harassment Bill, otherwise known as the stalking Bill, under which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, confirmed at Second Reading, it will be an offence to pursue a course of conduct which causes a person to feel harassment or distress. It is good to know that that Bill is to have its Second Reading next Friday.
Having said that, I should like to make it plain that I have every sympathy with the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in bringing this Bill forward, for, as the survey commissioned by the Institute of Personnel and Development and other evidence have demonstrated, the incidence of bullying at work is clearly a serious problem. Moreover, now that the Bill has been approved in principle at Second Reading, it is incumbent on us all to do what we can to improve it before it leaves the House.
Turning to the amendment itself, the substitution of the words in it for subsection (2) of Clause 1, is in my view, a considerable improvement and takes account of a number of the criticisms voiced by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, at Second Reading. Specifically, there is now more consistency of definition, since, to be actionable, behaviour which is offensive or abusive, or unjustified criticism, has to occur in each case on more than one occasion. Further, it is now plain that the instances given in the clause of bullying or other unacceptable behaviour are not to be regarded as exclusive, but examples only within an overall definition of actionable conduct. Accordingly, I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by my noble friend this evening. Unfortunately, I also was not able to be at the Second Reading debate, but I have read Hansard since. I agree with the principle of the Bill, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has indicated. Bullying has become a major problem in many workplaces and, in my view, it is the job of those who make legislation in a civilised society to endeavour to protect vulnerable people.
Unfortunately, as a result of successive waves of legislation, employees have become more and more vulnerable and have less and less protection. The Bill, with the amendment, seeks to provide protection. The amendment improves the wording of the first part of the Bill. I therefore commend it to the Committee. I hope that the Bill will leave this place quickly so as to get on the statute book as soon as possible.
8.00 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted that the amendment pleases the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord McCarthy. It must therefore rank as a good thing. So it saddens me that we still have some small faults to find with the definition as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. They centre upon two aspects of it. The first arises because there is no requirement in the clause that the employer's conduct should have been unreasonable or that the employee's conduct should have been reasonable. The second is that, because of the way in which the clause is drafted, the illustrations that come
456
at the end of the definition are just that: they have no particular force due to the immediately preceding words. Once the industrial tribunal found that the individual had been caused genuine alarm or distress at work, however unreasonable, unavoidable or insignificant, it would have no discretion but to find that the protection of the Bill did not apply.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will indulge in a fantasy for a moment and imagine that he was a Minister under a new Labour Government—the new Labour Government being the fantastic part of course—and that one of his officials had presented him with a memorandum which he found unacceptable in some way. It might have been badly drafted—that is another fancy; it does not happen in practice—and he had, in his most polite fashion, told that official what he thought of the documents, but the official had, nonetheless, been upset, and was distressed as a result of being told that about the work upon which he had spent a great deal of time.
As proposed under the clause, the official would, nonetheless, have the right to take the Government, and perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to the industrial tribunal for causing him distress. If one were to have any Act along those lines, there must be some mechanism for ensuring that complaints are reasonable, justified and proportional, and that the employer has some proper responsibility for what has taken place.
Legislation is not the answer to all ills. In many cases the problems are too personal and subjective for statute to provide a practical solution. On Second Reading we discussed the assistance that legislation can and does give in particular circumstances and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, may in the future. In other cases what is needed is a culture change within the organisation itself, a recognition of the issues and procedures, informal and formal, for dealing with problems that arise. Many companies operate grievance procedures for handling such problems. The noble Lord's union (the MSF) is to be congratulated on raising the profile of the issue and on offering practical advice for resolving problems. The Government welcome that approach. We firmly believe that that is the way to achieve results.
Lord McCarthy: What the noble Lord says about reasonableness, I should have thought was met in Clause 5. We talk there about the employer's defence. With respect, it has reasonableness written all over it. Under Clause 5(l)(a), when the employer is putting forward his defence he can say that he has taken all reasonable steps to implement and enforce the policy. Under Clause 5(l)(b), the act or acts complained of are repudiated by the competent person as soon as is reasonably practicable. Under Clause 5(l)(c), as soon as is reasonably practicable the employer takes all such steps as are reasonably necessary. So it goes on.
The argument that the employer has acted reasonably is built into the central core of the employer's defence. I should have thought that that was the proper place to put it. Of course if the Minister would like to tell us

457
how he would like to see the Bill further amended, I am sure that we would be pleased to see what could be done.
Lord Lucas: I should be happy to address the point that the noble Lord has just raised. It would be better if I did so by letter to the noble Lord and to the other noble Lords who have spoken this evening. There is clearly a difference between our interpretation of the Bill and that of the noble Lord. I am happy to ensure that that is resolved before the next stage.
Lord Monkswell: I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter suggesting further improvements to the Bill. We have another couple of stages to go.
I shall respond to the debate on the amendment. First, I am glad that my noble friend Lord McCarthy feels that all the criticisms have been met by the amendment, and that we now have a good, general definition. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his support for the amendment. With the leave of the Committee, I shall respond to the points that he made about the fact that we currently have legislation. Employers also have a common law duty to look after the welfare of their employees. Unfortunately the mechanisms that the Government listed on Second Reading are felt not to be satisfactory for resolving the problems. I suspect that, were nothing to happen in legislation over a period of, perhaps, five or 10 years, case law would catch up and we would achieve an effective redress for this problem. One of the reasons for introducing the Bill is to ensure that some action is taken rather more quickly than that.
I thank my noble friend Lady Turner as well. I understand why she could not be here for Second Reading, and I appreciate her being here tonight. I welcome her support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, identified as a problem the lack of a "reasonableness" argument. My noble friend Lord McCarthy rebutted that point effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, then put forward a hypothetical case. He said that if a Government Minister were critical of the advice that he had received from his advisers, the advisers might have a case against him. I think they would have if the Minister's criticism was unreasonable and unjustified, and he treated his advisers in an appalling way. He should be taken to an industrial tribunal. But that is not the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to ensure that preventive action is taken by employers to ensure that bullying does not take place.
The noble Lord said that there was a need for a cultural change. There is such a need. I hope that this legislation will be part of the process of ensuring that that cultural change takes place rather more quickly than would otherwise be the case. I am grateful to him for the compliments he paid to my union and other unions for the effective work that they do in this field. I hope that that work will form a basis for the actions that good employers will take. Good employers using good practice should work with progressive unions to ensure that they have the right policies and practices within their companies.
458
Virtually everyone who has spoken has pointed out that the amendment will improve the Bill. I am glad about that. As I said, I look forward to receiving advice from the Minister as to how we can further improve the Bill. That may or may not be possible. There are another couple of stages at which we could take amendments. In the meantime, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.25 p.m.]

Police Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 91.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 33, line 37, at end insert—
("() Where the action taken would involve an entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy at—

(a) the place of business of a professional legal adviser; or

(b) another place in or at which communication subject to legal privilege is taking place between a professional legal adviser and his client,

the authorising officer and, if applicable, any other person who is required to approve action under this section must (in addition to the other requirements of this section) be satisfied that it is likely that an abuse of legal privilege will be occurring at the place which is the subject of the application, and, in this section, the term "subject to legal privilege" has the same meaning as that given to it in section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 27 and there are probably some consequential amendments. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 40. These amendments are concerned with the extremely important issues of legal professional privilege and of privilege for other forms of communication which in the past have been protected by Section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I refer to communications involving journalists, doctors, and comparable people.
This matter was mentioned on a number of occasions in the lengthy debate on Amendment No. 24. That was very worthwhile because it is evident that there is very considerable concern about the risk, in particular to legal professional privilege, of what the Government are proposing. I confess that I have not had time to do a textual analysis enabling me to say what will be the effect, if any, of the amendments which have been carried on legal professional privilege and on Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I rather suspect that they will not affect it.
At the Committee Stage I moved amendments which gained some support around the Chamber but which I had to withdraw because they were defective in the sense that they would have prohibited communication between, for example, a lawyer and his client even if that communication had originated in the client's home rather than on the lawyer's premises. We had to think very carefully about how to achieve legal professional privilege.
The conclusion to which we came was that we should recognise the fear which Government Ministers expressed about the abuse of legal professional privilege. We discussed in Committee the whole issue of iniquity where one has, not to put too fine a point on it, a crooked lawyer who is seeking to break the law or evade the penalties of the law in the way that he communicates with his client. We thought that we ought to take account of that possibility in our amendments.
Amendment No. 27 relates to legal professional privilege and Amendment No. 28 to the others. We provide that the authorising officer or, having had great foresight, any other person, who is required to approve action under this clause—that, of course, now means one of the commissioners—has to be satisfied that it is likely that an abuse of legal privilege will be occurring at the place which is the subject of the application. We go on to define "subject to legal privilege".
I believe that the amendment meets the objections which the Government raised to the way in which we approached legal professional privilege in the past. I believe that it deals with the problem which was raised of abuse of legal professional privilege. It is an absolutely essential safeguard for the way in which law is conducted in this country. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke movingly about his work in countries where, although they purport to conform to the British legal system, a lawyer cannot be sure when talking to his client that he is not being bugged and improper use is not being made of what he is saying. It is essential that we should keep that kind of banana republic law out of this country. I believe that these amendments do so. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, in moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he had not had time to assess the effect of the two amendments that your Lordships approved but that he rather suspected—I think I correctly quote his words— that legal privilege would not be affected.
I try to bring him some comfort in opposing his amendment by saying that there is a double protection now supplied. First, there is the commissioner. The intrusion into a lawyer's office is a matter which the commissioner, under the amendment successfully moved by the noble Lord's party, will take into account. I am not sure that both protections will remain in the Bill after it has been through your Lordships' House but certainly as it stands at the moment there is the second protection of the judge under the amendment successfully moved by the Liberal Party. Therefore I approach this amendment now with some care.
460
I do so because there are all manner of persons in privileged positions who receive confidential information from those to whom they speak. For example, there are doctors. We heard in the intervention earlier in the debate about the position of doctors. There are clinical psychologists. There are all manner of people working in social services, and there are priests.
As a lawyer, I am uncomfortable that the legal profession—which performs a very important function in society in looking after clients—should be singled out when there are so many others who receive confidential information in privileged circumstances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that Amendment No. 28 covers the other examples that he has given. It embraces those communications covered by Section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I did not spell out in detail what is covered, although I referred to doctor's surgeries and to journalists. Amendment No. 28, which is a comparable amendment to Amendment No. 27, specifically covers the other kinds of confidential communication to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I may be at fault because I was not in the House when he rose to move the amendment. Perhaps I missed some of his earlier words. I should like to look at them in Hansard and consider the matter again.
My immediate response is still the same; namely, that the amendment singles out special protection for the consultation between the legal profession and members of the public. On that ground and that ground alone, I remain uncomfortable with it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will know that legal professional privilege is a very specific type of privilege in any event. It has to be contrasted with the confidentiality that exists between the doctor and patient, the psychotherapist and patient, the priest and penitent and so on. It is a relationship recognised by the courts and has, up to now, been recognised because it is thought that such a degree of privilege between client and lawyer is in the public interest. Why is it in the public interest? It is because it is essential that the client should have confidence in his legal adviser at the point where he faces criminal charges. That is a confidence which must be maintained.
At times, listening to the debates on the Police Bill, it has seemed to me that there has been far too much mention of crooked lawyers who conspire with their clients to defeat justice. That may perhaps be a popular press point of view but it is very far removed from the truth. As I said in Committee, it must be appreciated that lawyers are concerned to advise clients in the clients' best interests. That does not necessarily mean to get them off. If a person has committed a criminal offence, it may be, if it is a very serious criminal offence, that the aim of the lawyer is to get him a life

461
sentence as opposed to a hospital order, or a hospital order as opposed to a life sentence, or three years instead of five years.
It is essential that the lawyer can talk to his client and obtain, if he can, the truth from his client. The successful lawyer is the lawyer who gains the trust and confidence of his client so that he will tell him the truth. With that truth, if it is the truth, the lawyer can achieve an aim. It may be to get a not guilty verdict, a period of years or a life sentence—whatever that aim may happen to be.
What is iniquitous in this Bill as it is framed on the question of legal professional privilege is that it interferes in the very delicate balance that exists in an adversarial system. For better or worse, the feature of the criminal justice system of this country—in which noble Lords have many times expressed confidence—is that it is an adversarial system whereby one side puts forward its case, the other side does the same, and an impartial judge and perhaps a jury or finder of fact stands between the two and comes to a conclusion.
What happens when bugging is permitted? I have been involved in bugging cases. What would happen with bugging of lawyers' offices is that one side would obtain inside information of what his adversary was doing—the discussions he was having with his clients, the advice that he was giving, and the aims or goals they were seeking to achieve. That is putting into the hands of one side, and obviously into the hands of the police and prosecution, a weapon which, under our adversarial system as it has grown up, that side should not have.
That is why we agree with the amendment now put forward to confine the possibility of bugging lawyers' offices or any place where a communication subject to legal privilege is taking place to a situation where it is likely that an abuse of legal privilege will be occurring. That does not happen very frequently. It does not mean that a lawyer is giving advice to his client in a proper manner or receiving his confidence in a proper manner. It means that a lawyer has stepped over the boundary and become a criminal himself. That is where the abuse of legal privilege will arise. It is only in that extreme situation and in very rare cases—in my own experience over 30 years I can think of only two or three cases where a lawyer became involved in the criminality of his clients—that the bugging of a lawyer's offices should be allowed. In any other situation, the confidence and trust of the client in his adviser must be maintained. That is the foundation and basis of our system.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, the House now has a moderate number of people to consider amendments which, if they had come alone and were not succeeding what we had earlier this evening, would each have been regarded as of the highest importance.
I have had a chance to analyse a little the inter-relationship between what happened earlier this evening and what we have before us now. These amendments remain of very great importance because whether you have an approving judge, an approving commissioner or an approving chief constable, he has to
462
approve the action within the parameters laid down by the Act. I am a lawyer but I am not going to bang on any more about legal privilege.
Your Lordships earlier heard that the doctors are enormously concerned about their confidences. You may not have heard it in the House but you will have read it in the press indirectly that the press is concerned about the confidential sources that it enjoys. Nobody has mentioned it so far but there is also the matter of priests and confessions. All such confidential relationships are covered by these amendments.
The purpose behind this is not to prevent the police taking real evidence where a privilege is being abused; if you can show an abuse of a privilege, you can move. What is not right is that all these confidential relationships—lawyer and client, doctor and patient, and all the rest—should be exposed to bugging without proof of suspected abuse. Poor, miserable amendment No. 40, which has so far evaded consideration, actually deals with the giving in evidence of privileged material against the accused—something which to a lawyer would be a very remarkable thing.
I am speaking to go on the record more than anything else, in the hope that the Government will consider this position. When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed in 1984, enormous care was taken to try to adjust the balance between privilege on the one hand and the interests of the administration and enforcement of justice on the other. Very careful safeguards were put in for all these confidential relationships. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that those carefully worked-out safeguards are preserved and the information obtained not in documentary form, which is what we have had up until now, but in oral form, transcribed and recorded so as to be available in the way that previously documents had been available.
I am here in this empty House simply to stay for amendments which are regarded as residuary but which are very important. I cannot help feeling that, if the Government applied their mind to this again, they would see that, true as it is that there must be the power to bug people who are abusing their position of confidence— that, as I understand it, this preserves—what ought not happen is that these positions of confidence should be more available to modern systems of artificial surveillance than they have been previously under the 1984 Act.
I hope that this will not be regarded as a little bit of flibbertigibbet. We are talking about confidential relationships which have been valued in our society and in our law.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, once again the whole House owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, whom I was glad to hear emphasising the vital importance of the debate that we are having in this House which is so sparsely attended. Unlike him, I shall bang on for a moment or two about the matter of legal privilege. I want to be perfectly clear about what I am banging on about so that we all know where we start.

463
It is clear that the position of the Government is that it will not be unlawful under this Bill to secretly bug or break into barristers' chambers or lawyers' chambers or to bug police or prison cells when conferences are taking place with accused persons or with persons who are suspected of having committed offences. Secondly, there cannot be any exemptions to this. Thirdly—to get it out of the way—we are not dealing with iniquity; everybody agrees that if a lawyer is suspected of being involved in any form of criminal offence that is a totally different matter and is not what we are dealing with in this debate. Fourthly, in talking about legal privilege it is perfectly clear that this is not a privilege for the lawyer, that it brings no advantage to the lawyer, that it has nothing to do with a lawyer's privilege. It is the privilege of the citizen who goes to consult a lawyer. It is his privilege, it is not the lawyer's privilege. I hope that that is the basis on which we are discussing this matter. The Minister has said that the protection— although there can be no exemptions—will be the judge at trial. He will decide if the evidence has been obtained illegally or unfairly, and that is the ultimate protection. Lastly, the Minister says it is difficult to visualise it ever being necessary to allow authorisation of intrusion into a lawyer's chambers.
Let me spell out some of the circumstances in which intrusion is likely to be of substantial value in the detection of serious crime from the point of view of the police. In a conference with a barrister or solicitor the suspect, the member of the public, is very likely to mention his associates, very likely to mention his colleagues. From the police point of view, they would be his co-conspirators. He is very likely to mention where he banks his money. From the police point of view, that would be the proceeds of crime. He is likely to mention where his holiday home is. From the police point of view, that is where he will disappear to and get out of the jurisdiction. He is likely to mention whether he suspects that the police suspect him for some reason or another. That is enormously important from the police point of view. And, of course, he might mention what his defence would be if the police were to suggest that he had done anything unlawful.
If a chief constable is faced with one of his members of the force saying, "So and so is seeing his lawyer in the Temple on Tuesday. I think we will find that essential matters will be discussed during that conference"—and all those matters that I have mentioned would be essential matters—how could any chief constable say that that did not fall within the terms of the clause as being of substantial value in the detection of serious crime?
In those circumstances I would say a word about the constitutional position. When the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, says that the legal profession should be singled out, I can entirely part company with him because the legal position of privilege is entirely different from the privilege covering so many other positions between the citizen and, say, the priest or whoever else. It is a constitutional position. Without a written constitution, all that stands between the all powerful state on the one hand and the liberty of the individual on the other is an independent judiciary and an independent Bar, or, as it
464
now will be, an independent group of advocates, ready to uphold the common law without fear or favour. The advocate is part of this constitutional complex. What many laymen do not appreciate is that a lawyer has an overriding duty to the court which is over and above his duty to his client. By that we mean that he has an overriding duty to the proper administration of justice.
It is not sycophancy which causes the advocate to call the judge "my Lord". It is not fear that causes the advocate to treat the judge with good manners and with respect, whatever the shortcomings of the judge's personal behaviour may be. The reason for this is that the judge represents the law and justice in the court. Legal privilege is the citizen's guarantee that he can, when he goes to see his lawyer, speak the whole truth to his adviser in perfect confidence and so receive advice which is honest and untrammelled in return. To allow state intrusion into this process, exercised in secrecy at the behest of one organ of the state—the police—for the benefit of the state, is to undermine a cornerstone of our democratic constitution.
The commissioner's position is nothing to the point because, as has arisen in the previous debate, if the whole process is secret and unknown, there cannot be a complaint to the commissioner and therefore the commissioner has no position. If it is not secret, and it is discovered and a complaint is made, then it is difficult to see, if the chief constable acts in good faith within Clause 91—if he honestly thinks that the intrusion is likely to be of substantial value—how the commissioner can possibly say that the chief constable's conduct has been in any way unlawful or improper.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, we may be at cross-purposes. If the government amendments requiring all authorisations to be submitted to the commissioner for consideration and review are passed, the point about secrecy is gone. The commissioner will be looking at each authorisation whether or not the person bugged complains or knows about it. The government amendment is a major shift which requires investigation of each authorisation.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord because I had not myself gone into the exact effect of this afternoon's vote on this clause. However, my second point remains valid as to the approach the commissioner can take if the police officer has acted within the words of the statute.
Surely the overwhelming issue concerns the passing of a law that says that it is not illegal to bug a lawyer's chambers. That to me, as a lawyer, is so extraordinary, remarkable and unbelievable that I could not believe it when I saw it on the face of the Bill. To me the important matter here is that if there is such a law on the statute book it not only deprives the citizen of his privilege but it goes to the very basis of our constitution.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not hear the beginning of the debate and I had not intended to intervene. However, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has said, I feel obliged just to remind him

465
that Amendment No. 27 refers to Section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That is a statutory definition that we now have to accept of what was previously covered by the common law, but not so precisely.
The noble Lord's argument was based on what we all grew up to understand was the common law. However, Section 10 of the 1984 Act refers to,
'"items subject to legal privilege'"
as meaning,
"communications between a professional legal adviser and his client".
It then elaborates on those communications. It says:
"items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made

(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice; or

(ii) in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings".

Subsection (2) of Section 10 goes on to say:
"Items held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not items subject to legal privilege".
One ought to bear that in mind in view of what the noble Lord was saying.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we accept that the Government should not be allowed to set out to listen in on, or otherwise interfere with, confidential conversations between a lawyer and his client on matters such as a client's defence with the intention of frustrating that defence. That would be wrong and, under the provisions of the Bill, would be unlawful. We could not introduce provisions exempting particular kinds of information or information held by certain categories of people without creating loopholes in the provisions which criminals would be sure to exploit.
We are dealing with highly professional criminals, and very successful ones, often with considerable resources at their disposal, who would be bound to exploit any exemptions or attempt to use them as a means of having evidence obtained from such surveillance ruled as inadmissible in court. I am sure that in practice the circumstances where the police or Customs would consider it necessary to intrude on the offices of lawyers would be extremely rare. The purpose of intrusive surveillance in these cases would not be to breach the confidentiality of a lawyer and his client but to collect intelligence on the commission or future commission of a serious crime where this information could not be obtained by other means. Authorisation for any other purpose or in any other circumstances would be unlawful.
In some circumstances, it would be impossible for the authorising officer to know beforehand whether or not there were likely to be matters normally subject to legal privilege on the premises. Before authorising interference with a lawyer's offices the authorising officer would need to think it necessary for the action to be taken because he suspected that serious criminal activity or conspiracy in serious criminal activity was taking place on the premises. There is already a specific
466
exemption under Section 10 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for items held for furthering a criminal purpose.
Other material which properly fitted within the definition of legal privilege may not be given in evidence without the consent of the person enjoying the privilege save where this would help establish the innocence of the person accused. Therefore this amendment would not achieve anything which is not already covered in statute. In similar fashion, the purpose of the intrusive surveillance would not be to breach the confidentiality of the journalist and his source or the doctor and his patient but to collect intelligence on the commission or future commission of a serious crime. Again, authorisation for any other purpose would be unlawful.
An example of where intrusive surveillance might take place is if the police believed that a journalist was actively involved with an organised crime group or where a doctor was allowing his medical premises to be used for the production of synthetic drugs or drug trafficking. The amendments we have put forward will require authorising officers to notify the commissioners of all authorisations—and I was grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord on this point—as soon as is reasonable practicable.
However, the commissioners will also be given a duty to scrutinise specified categories of authorisations within 48 hours of receipt. These categories, which will be set out in a separate order, will include matters usually subject to legal privilege: journalistic material and other medical records except in particular cases where it would be essential for the surveillance to take place immediately to catch a window of opportunity. This would effectively put the commissioner in a position to scrutinise the authorisation before the operation commenced and to quash it if he considered it improper.
One difficulty we have is that a number of authorisations are now being made where one would have to go to a circuit judge for an authorisation. There would also be need to go to a commissioner for an authorisation. However, the main arguments I am using in regard to the amendment hold true. Our proposals ensure that we do not create loopholes which would defeat the whole purpose of the legislation while at the same time ensuring close traditional oversight through the work of the commissioner. We believe this provides a sensible working approach which does not impede serious investigations but ensures the protection of lawyers and their clients and other confidential material from any unwarranted breach of confidentiality.
We are talking in this amendment not just about lawyers' premises. We are talking about wherever a lawyer may be: in a client's home, a club or another place. I do not know what mechanism can be used for knowing that an activity of intrusive surveillance would be unlawful in that circumstance or that legal privilege would apply in advance of actually knowing that it would be claimed that legal privilege applied because those involved happened to be in premises—a private house, a garage, outbuildings or wherever lawyers

467
would meet someone to discuss information they regarded as confidential. We are not just talking about legal privilege here, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us. We are talking about doctors and others who would need to discuss confidential matters. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down may I ask for a little elucidation? One of the difficulties is that one is talking about chasing villains. To chase a villain you put a bug in the office of the villain's solicitor. You put a bug in the office of the villain's doctor. You put it in the confessional for a member of the mafiosi. The bug, when there, not only collects information about the villain and his dealings; it collects information about every client, every other patient or every other person going into the confessional. What worries me and others is that this information is inevitably communicated. An amendment was put in at Committee stage to try and ensure that the material was destroyed or not used. I am afraid we were told that this was valuable material for criminal intelligence. I find it deeply worrying that the Government will not contemplate safeguarding information which they are accumulating about people who are not concerned in serious crime, will not destroy it and will not protect the privilege of the office in the case of the lawyer or the privilege of the doctor's consulting room. I am deeply concerned that the Government will not reconsider the position of wholly innocent third parties caught up in a bug. I do hope that at some time this matter will be addressed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is the Report stage and I must ask the leave of the House to address the point which the noble and learned Lord has made. It is important to come back to it because I believe he misunderstands the situation. The amendments ask for blanket legal privilege. I know that if there is a specific belief that lawyers are involved in criminal activity there is an exemption there, so far as the noble and learned Lord is concerned. But for purposes where a lawyer or a doctor is discussing confidential matters with a client, then legal privilege applies.
I have mentioned already today and I am happy to do so again for the record, that information gathered in the course of a bugging operation which was unrelated to the matter for which authorisation was given will be destroyed. That will be addressed in the code of practice. We will continue to press the point that unrelated information will be destroyed.
The noble and learned Lord rightly reminded us that we had a discussion concerning the destruction of evidence. One difficulty is that one needs to make a distinction between evidence which is unrelated for the purposes of the authorisation and evidence which is only intelligence gathering at this stage in pursuit of serious crime but which may have a relevance, not in the short or medium term, but may in fact need to be kept for a long time. So it is rather complex as regards the point at which it should be destroyed. I am happy to say to the noble and learned Lord that we are giving some thought to how we can address the destruction of
468
evidence, and certainly the destruction of irrelevant evidence that can be deemed irrelevant at the time. We believe that there should be immediate destruction of that information. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord and we will continue to seek ways and means of addressing it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those last remarks of the Minister are the only ray of hope in an extremely worrying answer. The noble Baroness started by saying that the Government recognise the principle of legal privilege, but then qualified that by saying, "On matters such as the nature of the defence". I have not heard that legal professional privilege is qualified in that way. The definition of "legal professional privilege" and of "excluded material" does not come from this amendment, but from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The definition of "subject to legal privilege" comes in Section 10 and the definition of "excluded material" is found in Section 11. We have not sought in any way to extend or to depart from those definitions. They are already part of our law. There is no reason for the Government to suggest that this is a new departure.
I am afraid that matters only got worse as the Minister's arguments proceeded. The noble Baroness sought to complain that Amendment No. 27 covered not only lawyers' premises but also—she was quite right—
"another place in or at which communication subject to legal privilege is taking place".
One can well imagine the way in which a zealous police officer might want to focus a directional mike on the steps of the Old Bailey, for example. That is technically possible and it is perfectly legal according to the provisions of the Bill. Since my Amendment No. 24 restricts the provisions to "premises", it is probably legal even after the passing of that amendment. Surely bugging surveillance should not set out to record communications which are subject to legal privilege or which are excluded communications under Section 11 of the 1984 Act.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. If it was felt necessary for the purpose of pursuing the crime that the suspected villain's home was bugged, if the case was properly made out and all the provisions in the Bill were properly met and all the authorisations given, would that be subject to legal privilege if the client met the lawyer on his own home ground?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course it could be. I should not have given way to the Minister because I had not finished my argument. The amendments do not propose a total ban on such bugging communications; they propose that the authorising officer and, if necessary, the commissioner or the circuit

469
judge (according to which amendment one takes) has to be satisfied that the communication is such that
"it is likely that an abuse of legal privilege will be occurring".
That is a cautious phrase. We are not allowing this to be a matter for discussion between the authorising officer and the person giving the approval. We are not saying that it is an open and shut case and that under no circumstances will the communications not be subject to surveillance. We are saying that where it is anticipated that the information which is being obtained could be subject to legal professional privilege or could be excluded material, a case has to be made out—and the case that has to be made out is that legal privilege or confidentiality is being breached. That is a very modest position. It is not a difficult position to argue. Indeed, if it were not almost 9.15 p.m. I would certainly seek the opinion of the House, but that is pointless. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, has already referred to this being a sparse House—and it is. This is a matter of such fundamental importance that it deserves to be heard and debated by a full House at Third Reading, and on that basis, and on that basis alone—
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he corrected me earlier when I spoke to the amendment and I must now tell him that I have been wholly persuaded by his arguments and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will give the matter further consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that generous observation. I knew that if the noble Lord were to look at Amendment No. 28 he would see that we were covering the other kinds of confidential communication. The noble Lord strengthens the case for saying that the Government will have to listen again. The case is so comparable with that on which the House has already expressed its view today that I warn the Government that unless they modify their position on the matter, they will be defeated again next Tuesday. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 27.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 34, line 1, leave out ("officer") and insert ("circuit judge").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 34, line 2, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("reasonably believes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 33. Although these amendments were debated in Committee, I come
470
back to them without apology because the answers provided by Ministers on that occasion were totally unsatisfactory. These amendments, which replace "thinks" with "reasonably believes", "likely to be of substantial value in" with "necessary for", and "is satisfied" with "reasonably believes", and adds the phrase (which is in the code of conduct) "and that the action specified is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved", have one purpose only. They seek to secure that the action of a policeman who seeks authorisation for intrusive surveillance shall not be justified simply on the basis of what he thinks but on an objective test.
It may or may not make a difference to the way in which the police officer makes out his application for authorisation to bug, but it makes an enormous difference to the way in which the commissioner subsequently considers whether or not it was justified. If the commissioner is entitled to say only that he thought it was likely to be of substantial value, rather than that he reasonably believed that it would be valuable or necessary, the commissioner has very little to go on in deciding whether or not it was a proper application. Unless there is an objective test there is nothing that the commissioner can do to decide whether or not the process of reasoning was in accordance with the law and with what most of us would recognise as being the occasions on which this unattractive and undesirable but inevitable process of bugging should be justified.
In responding to the amendments at an earlier stage, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, advanced a number of arguments about the meaning of different words. One definition of "think" in the dictionary is "believe", and obviously the converse is true. But he did not really address the issue of the necessity for an objective test not only at the time when the application is being prepared but, more importantly, when the commissioner is deciding whether or not the application was justified. I beg to move Amendment No. 30.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, with great brevity I should like to speak in support of the amendment. It seems to me that the Home Secretary ought logically to be in favour of the amendment. In his interesting essay in today's Times he writes:
"Surveillance may be authorised only if it is necessary to prevent serious crime, and may be used only against those engaged in such crime".
That is a tougher test than is proposed in this amendment. If one takes the position of the Home Secretary literally, the powers are confined to a case of actual objective necessity. In my view, rightly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not go so far. He seeks to substitute for the purely rubbery and elastic subjective test "thinks it necessary" and "is satisfied" the language of objective satisfaction which is necessary if judicial review, or any ex post facto judicial accountability, is to take place. The problem is that, left as it is, one is left with rather loose principles of English administrative law and it will be difficult to have any effective review of words like "thinks it necessary". I believe that, in accordance with the rule of law, this prevents a

471
completely subjective situation from arising. I think it right that the Bill should be strengthened in this way. It will also provide some help by way of standards for whatever form of judicial authorisation is to be introduced into the Bill before it leaves Parliament. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, to make a purely personal comment, I believe the police can be forgiven for believing that there is a sort of self-indulgence in the suggestion arising from this debate that they cannot be trusted to put a good case for an application for intrusive surveillance. Such an application has to be considered against very rigorous criteria. They have to believe it necessary for the action specified to be taken on the ground that it is likely to be of substantial value; and they have to be satisfied that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means. Chief constables have to be satisfied by that, and, under the terms of the amendments passed in this House, so do circuit judges and commissioners. I find the suspicion about how a policeman just might interpret the provision rather offensive. Having said that, the terms—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The last thing I seek in supporting this amendment is to impute bad motives or intentions, or even bad practice, to anybody. I should take precisely the same view if language of this kind appeared in relation to a Secretary of State of a government of whatever colour. The objection is not to the possibility of malpractice; it is simply that a public officer of the state exercising draconian powers ought to satisfy a test of objective satisfaction and not merely subjective satisfaction. That is not an unreasonable requirement. The principles of judicial review are quite generous in what they allow to the decision taker. There is no question here of suggesting that police habitually abuse their powers. It is simply a matter of proper control by the rule of law.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat that it was a personal observation on what was said during the course of the debate earlier and during debate on this amendment. I do not withdraw my remark. The criteria and rigour of the code of practice that will have to be satisfied by anybody applying for such an activity are such that I do not take issue with the fact that a police officer applying for permission to use surveillance thinks the action necessary and that it is "likely to be of substantial value". Frankly, it is a test that I would entrust to the police.
The terms in the Bill are those that are used in the Interception of Communications Act and the Intelligence Services Act. We see no reason to change them. Furthermore, as I said, I am not persuaded that the phrase,
"likely to be of substantial value",
should be replaced with "necessary for". There is already a "necessary for" test in the first part of the sub-paragraph. Any further repetition would be tautologous.
472
We must also remember that these are primarily intelligence gathering operations against our most elusive and difficult serious criminals who must be rejoicing today in what has happened in this House. On occasions it can be very difficult for an authorising officer to be sure that the action he authorises will ultimately lead to the prevention or detection of serious crime. We can, however, be satisfied that the action "is likely to be of substantial value" in the investigation process.
With regard to Amendment No. 33, we have made clear in the Bill that authorisation should be given only in cases involving serious crime and where what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means. A code of practice, a draft of which noble Lords have seen, introduces a further element of proportionality. Authorising officers must satisfy themselves that the degree of intrusion into the privacy of those affected by surveillance is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. I believe that the code and the need for consistency with other legislation concerning similar applications are sufficient to satisfy the concerns of your Lordships. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, she said a moment ago that serious criminals must be rejoicing in what has happened today. She talks about proportionality. Can she please be proportionate in a comment such as that, which is far beyond what I should expect to hear in this House? To say that serious criminals will rejoice because a judge or a commissioner has to authorise the bugging of private homes sounds completely out of proportion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I believe that the Minister, in her personal comments as well as in what she said afterwards, was way over the top in her response to the amendments. I am afraid that the answer was as unsatisfactory as that given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in Committee. At no stage in the phrases with which she criticised the semantics of the amendment was there any recognition of its most important element. The most important element is to provide an objective test which can be evaluated by a commissioner when the matter comes up for subsequent review.
The Minister, quite unnecessarily, said that the amendment was casting aspersions on the motivations or the intentions of police officers and that they would find it offensive. How can that be so? In respect of almost everything that any of us do in this life we are subject to criticism from our colleagues, opponents, bosses, subordinates, or whoever. One of the issues about which people are entitled to be concerned when they look at what we do in the world, in public life, in business or wherever is whether our intentions were honourable. That affects the way in which they make a judgment about the issue. In this case, the Bill is so drafted that the commissioner who is undertaking the review cannot look at whether the intentions of the policeman making the application were right. He cannot

473
look at whether the policeman considered adequately what the alternatives were. He can look only at whether the policeman thinks that it is appropriate—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, what does the noble Lord mean by "cannot look at"? In the course of considering whether authorisation should be given, the police officer requesting an application can be quizzed in all kinds of ways; for instance, "What makes you think you have good reason for this activity?". He will be quizzed on all of those things; on what it is that makes them think that it would add substantial value to their information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has exactly made my point. I shall try to quote her precisely. She said, "What is it that made you think you had good reason to act in this way?". The commissioner can say that only if the test is whether he reasonably believes, not whether he thinks. "What made you think that you had good reason?", is exactly what the amendment says and what the Bill does not say— exactly! I shall put this matter to the House for decision.
9.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Blatch, R.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.35 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment
No. 34: Page 34, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Applications for decisions under subsection (2) may be made to a circuit judge by—

(a) a police officer of a rank not lower than that of Assistant Chief Constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 (maintenance of police forces for areas in England and Wales except London);

(b) a police officer of a rank not lower than that of commander in the metropolitan police force;

(c) a police officer of a rank not lower than that of commander in the City of London police force;

(d) a police officer of a rank not lower than that of Assistant Chief Constable of a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (maintenance of police forces for areas in Scotland);

(e) a police officer of a rank not lower than that of Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster constabulary;

(f) NCIS officers designated by the Director General of NCIS for this purpose;

(g) NCS officers designated by the Director General of NCS for this purpose;

(h) customs officers designated by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for this purpose.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert ("criminal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. Having been concerned with other definitions in Clause 91, we are now concerned with one of the most critical issues; namely, the question of what constitutes serious crime.
We tabled a different amendment in Committee which we do not propose to pursue this evening. However, noble Lords who have read newspaper reports, watched television programmes and listened to the radio in the weeks since the Committee stage will be aware that one of the most pressing concerns that has arisen relates to one particular aspect of the definition of "serious crime" which is used in the Bill. I refer to the provision in Clause 91 that it is a serious crime if, among other things, it is,
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
The other qualifications for "serious crime" are that it must involve the use of violence or result in "substantial financial gain". Of course, there is also the qualification, which is an alternative and not an addition, that the offence, or one of the offences, is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of 21 with no previous convictions,
"could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
I believe that everyone will agree that the "use of violence" or the search for "substantial financial gain"— presumably, illegal financial gain; indeed, I do not believe that anyone has been heard to refer to the emoluments of directors of Morgan Grenfell asset management in this context—constitute serious crimes by any standards.
However, what can the words,
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
mean, other than that if it is to be serious crime then it must be criminal conduct and it must be in pursuit of an illegal purpose? Otherwise, anything that any one of us might do like, for example, joining a political party, going on a sponsored walk or—God forbid!—running in a marathon would be conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. It cannot mean a legal common purpose; it cannot mean legal conduct. If the phrase "criminal conduct" is to make any sense at all, then it must mean an illegal purpose.
The distinction most commonly made is that relating to protesters about the Newbury bypass. I believe that it will be readily acknowledged that some forms of protest at some times in recent years have been for an illegal purpose. They could, for example, be deliberately planning a riot or a serious breach of the peace. However, most conduct of this kind, and in particular the conduct of most of the people who felt very strongly about the building of the Newbury bypass, is not illegal, is not criminal conduct, and is not in pursuit of a common purpose. Yet it is covered by the definition of serious crime used in this Bill and therefore becomes a justification for police intrusive surveillance.
Public comment on these issues has been fairly widespread. One of the things which I believe has concerned people more than almost anything else is the thought that, by inadequate definition, innocent people will be brought within the scope of intrusive surveillance. I know that I shall be told that the definition has been used in legislation before. I undertake, if this amendment is agreed to, to redraft the previous legislation and insert it, if necessary, as an amendment to this Bill at Third Reading. The fact that the definition has been used before has not been adequately drawn to the notice of the public. I believe that, if they knew about it, they would not accept that it was adequate as a definition of serious crime. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my attitude towards this amendment depends very much upon the Minister's answers to the short speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am not a criminal lawyer and I am probably about to make an idiot of myself by what I say. However, I do not understand why the definition of serious crime goes wider than the definition of a criminal conspiracy or an attempted criminal conspiracy. I do not understand what conduct it is designed to catch which is not covered by common law conspiracy or attempted conspiracy.
Similarly, I do not understand the previous phrase, "results in substantial financial gain", as the qualification on what is meant by "serious crime". I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify, either now or in correspondence, whether I am right in thinking that those words are wide enough to cover, for example, the case of a newspaper suspected of committing serious crimes under the Official Secrets Act or the Contempt of Court Act with a whistle-blower or public interest defence but which is liable to make substantial financial gains as a result. Are those the kinds of matters which the Government have in mind in their definition of serious crime? If so, the position is even more serious than I had anticipated.
I should be very grateful for answers to those questions, either now or hereafter, as they very much affect my decision as to whether or not to support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it seems to me that the amendments are unnecessary because the Bill is perfectly clear as it stands. Also, to add the words "criminal" at the end of line 23 and "illegal" at the end of line 24 introduces words of limitation which would narrow the effect of the clause.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, words of limitation are precisely what is required. That is the whole purpose of this amendment. Opposition to various clauses in this Bill has been described by the Minister as an attack upon the police or imputing motives to chief constables which are improper. The whole problem with this Bill is not so much what the chief constable or the police are likely to do; it is what they will do on instruction as an arm of the state, an arm of government. When one sees words as wide as,

477
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose"
one immediately thinks of demonstrations of one sort or another which are perfectly lawful. What this Bill should make clear is that the police will not be used as an arm of the state or of the executive for bugging discussions which may take place about the putting together of demonstrations of which a government would disapprove. Perhaps it is not just a matter of looking in the short term; it is a matter of looking in the long term at the effect of this sort of broad and ill-defined wording that is contained in this subsection. It is right that words of limitation should be included as this amendment suggests.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I am afraid I am rather at a loss to know what the amendments achieve. As I think I made clear earlier, I have the strongest objection to this whole concept of,
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose"
whatever that may be, whether it be criminal conduct for a common illegal purpose. That can be 100 miles away from serious crime. The actions taken against the Newbury bypass may constitute criminal conduct of a minor kind, so may other small political gatherings involving a breach of the peace or obstructing the police. Yet, that is serious crime. Having said that, I cannot see that this amendment touches that point at all, if it is not clear even to a Law Lord that the conduct has to be a crime which satisfies these requirements, and unless it is a crime it does not come within the provision. My difficulty is that it covers a multitude of tiny matters which are not serious crime, but that is not touched by this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall read subsection (5) in this clause which simply states:
"For the purposes of subsection (3), conduct which constitutes one or more offences shall be regarded as serious crime if, and only if.
The subsection then qualifies that statement. The definition of serious crime applied in the Bill has already been the subject of much discussion and will no doubt continue to be so.
I know there is concern among your Lordships about certain aspects of the definition. Certainly the noble and learned Lord has once again reminded us of his original concern on this point. We made our position clear at Committee stage. The definition of serious crime in Clause 91 was carefully chosen. It is the one used in the legislation relating to the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. It has been in place for more than a decade and has worked well. Warrants issued under the Interception of Communications Act are subject to scrutiny by an independent commissioner. None of the three distinguished members of the judiciary who have held the office of Interception Commissioner—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd, Lord Nolan, and Lord Bingham—has ever found cause to complain about the definition.
478
I appreciate that concern has been expressed with regard to the position of anti-road protesters. Indeed these amendments could have been tabled with that particular point in mind. However, these techniques could not be deployed except against individuals whose conduct is criminal. Surveillance is an expensive and technical activity which is resource intensive. Its use will be authorised only in the most serious cases. It has been in use for many years and there is no evidence whatsoever that the police have used it inappropriately.
It would be odd if the police or customs were to find themselves subject to different definitions to the Security Service in applying for authorisation to interfere with property in cases relating to serious crime. There are obvious benefits of consistency and, combined with the knowledge that the definition has worked for many years in existing statute, I hope that your Lordships will agree that any amendment is unnecessary.
I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about wishing to return to primary legislation as regards other statutes to bring the wording of those statutes into line with the proposals contained within these amendments. However, this was not neglected as a subject in the course of discussing the Security Service Act. Therefore I do not see that we should have to bring those measures into line with these amendments unless there was a problem. As I have said, there is no problem.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I shall have to write to him when I have read more carefully the particular question he posed. I shall comment on one part of what he said, and that was where he referred to a breach of contempt of court, which I understand is not a criminal act.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I can explain what really troubles me and then clarify my question. There are some crimes which are of a political flavour. There are offences against public order, there are offences concerning the administration of justice, Official Secrets Act crimes, Contempt of Court Act crimes and public order offences, and they are all of that character.
Would the noble Baroness the Minister first agree that one might want to adopt a different approach with ordinary policing and surveillance in such matters, as distinct from the kind of criteria for the Security Services in dealing with real national security issues? Secondly, I am seeking to discover whether this concerns the fears of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, that this can be a catch-all provision to cover a wide range of serious crimes in a theoretical sense, which can cover a whole range of matters of a political nature, like demonstrators and so on indulging in criminal trespass, let us say, and matters of that kind. The House is attempting to discover whether there are any limits on this very rubbery language. It may have been used before in a national security context or a telephone tapping context. Here the powers are draconian and a part of ordinary policing. That is the concern I am trying to convey.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a number of points occurred to me while the noble Lord was speaking.

479
First, some of those decisions are operational matters for the police to determine. Secondly, the authorisations will, of course, be controlled. They have to apply for authorisation, and the authorisation given has to be taken in the context of them complying with all the provisions that will be set out in the Act. The most practical down pressure on the police will, of course, be resources. I have heard nothing from the noble Lords opposite about pouring more resources into these activities. Certainly, as well funded as we believe the police are, we think that they would give some priority to the more serious crime because that is what they are pursuing. I simply do not see the idea that they should spend their time bugging and carrying out surveillance on road protesters involved in petty crime as a threat.
The best possible judgment that we can make at this stage is to look at the record of how the police have operated with precisely these words in other statutes. We can come to only one conclusion, that they have acted with great responsibility and restraint, and it is our view that they will continue to do that under the provisions of this Bill.
The accountability mechanisms in the Bill have been strengthened to require that all authorisations will be forwarded to the commissioner for scrutiny as soon as possible. The commissioner, I believe, would quickly quash any authorisations which he considered inappropriate. For purposes, again, of consistency with existing statute, and praying in aid the fine record of the police in exercising their activities consistent with the wording, I believe that the amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, as I understand the burden of the answer given, it is not that the section does not authorise such gatherings or groups of people to be treated as being guilty of serious crime, but that our present police force, our present Home Office, our present political set up will not so treat it because resources are short. I am sorry, but I will leave the noble Minister alone shortly. I know I am being tiresome. Again I come back to the question that we are legislating not for this Home Secretary, not for these police— nobody is being rude about anybody—but what is being done is putting on the statute book a power which can be exercised by less scrupulous people.
As I see it, to treat as a serious crime a meeting of a number of people with whom they disagree who may be obstructing the highway or whatever they like, is constitutional change. What I hoped the Minister would say was that in her reading of it and in her advice, it would not cover such a case, but one never has that assurance. That is the crucial matter. I am sorry, but I promise that I shall stay quiet.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble and learned Lord has the habit of having the last word and asking me not to respond to it. I feel that I must. Such is the system that under any alternative—whether it is the amendments passed earlier or the proposals originally set out in the Bill—no one person can act in a machiavellian way. No one person can exercise their duties cavalierly. There are many checks and balances in the system.
480
An applicant for authorisation has to go to a chief constable. A chief constable must go to a commissioner. The commissioner has powers to quash. Under the other arrangements resulting from the amendments, other steps are in place. It will continue to be an operational matter. The police are bound by endless codes of practice, criminal evidence Acts, and the rigours of the systems set out in the Bill. They will always be subject to those requirements. The idea that we have responsible chief constables now but that we may not have them next year or some time in the future, with the transparent system we now have, is unthinkable.
Under any alternative within the Bill, the authorisations will continue to be controlled. Unless a great deal more money falls from Heaven, the financial constraints on the Bill will mean that they will continue to pursue serious crime and not play around with trivia.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. She said that the commissioner would quash an application where it is inappropriate. I wonder whether she could assist me by specifying upon what basis the commissioner might so quash because if one looks at the scheme Clause 91(3) provides:
"… where the authorising officer thinks it necessary for the action specified to be taken on the ground that it is likely to be of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime".
One then goes on to subsection (5):
" … conduct which constitutes one or more offences shall be regarded as serious crime …".
That is not "may". Where does the discretion to quash where inappropriate come from? After all, does the Minister agree that if one had demonstrations of the type that one sees in the streets of Belgrade at the moment that would constitute a serious crime on these definitions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it must be for the judgment of the commissioner or circuit judge. It would be for the commissioner or the circuit judge if they believe that the degree of activity upon which the police wish to intrude is such that the commissioner or circuit judge regards that not to be the best use of surveillance and that the police should be pursuing more serious crime. The commissioner must be bound by the definitions within the Bill. There is flexibility there. There has to be flexibility. When one is seeking intelligence and pursuing serious crime, it is always difficult to be specific at the outset. The case will be put to the commissioner or the circuit judge for them to make a judgment upon it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that elucidation, which I take to mean that if the amendments which were passed by your Lordships earlier this evening, in whatever form, become part of the Act, the pre-authorising judicial officer will have a discretion based upon a proportional response to strike down the application. I take that to be the Government's position.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think the Minister had better answer that because she has put herself into very deep water already, or my noble friend has done so. It really is not good enough for her to respond as she has been by talking as if the restriction on police financial resources is the proper constraint to the use of surveillance techniques.
We in this House today are concerned with the legal, statutory basis on which this intrusive surveillance is to be permitted. The Minister has more than once now returned to this claim that of course it will be all right, there will only be bugging in the cases of serious crime because there is not enough money despite, as the Government must say, the adequate funding of the police generally. There is not enough money for them to bug except in cases of genuine serious crime. Then, when my noble friend Lord Williams questions what she is saying, she says: "Well, the commissioner who is reviewing the decision afterwards will look at this case and consider whether within these limited resources this was the most important case for intrusive surveillance, or whether something which might have come up somewhere else could have been considered to be more important, and the consideration for that will be the proper use of resources." When my noble friend questioned her on that point she really was not able to answer it at all. I have never, in 14 years' experience in this House, heard such irrelevant or inadequate answers as we have been hearing on some of these amendments today. It really is deplorable.
I am going to withdraw this amendment, not because of anything the Minister has said but because of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who pointed out to me, I am afraid correctly, that, greatly objectionable as the wording in the Bill is, my amendment would not actually achieve anything. If the Minister will forgive me, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do insist, with the leave of the House, on asking the noble Lord this question: will the noble Lord not agree that Section 91(2) provides that,
"Where subsection (3) applies, an authorising officer may authorise"?
In other words, the authorising officer has discretion as to whether or not to give authorisation—it would be the circuit judge in this case. Would the noble Lord not also agree that the final line of the first paragraph of his Amendment No. 24, provides that the authorisation will not take effect unless it has been approved by a commissioner appointed under Section 95, with, again, the commissioner having discretion as to whether or not to give such authorisation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I agree that there is discretion available to the commissioner. That is not the point that I was making. What the Minister was saying was that the commissioner is going to be able to exercise his discretion on the basis of which of the various options open to the police would constitute the best use of
482
limited financial resources: that was the protection which she offered for the definition of serious crime. We are getting out of order.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House, I have to put it on record that that is not in fact what I said. I did say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that a downward pressure on the police—not to be trivial, not that it would be a discretion exercised by the commissioner—would be the need to use their resources wisely and effectively, so they would not play around doing unnecessary things; they would actually be pursuing the more serious crime. That was the downward pressure I was concerned about with regard to resources, not that the decisions of the judge or the commissioner would be made on those grounds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, therefore if they had more resources they would do more bugging, would they? That is the only conclusion one can draw from what the Minister has said. It really is. The Minister confirmed that the commissioner can quash an authorisation if it is inappropriate, and she is now saying that one of the considerations that can be taken into account in deciding whether or not an authorisation is inappropriate is the proper use of resources. Hansard will bear one of us out. I am convinced it will be me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 34, line 29, at end insert—
("() Any information or property obtained or retained in whatsoever form under the powers conferred by this section shall be treated for destruction purposes as if it were evidence obtained under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124. The amendment is concerned with the issue of the destruction of evidence and we refer to Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I return to this matter, which I raised at Committee, only because, even under the more liberal rules of debate which apply at Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in responding to my amendment, failed to address the most significant point about Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
That most significant point is that he claimed—in my view wrongly—that the amendment would do harm to the structure of the Bill because there is no need for a particular offence to have been committed before an authorisation can be sought. Therefore, we could not apply the Section 64 procedure. I have looked again at Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. My understanding may be defective, although it has not been suggested to me that it is. The point about Section 64 is that it refers to destruction after a case has resulted in acquittal. Under those circumstances, surely it is proper that destruction should apply to the material obtained by intrusive surveillance on the same basis.
This is a very small amendment because Section 64 of the 1984 Act is very limited, but I want the record to be put straight. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments deal with a very important issue, which is how the material obtained by intrusive surveillance should be treated.
It is obviously important that material obtained by such intrusive techniques should be treated with all due care and that there are proper safeguards to ensure that there are procedures in place governing the handling and eventual destruction of such material. However, I do not believe that either of these amendments is appropriate. Their combined effect would be to require the product of police and Customs intrusive surveillance operations to be treated in the same fashion as the product of interceptions authorised under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (IOCA). IOCA imposes strict rules on keeping the number of people who can see such material to a minimum, on the disclosure of such material and on its destruction.
Superficially, such a regime may seem attractive for material obtained as a result of operations authorised under this Bill. However, there is a key difference. Section 9 of IOCA imposes an absolute bar on intercept product being adduced as evidence in criminal proceedings and, indeed, on any questions being asked about interception in such proceedings. It is therefore possible to destroy intercept product once the information has been assimilated into the general information picture or once an investigation has been completed.
By contrast, the product of police and Customs intrusive surveillance operations can, subject to the views of the court, be used as evidence. There have been a number of cases over the years in which the courts have been happy to admit such material as evidence and that will not change once this Act puts these operations on a proper statutory footing. This means that information obtained needs to be retained for much longer. Particularly where information has been obtained by intrusive surveillance as part of a long-term intelligence gathering operation, a prosecution may result long after the original intrusive surveillance operation. It is important that the material is still available at that stage, both so that the prosecution can use it as part of its case and also so that the prosecution can fulfil its disclosure obligations. Similarly, at that stage the material will be used for the purposes of prosecution rather than for the purposes of prevention and detection of serious crime. So the regime proposed in the new clause, which limits the disclosure and copying of the material to the minimum required for the prevention and detection of serious crime is inappropriate.
The absence of statutory rules governing the handling and destruction of this material does not mean that these issues will be treated in cavalier fashion. Given that chief officers will be involved in the authorisation of these intrusive surveillance operations, they will clearly have a personal interest in ensuring the proper handling of the results. I have no doubt that the chief commissioner will consider that the handling of the
484
product will be one of the areas that he should look at as part of his general function to keep this whole area under review and he will no doubt report any concerns that he has about this to the Prime Minister.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that there is another good reason to ensure that the intrusive surveillance product is securely handled and seen only by the minimum number of people necessary. The more people who handle such material the greater the risk of the information getting back to the subject of the intrusive surveillance.
Although I am sympathetic to the intentions underlying the amendments, for the reasons that I have given I cannot support them. As I have demonstrated, the product of intrusive surveillance operations will be carefully handled. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the need for long term operations. The Minister has not answered the point as regards how limited Amendment No. 38 is. It refers only to information which is available after a case has resulted in acquittal.
I appreciate what the Minister said about Amendment No. 124. There have to be strict rules regarding the restriction of availability of this material, not only to avoid it getting back to the subject of the intrusive surveillance, but, as the noble Baroness said, more generally, in the interests of justice.
The Minister gave a complicated answer and I should like to consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 34, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 35, line 11, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any power of a court to exclude evidence (whether by common law or otherwise) at its discretion.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friends Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lady Hilton of Eggardon.
This important amendment seeks clarification that nothing in the Bill in its final form whatever that may be in due time, will have any limiting effect on the common law or, perhaps more likely now, on the

485
statutory powers of a court at its own discretion to exclude evidence in criminal proceedings. The provision is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be equally brief and, I hope, helpful. There is nothing in the Bill which excludes or disapplies the powers contained in Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or equivalent provisions. Therefore we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. As soon as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, departs from the Chamber, sweetness and light break out—I have the ability of course to alter that section of Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Authorisations: procedure and duration etc.]:
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in principle we have no problem in agreeing to Amendment No. 42. In my notes it is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I may be given a moment to sort out my notes.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the House. We have amendments in parallel, to which Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are alternatives. We are effectively pursuing the same ends except in relation to Amendment No. 49, where we suggest that there should be monthly reviews in addition to the three-monthly renewal period.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no reference in my notes to this amendment. I do not know whether it is within the rules of the House to move to Amendment No. 50 while I sort out Amendment No. 42.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we are agreed about Amendments Nos. 42, 44, 46, 47 and 48. Only Amendment No. 49 is additional.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is unforgivable on my part. We spent so much time on the earlier amendments that I have not concentrated enough on this group. I do not have any reference to these amendments in my notes. I wonder whether the House would give me five minutes to ensure that I get them. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.16 to 10.21 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 36, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("it") and insert ("72 hours beginning with the time when").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I offer my profuse apologies for the delay. I had here a group of amendments but no notes. This group of amendments reduces the authorisation times from 15 days to 72 hours for oral authorisations and from six months to three for other authorisations, which will not inhibit their operational effectiveness. I would have been arguing much more coherently had I been better prepared for this particular group of amendments and arguing that the Government's amendments are preferable. In the hope that the noble Baroness will accept them, I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, yes indeed we do accept the government Amendments Nos. 42, 44, 46, 47 and 48. The only point which I really would wish to argue in addition is that the authorisation should be reviewed on a regular monthly basis and not left for three months. We feel that in an issue as important as this, involving the surveillance of people's homes, at least a monthly review of the situation is appropriate and that it should not be left for even three months. Otherwise, we welcome the reductions in the time limits which the Government are suggesting. In fact our own suggested amendments are on all fours with those propsoed by the Government. I would not therefore intend to pursue our own alternative forms of words, which in some cases are actually defective, I think. We urge the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate for the authorisations to be reviewed on a monthly basis so that three months are not allowed to elapse between the initial authorisation and the next.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry to have to sound unhelpful. We believe that it must be for the commissioner to do what he believes is appropriate. We genuinely believe that there will be a pecking order of priorities for him to be more vigilant about, but it really must be a matter for him. We shall continue to evaluate the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. The annual reports to Parliament will give us even more indication of how well it is working and of the degree of monitoring and review that will be necessary.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I recognise that the authorising officer will, effectively, now be the commissioner rather than a senior police officer, given that the earlier amendments have been passed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, is shaking his head at me—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I started the muddle. As I understand it, the authorising officer will be a circuit judge.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, that is my understanding, in which case I do not think that our amendment is appropriate any longer. That was the point that I was about to make. If the authorising officer had remained a senior police officer, there would have been no difficulty in reviewing the authorisation on a monthly basis because a great many police operations are reviewed on a monthly basis. My point was that a

487
consequence of the amendments that we passed earlier is that the authorising officer will now be a circuit judge and monthly authorisations might therefore be considerably more difficult. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we shall consider the matter in the light of the amended—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before our amendment is withdrawn and in a spirit of helpfulness—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I believe that the amendment being moved is Amendment No. 42. The other amendments are grouped with it, so the noble Baroness cannot withdraw any of her amendments yet. I believe that that is correct.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Baroness. A problem is now developing. Some of it is due to semaphore, which is useful because I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to be right in his indication that the authorising officer still remains the senior police officer. The amendments which have been successfully moved—whether we are talking about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh or that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers—do not bite on the definition of "authorising officer". Amendment No. 24, which was moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh still retains a descriptive categorisation of "authorising officer", but his application may not take effect until approval.
I am not pointing any finger at anyone, but one is now getting into a significant degree of muddle because of the nature of the amendments that have been passed. As I understand it—this view may be shared by the Lord Advocate—the authorising officer still remains the senior police officer. The "commissioner" has been inserted whether as a commissioner who has formerly held, or is presently holding, high judicial office or as a circuit judge, according to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It will be extremely difficult to continue discussing amendments of detail when the terms and terminology are being transposed so constantly. I merely raise that point although the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may well share that concern.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am finding it difficult—I am sure that the Minister will find it even more difficult—to consider the amendments properly when a major shift was made earlier by the acceptance by the House of the two main amendments. I respectfully suggest that one would have a better focused debate if the Government had the time to take stock of what other, wider consequential amendments are needed when deciding what to do in respect of those two earlier amendments. I cannot help thinking as we go through the amendments that this is a situation of "more haste, less speed". It might be desirable to find a way procedurally to return to these amendments at a later stage and perhaps to deal now with later clauses in the Bill which are not affected by them. I believe that that is commonsense and I hope that it is helpful.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in principle I do not disagree with the suggestion that we return to this group of amendments once we have seen the Bill in its new form, except to say that, whether either of the amendments survives in this Bill in this form, the oversight and monitoring arrangements do not change. That is what we are talking about as far as concerns those amendments. I find it difficult to see how circuit judges can be second-guessed by the commissioner, but that is by the by. I believe that it is appropriate to withdraw any amendments associated with my name on the Marshalled List and return to them at the next stage of the Bill when the dust has settled on today's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.43 and 44 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McColl of Dulwich): My Lords, if Amendment No. 45 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 46 to 48.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 36, line 43, at end insert—
("(5A) Where a person gives, renews or cancels an authorisation, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give notice in writing that he has done so to the Chief Commissioner appointed under section 95.
(5B) A notice shall be treated as given to the Chief Commissioner under subsection (5A) if it is given, in accordance with arrangements made by the Chief Commissioner, to any Commissioner appointed under section 95.
(5C) A notice under subsection (5A) shall specify such matters as the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe.
(5D) An order under subsection (5C) shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 50, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 58, 61, 62, 66, 68, 70 to 72, 79, 82, 83, 86, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100, 104, 108, 110, 115, 116 and 120. The Government have noted the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere that scrutiny of the decisions taken by chief officers might only be carried out some months after the authorisation, when it would be too late for the commissioner to intervene effectively. This is another amendment which will be affected by the amendments debated today. We have decided to strengthen the powers and monitoring role of the commissioner. Because that strengthening is an important part of the process, I want to put on record the Government's views about these amendments.
The group of amendments relating to Clause 93 require authorising officers to notify the commissioners of all authorisations as soon as reasonably practicable. In many cases this will put the commissioners in a position to be able to scrutinise the authorisation before an operation has begun. They would be able to quash any which they did not consider to have been properly given and effectively prevent the police or customs from carrying out the intrusive surveillance. This accelerated review process will not erode the crucial principle that

489
chief officers alone must be responsible for their decisions, and it will not prevent the police from making the most of a window of opportunity, if this arose immediately. The police and customs need this flexibility to be able to work effectively.
For the record, I believe it is important that that is set against amendments passed earlier today. There is only one amendment to Clause 93, and it is the first. Amendment No. 50 to Clause 93 will enable the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, prescribing the information that needs to be given to the commissioners in order to carry out the review process. These proposed changes will considerably increase the workload associated with the overview function. The amendments to Clauses 95 to 97 and Schedule 7 therefore replace the existing provision for the appointment of a commissioner and provide for the Prime Minister to appoint a chief commissioner and such number of other commissioners as is deemed fit and achieve the necessary technical changes to the remainder of the Bill to give this effect. I appreciate that similar amendments have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and that there is some common ground on the need for this provision. We referred to this amendment much earlier in the debate on the main amendments.
The requirement for more than one commissioner follows directly from the amendments which have been tabled to Clause 93 requiring that all authorisations are notified to a commissioner as soon as practicable after they have been given. This need is further increased by the duty imposed on the commissioner to scrutinise notifications of operations involving particularly sensitive property or material within 48 hours of receipt. The increased workload that entails means that it is no longer realistic to expect a single commissioner to oversee effectively the authorisation process. The appointment of more than one commissioner is clearly necessary to ensure availability and speedy scrutiny.
The amendments would provide for the appointment of a chief commissioner and such number of other commissioners as required. All of the commissioners will hold, or will have held, high judicial office and will undertake the same statutory functions and be equipped with the same powers.
I believe that there is some common ground on this issue. I believe that these amendments apply much more to the amendments passed by this House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, than they do to those passed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I thank the Minister for that very helpful summary. I should briefly like to explain why I think that this is another area that will be affected by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as well as by that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
In his very powerful speech the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, referred to decisions of the American Supreme Court. One of those decisions was
490
that electronic surveillance should be within the scope of prior judicial authorisation. I refer to a famous case, United States v. United States District Court. It is reported in Volume 407 of the US Reports, on page 297. The case was decided in 1971. I respectfully commend it to those advising the Government when considering what is to be done about this kind of matter. The passage I have in mind relates to the decision of the American Supreme Court that there must be prior judicial authorisation of electronic surveillance. It says in a unanimous opinion:
"A prior warrant establishes presumptive validity of the surveillance and will minimize the burden of justification in post-surveillance judicial review".
In plain language that means that if the Government accept the Rodgers amendment or the McIntosh amendment—certainly the Rodgers amendment—one beneficial consequence will be that it will reduce the workload, expense and bureaucracy involved in what the Supreme Court termed "post-surveillance judicial review". In working out the balance between judicial authorisation and post-surveillance judicial review, the Minister and her colleagues may find the judgment and others quite helpful. It may be that they will come to appreciate the practical advantages for the police service and the Home Office as well as for the ordinary citizen in the requirements contained in both the amendments already carried by the House. That is why we should return to this matter when the Government have had a chance to take stock. I hope that this case will provide some useful guidance.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I think that, on the whole, with some probably detailed amendments, these would fit with the amendments passed earlier in that the appointment of a chief commissioner and a number of commissioners would also assist in the oversight of the whole system as proposed. However, it is difficult to address them in detail. Without examining the consequences of the previous amendments, it is not clear whether they will fit exactly. In the circumstances we welcome the broad thrust of the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first the amendment does not refer to the authorising officer. It relates to commissioner oversight responsibilities. Those responsibilities seem to be important, certainly in the context of one of the major amendments and the proposal set out in the Bill. Whatever happens, we take the view quite strongly that notification of every authorisation is an important strengthening safeguard and we wish to stand by that. For that reason I do not believe it would be harmful or prejudice any future discussions about which alternative was ultimately to be accepted so far as future tapping authorisation is concerned. I should like to strengthen the Bill in this way. The amendment offers an important safeguard. I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 94 [Code of practice]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 37, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 to 57. They achieve the effect of an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We have always intended to introduce a code of practice in connection with the provisions in Part III. The code of practice is a key document, forming an important component of the legislative package. The procedures for intrusive surveillance must be clearly set down for everybody to see. A government amendment in Committee to what is now Clause 121 ensured that these provisions could not be brought into force before the day on which the code of practice comes into operation. This implemented the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on delegated powers and deregulation.
Although this, in effect, removes the discretion of the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice, it has left the remainder of Clause 94 defective. This group of amendments makes the necessary technical changes to the remainder of the clause. Taken together, these changes ensure that the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice and that it be brought into operation by means of statutory instruments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the code of practice is to be made mandatory and that it is to be part of a statutory instrument. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 57:
Page 37, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("a") and insert ("Before issuing").
Page 37, line 10, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
Page 37. line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The code of practice laid before Parliament in draft under subsection (3) shall not be brought into operation except in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.").
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("force") and insert ("operation").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 95 [The Commissioner]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 38. line 4, leave out ("a Commissioner") and insert—
("(a) a Chief Commissioner, and
(b) such number of other Commissioners as the Prime Minister thinks fit,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62:
Page 38, line 6, leave out first ("person") and insert ("persons").
Page 38, line 6, leave out from ("be") to ("held") in line 7 and insert ("persons who hold or have").
On Questions, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 38, line 9, leave out first ("The") and insert ("Each").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 38, line 11, leave out second ("the") and insert ("each").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 38, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 66 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 67:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 38, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 38, line 14, leave out ("Commissioner") and insert ("Commissioners").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 38, line 14, leave out ("Secretary of State thinks") and insert ("Commissioners think").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 38, line 15, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
("() Anything authorised or required by or under this Part to be done by the Chief Commissioner may be done by any of the Commissioners who is authorised generally or specially in that behalf by the Chief Commissioner; and the references in section 96(4) and 97(4) to the Chief Commissioner shall be construed accordingly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Principal functions of Commissioner]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 38, line 16, after ("The") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment
No. 73:
Page 38, line 16, leave out ("Commissioner") and insert ("Commissioners").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment
No. 74:
Page 38, line 18, at end insert—
("(aa) review every authorisation given under sections 91 and 93, and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may help the House. This is definitely not a consequential amendment. It is free standing within the block of amendments and we wish to oppose it. It has been spoken to, but it is a convention of the House that when a block of amendments is put to the House, those amendments which are consequential are accepted. We have honoured that decision throughout. However, there were a number of amendments within that block which were free standing and non-consequential. Therefore, we wish to oppose the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the Minister places me in some difficulty on this point. The amendments were spoken to en bloc at the earlier stage and we had no notification that some of them were seen as non-consequential. They seem to fall within the same principle. I should be grateful if the Minister will tell us which other amendments within the block the Government will be opposing. I was not aware that this situation was going to arise.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is extremely unconventional to be asked which future amendments we shall be opposing but we shall oppose Amendments Nos. 77, 80 and 89.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is this not an example of the kind of problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I were drawing attention? This amendment seeks to give the commissioner an additional, specific power to review every authorisation under Sections 91 and 93. Whether or not that power is desirable is greatly influenced by what judicial authorisation procedure is agreed to eventually by the House. Again, I find it difficult to achieve the right balance until one has taken stock of the Bill as a whole. I wonder therefore whether it is sensible to be dealing with these matters at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not in the House at the moment. When he spoke to this group of amendments, he indicated to the House that he was happy with the Government's version of these amendments. Government Amendment No. 76 would achieve more successfully the effect of his amendment. When I listened to the noble Lord, I understood that he was happy with that.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in that event, I shall not press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 38, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A) In discharging his duties under subsection (l)(a), the Chief Commissioner shall scrutinise any notice given to him under section 93(5A); and, in the case of such notices as the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe, he shall carry out that scrutiny within the period of 48 hours beginning with his receipt of the notice.
(1B) An order under subsection (1A) shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(1C) Where, at any time, the Chief Commissioner determines that the person who gave or renewed an authorisation under this Part was not acting properly in doing so, he may—

(a) quash the authorisation, and

(b) order any records relating to the information obtained by virtue of the authorisation (other than records required for pending criminal or civil proceedings) to be destroyed.

(1D) In making a determination under subsection (1C), the Chief Commissioner shall apply the principles applied by a court on an application for judicial review.
(1E) Where the Chief Commissioner makes such a determination as is mentioned in subsection (1C), he shall make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation or in whose absence it was given.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 shall apply to this subsection as it applies to that Schedule.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos.76 and 101 to 103 introduce important additional safeguards to the provisions of the Bill. They place a duty on the commissioners to scrutinise all notifications sent to them by authorising officers and to ensure that authorisations in certain specified categories are scrutinised within 48 hours of receipt.
Those categories of authorisations subject to speedy scrutiny will be specified by a statutory instrument which will be approved by Parliament but should include those matters subject to legal privilege, journalistic material and medical records. That will ensure that operations involving particularly sensitive material will be seen quickly by the commissioners, and, in most cases, before an operation is even started. It also provides the commissioners with the power to quash authorisations where they do not consider they have been properly given and order the destruction of any material so obtained.
In scrutinising the authorisations, the commissioners will apply the principles of judicial review. We believe that an important distinction needs to be drawn between the roles of the authorising officer and the commissioners. The authorising officer is part of the investigation process and will be making an operational judgment based on his knowledge and expertise about policing methods. He will be considering whether there is any alternative way of carrying out the operation which does not involve intrusive surveillance and which should be tried first. The commissioners' role is to supervise the decision-making process to ensure that the criteria and provisions of the Bill have been properly applied. Again, under the amendment, the commissioner continues to have that role regarding whoever makes the decision.
The role of the commissioners is not to "second guess" the decisions of the operational officers. Their training is in the law and they should apply the same principles which are used in judicial reviews. These are that the decision is a reasonable one, that there has been no procedural impropriety in the way that the decision was reached or that there was a legal basis for the decision. The other amendments tie these new powers in with those already outlined in Schedule 7 or are semantic ones which do not effect changes to the powers of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may remind the House that we have reached a position which entirely indicates the concerns already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and myself. We are now erecting quite a laborious superstructure on a basis the nature of which we are unaware. We are talking about a scheme which depends on a scheme put forward by the Government but which has now been overtaken by the two amendments that were carried earlier. Therefore, whichever of the two finds its way into the Bill, we are really dealing with a wholly irrelevant superstructure.
Baroness Blatch: To use colloquial language, we now have a "dog's breakfast" of a Bill. Members of the House voted for two amendments which conflict in many ways and which make it impossible for anyone of make any sense of the legislation. Therefore, to accuse me of simply trying to strengthen the way in which the commissioner and the oversight provisions work and of making a nonsense of the Bill is something which, frankly, I cannot accept. It seems to me that these are important amendments which we would like to put on the face of the Bill. We have as much right to do so as noble Lords opposite have to make an equal nonsense of the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Minister may have misunderstood. No criticism whatever was intended of the noble Baroness or, indeed, of her colleagues. We have before us beneficial amendments proposed by the Government. For my part, they are most welcome. The only point is that part of the speech made by the Minister in their support was predicated upon the authorising officer not being a judge. That gave rise to some understandable misunderstanding. To get the balance right, I also believe that it is sensible to look at the post-review surveillance machinery in the light of the judicial authorisation.
If we have a "dog's breakfast" it is really no-one's fault; it is simply that the House expressed its view. However, perhaps it is someone's fault—indeed, many people's fault. The "dog's breakfast" needs to be made into a human breakfast and that, as I understand it, cannot be done this evening. As I said, no criticism of the Minister was intended in this connection. I believe that the proposed amendments are entirely beneficial, although they may have to be reviewed at a later stage in the light of certain earlier amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said. No criticism was intended at
496
all. Indeed, I hope that the tone I adopted was not a critical one. The Minister and I often agree; I entirely agree that this is a dog's breakfast. All I am suggesting to your Lordships is that giving the dog another bit of Bonio does not assist the proceedings of the House. It is not a criticism of the Minister at all; but, with great respect, I do not believe that having detailed amendments of this sort on an uncertain basis is a sensible way to proceed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we withdrew some amendments earlier, partly because I started off rather badly in not being prepared for Amendment No. 42. However, so far as these amendments are concerned, it seems to me that we have a very schizophrenic House today. We have a House that has voted all ways and been facing all ways at the same time. I see no reason, given that these are strengthening measures, to say that they are as incongruous to this Bill as is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to that of the noble Lord, the Lord McIntosh. I should like to put them on the face of the Bill because I think it important that at least these safeguards can be taken into account in any discussions that will take place when this stage of the Bill is over. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment
No. 77:
Page 38, line 22, at end insert—
("() The powers of a Commissioner to investigate a complaint shall not prevent a person making a complaint under Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to in the earlier group but I understand from the Minister that she is ungrouping it at this stage in the Bill. It relates to the rights of an innocent individual who has a bug planted inappropriately in his or her house or car and gives the right, which such a person currently has in respect of all other police action, to complain to the Police Complaints Authority. It seems appropriate in a situation where a person's rights and liberties as an individual have been violated that he or she should have appropriate recourse to the Police Complaints Authority. These matters should not be excluded but should be matters of supervision by the Police Complaints Authority. There should be openness about the use of these forms of surveillance, as in relation to all other aspects of police duty, as is appropriate within a democracy. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I gave notice that we would be looking at some of the free-standing amendments within that group and that we would choose to oppose some. This is one such, and I gave notice to the noble Baroness a moment ago.
There is nothing in the provisions of Part III of the Bill which would restrict or limit the present powers and functions of the Police Complaints Authority and therefore I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The commissioner will be concerned with the operational decisions of authorising officers; the Police Complaints Authority, on the other hand, will remain

497
responsible—as it is now—for the investigation of complaints regarding the conduct and behaviour of officers.
I return to a point made at Committee. If, in the course of his investigation of a complaint, the commissioner finds that intrusive surveillance has been carried out with the authorisation of an authorising officer or that, for example, unnecessary force or damage has been caused, it would remain a matter for the chief constable to investigate under the normal complaints procedure, involving the Police Complaints Authority as necessary. With the complainant's consent, there is nothing to stop the commissioner referring such matters to the chief constable for the appropriate investigation.
In the light of those comments, particularly because there is nothing in this Bill which would restrict or limit the present powers and functions of the Police Complaints Authority, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. It is extremely important that all citizens should have recourse to the Police Complaints Authority as appropriate. We were particularly concerned—because it was clear at one stage that the commissioners would be operating very much behind the scenes, not being required to give reasons for their decisions, and so on—that other ways of complaint or objection to what had happened should be open to the public. In the circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 38, line 25, after ("The") insert ("Chief).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 38, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 96(4) states:
"The decisions of the Commissioner under this Part (including decisions as to his jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court".
The question I raise is the following. Assuming that a chief officer of police makes what he is convinced is a necessary application, and is absolutely certain that it is in the overall public interest that the application should be granted, and assuming his application is not granted, should there not be the opportunity for a chief constable,
498
in what I readily accept would be rare and exceptional circumstances, to appeal? That is certainly something that the Government might wish to think about. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have some difficulty in seeing how this would work. Removing the subsection would leave the accountability arrangements unclear and would open the decisions of the commissioner to judicial review and appeal. Under the amendments agreed there is no appeal process. The commissioner is a High Court judge, past or present, and it would be entirely new for the decision of a High Court judge to be questioned in this way. It would bring the commissioner into the domain of operational decision making which we believe would inevitably lead to his being questioned on his decisions in a number of cases and might lead to criminal prosecution. That must undermine the role and the function of the commissioner.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I do not quite understand the position. Unless I am completely mistaken, the commissioner is applying judicial review principles. He is not taking operational decisions himself. That is the vital point. He applies judicial review principles. What I do not understand—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and if the noble Lord will forgive me, we were discussing Amendment No. 80 in the context of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gives the operational decision to the commissioner.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we are also discussing the context of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. That is why the whole thing is so bizarre. Let us assume that a judge approves the surveillance warrant, as with a search warrant, and then one has ex-post facto review by the commissioner, looking at the propriety of what is being done. That is a perfectly intelligible situation which one would have under ordinary law. In the ordinary way this would go to a judicial review court applying the ordinary principles of English administrative law. What Clause 96(4) states at the moment is that there is no appeal and the decision is not liable to be questioned in any court.
What I do not understand is, what is the policy objection to allowing even a High Court judge's decision to be able to be questioned in any court if he goes wrong in the way that he applies judicial review principles? I do not understand why that is considered to be objectionable in any way as he is not taking the operational decision; he is acting as though he were a judicial review court effectively in applying those principles. Unless I am mistaken about that, it seems to me that he should be able to have his decision challenged thereafter. If he goes wrong in law, the

499
ordinary courts should be able to correct him. He should not be immune from law any more than any other person should be immune from the legal process.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an instance where I think noble Lords should take the matter away and reflect on the impact of two schizophrenic amendments which have been passed today. They now sit very uncomfortably together on the face of the Bill, or will do when we have the reprint of the Bill. We have in Amendment No. 80 a proposition which makes little sense in terms of how it will work in practice. I take issue with the noble Lord who keeps talking about the new authorising officers, whether it be a circuit judge or the commissioner, not taking operational decisions. The commissioner under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be approving this operation, hat is what the amendment said. The commissioner's role, of course, is to scrutinise, monitor and review his own decisions.
We believe that this is an ill-thought out measure, and for that reason we are opposing it. We believe that it merits being taken away and given more thought.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can I correct that? The reason why the circuit judge or commissioner does not take an operational decision is that the operational decision is that of the police. The function of the judge at the outset is to decide whether the operational decision is according to the rule of law. That is the situation in every other democracy. Whether European or common law, it is always the judge who does it, and it is always well established that that is not an operational decision. If it were an operational decision then the judges would be running the police service, which is not at all the position of the Opposition parties. The judges are there to do the judging and the police are there to do the policing, but the police are accountable to the rule of law.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Minister said, I believe rightly, that when one looks at this amendment it is in the context of the commissioner as introduced by the McIntosh amendment. The commissioner as approved by the McIntosh amendment is that judicial person whose prior approval is required before any bugging or intrusive activity can take place. If the Minister is right, and I believe she is, and we look at it in the context of the McIntosh amendment commissioner, the question I put was why, assuming a chief constable was convinced that the commissioner had got it wrong, the chief officer of police should not have the opportunity to appeal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if that were the case, I see no reason why the chief officer should not simply reapply and put in a new application.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that in the robing room that is called "forum shopping" and that that is the objection to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, having pointed out, I hope, one or two infelicities in the situation in which we find ourselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 82 and 83:
Page 38, line 30, after second ("the") insert ("Chief).
Page 38, line 34, after ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Investigation of Complaints by Commissioner etc.]
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 68, line 10, after ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 68, line 14, after ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 68, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to ("determine") in line 16 and insert ("consider all the circumstances of the case and shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thought the Minister had indicated that this was an amendment which the Government were proposing to oppose. I move it because, according to my understanding, it was grouped with Amendment No. 24. My understanding of the procedure of this House is that if an amendment is grouped with a previous amendment that has been carried, unless there has been explicit prior indication that anybody thinks it is not consequential it ought to be approved by the House without a Division. Notice was given that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, were not consequential. There was no indication from the Government that they had any intention of taking separately the amendments to which we are now talking, which include Amendment No. 89 and did include Amendments Nos. 80, 77, 74 and 65. I must formally record my objection to their opposition to these amendments since they had not indicated that they were going to object to the consequential nature which we had claimed for them when we moved Amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 89 is concerned in Schedule 7 with the specific case that we discussed earlier and in which my noble friend Lord Williams took part. Schedule 7 provides—this is fundamental to the commissioner's work—that in carrying out his review of the determination, the commissioner applies the principles applied by a court on an application for judicial review.
As I said when this matter was debated earlier, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the correct terminology, but my understanding is that something can be overturned by judicial review only if it is utterly unreasonable—someone has used the word "perverse".
We believe that to be the wrong criterion to be applied to the work of the commissioner, and that fundamentally the commissioner should be considering all the circumstances of the case rather than looking for perversity in the decision of the person authorising the intrusive surveillance.
Just to anticipate what the Minister may say in her reply, I do not believe that that is affected by the fact that Amendment No. 24 has been agreed to. We now have the position that there will be a body of commissioners rather than one commissioner. It is obvious that the sensible way for that body of commissioners to proceed is that when Commissioner A gives approval under Amendment No. 24 a different commissioner shall be responsible for the review. After all, that is what happens in the judiciary all over the place: judges are reviewing the work of other judges and making further judgments upon them. There is nothing difficult, illogical or unprecedented about that. When that review or determination takes place, it should take place after a proper consideration of all the facts rather than on the much more restricted basis on which a judicial review takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I intervene only to raise in the presence of the Government Chief Whip the question of how long we shall continue with the Business of the House. It has been plain since the two amendments were carried earlier that the House was faced with genuine difficulties. I agreed when the Minister said that serious difficulties had been created as a result of the carrying of those amendments which in some respects are contradictory.
I moved the consequential amendments to the main amendment which had been agreed by your Lordships' House, and I think that the Government accepted that they should naturally follow. We have been discussing a number of amendments which are consequential upon Labour Amendment No. 24. We are not performing our function properly, and the Bill is not being subject to the scrutiny that the public deserve. This is not a party political point, and I hope not a controversial one.
The Bill has proved to contain more than anyone previously imagined. Although the Government may not like the amendments for judicial authorisation which have been carried, I do not believe that any Minister would deny that that debate was a very proper one, and that a decision by your Lordships' House, one way or another, was part of its proper scrutiny of the Bill.
When I look not just at the amendments which remain in the present part but those to be considered in Part V, I am appalled that we should set off on them between now and midnight and no doubt into the next day. It might very well be into 1998 were there not a general election intervening. It is not to the credit of your Lordships' House that we continue when we are all tired. The Minister has done a yeoman job, an extremely difficult one, and has managed the brief extremely well in hard circumstances. But she too is tired, however much she would wish to deny it.
502
I want to put it now to your Lordships that it would be wise to adjourn, that all parties would do their best to find a suitable opportunity early next week not to delay this Bill, because all of us in the House want to see this Bill, in so far as it deals with serious and organised crime, on the statute book reasonably quickly and, at the same time, compatible with proper scrutiny. I hope very much that that proposition will be considered.
If it is to be rejected, I ask that there should be a clear indication to your Lordships as to how much longer we are to carry on. I hope very much that it will include a clear statement that there are too many important matters in this Bill for them to be discussed tonight and, indeed, the Bill and the Home Secretary and Ministers would be subject to much justifiable criticism if we were to continue in the way that we are now doing.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already spoken on this amendment so, before the noble Lord sits down, may I add my support to what he has said? I had already indicated to the Government Chief Whip my conviction that the proper thing to do would be for us to complete Part III of the Bill, rather than intervening now, but still, certainly not to consider the very important matters which are contained in Part V of the Bill at what would be likely to be after midnight.
We have had the benefit of the contributions in this debate of a number of very distinguished noble Lords: Lord Justices of Appeal, Law Lords, previous Law Lords, previous Home Secretaries, a previous Attorney General, a past Prime Minister. None of them is here now. Nobody can blame them for that. They cannot contribute to the quality of your Lordships' debate as they did earlier on this afternoon. Surely, the proper thing for us to do, in the light of the determination of this House, as expressed last year, to debate things at a sensible time and in a sensible way, is to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers and, if not now, certainly at the end of the consideration of Part III of the Bill to adjourn the consideration on Report until an early time, preferably this week, so that the matter can be properly discussed in the presence of a full House, rather than in the very limited scope for debate that we have at the moment. I would ask the Government Chief Whip, if that is the proper way for this to be addressed, to give us his views on this matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be the first time that large numbers of noble Lords have been in this Chamber and have stayed only for the amendments in which they have an interest and have then departed the Chamber, very often much earlier in the day. So I do not regard that as a very good reason for curtailing our proceedings at this moment.
If there was any case whatsoever for accepting the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it would have been perhaps earlier on in Part III, because if there is any cool reflection to be done at all on the effects of the amendments passed earlier in the day, it would be in relation to Part III. We are almost through Part III now. This has been in the diary for a very long time. It has been agreed through

503
the usual channels. I am certainly prepared to see through the work of this part of the Bill today. All noble Lords were informed that this would be one day on Report and that the proceedings would be completed today. It is my view that we should get on and do that now.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister has referred to this part of the Bill, and I understood, until her final sentence, that she was making the suggestion that we should complete the consideration of Part III and that should be the end of the business for today. She referred to parts of the Bill. Is the noble Baroness now saying that it is not the endurance of Members of your Lordships' House which is at stake, but the credibility of the Bill and the credibility of the House in the eyes of the public? Is the noble Baroness indeed saying that, irrespective of progress, we should go on and on to complete the amendments on the Marshalled List? Is she saying that we should do that irrespective of the quality of our discussion and to whatever hour we go on?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think it helps the issue of how long we take on this part of the Bill by continuing this debate. I feel that we should move on and complete the Report stage of the Bill tonight. I said that if there were a case at all for curtailing our proceedings, it would have made more sense and been more logical to have considered not taking Part III today while we reflected on the impact of the two amendments. They do not have an impact on the rest of the Bill.
I believe that we should now make haste and move on to the next part of the Bill. In the meantime, we have not completed the amendment on the Marshalled List which is before the House at the moment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the present position. Are we still considering Amendment No. 89? If so, perhaps I may intervene on that amendment.
I am a lawyer and confess—if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will allow me to say so—that I am not wholly in agreement with his definition of the application of judicial review. But having said that, it seems to me that it is an administrative act that the commissioners are being invited to perform under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 7. It seems to me that this amendment applies the right test for an administrative action by the commissioner and it is not appropriate to apply the judicial review test, although, as I said just now, the noble Lord's definition of judicial review is one with which I cannot wholly agree.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find this an extraordinary amendment in the context of the main amendment that was passed this afternoon. The commissioner would review the merits of the decision of the authorising of intrusive surveillance when a complaint was made to him. But the commissioner is making the decision. He is giving the approval for the authorisation. This amendment would give the
504
commissioner the power to review the merits of his own decision making, where he approves intrusive surveillance. I find that this amendment makes no sense whatsoever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that that is exactly the reason why we should not continue our consideration of this Bill tonight. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct. I should have been glad to have taken instruction from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about the meaning of judicial review principles. I am sorry that I have been denied that opportunity. I do not find the Minister's view on this amendment helpful.
I am seriously considering whether, so far as concerns the Opposition, we should simply not move any of our amendments on Part V and bring them all back at Third Reading. In my view, that would be in breach of some of the conventions of this House because a Third Reading is supposed to be limited to matters which cannot be resolved earlier. But if we cannot resolve matters in a civilised way at a civilised time of day, we shall have no alternative but to do that. I do not believe that it is the way that your Lordships should consider Bills. But if we get to midnight and are still on matters of such fundamental importance as criminal conviction certificates and criminal record certificates, I give notice that it is highly likely that we shall simply move all that business to Third Reading, at the expense of the proper consideration that we should wish to have. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 89.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 90, I must tell the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 91.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 68, line 19, after first ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert (", and
(b) make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation or in whose absence it was given and, under section 97(1), to the Prime Minister.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments tabled to Schedule 7 and Clause 97 are closely linked.
The purpose of the first amendment to Clause 97 is to clarify more specifically the grounds on which the Prime Minister may exclude material from the commissioner's report laid before Parliament. As presently drafted, the Bill limits the discretion of the Prime Minister to excluding material prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of any police authority, service authority, etc. This amendment makes it clear that material may also be excluded on the grounds that its inclusion would be prejudicial to the prevention or detection of serious crime. The amendment seeks to ensure greater consistency between

505
those respective roles and the discretion available to the commissioner and the Prime Minister and is in line with the powers of the Prime Minister to exclude material in IOCA.
The amendment to delete Clause 97(5) is necessary, as the Bill, as presently drafted, does not allow the commissioner to give the reasons for his decisions without the consent of the originator of the document or information provided to him. The wording of this clause is clearly at odds with the amendment to Schedule 7, which requires the commissioner to report his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation and to the Prime Minister. It is right that the commissioner should have full discretion to disclose information about the exercise of these powers to the Prime Minister and so that he can report any concerns about the way the provisions are being used. It is also right that the authorising officer should be informed of reasons why an authorisation has been quashed and the destruction of records ordered, especially as the authorising officer may well be required to pay compensation, although that is a question still to be answered. This would not be possible if the commissioner did not have the discretion to disclose documents.
I hope therefore that the amendments will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the face of it, there can be no objection to Amendment No. 92 and its consequential Amendment No. 95. The fact that the Commissioner should make a report of his findings to the authorising officer is entirely proper, although of course there will have to be a consequential amendment following the passage of Amendment No. 24.
I worry when I look at Amendments Nos. 118 and 122, which are grouped with Amendment No. 92. Amendment No. 118 restricts the publication of the report and Amendment No. 122 removes the restriction on disclosure without consent. When I was notified of the intention to group these amendments together, I expressed my surprise that it was thought that amendments which appeared to go in opposite directions should be consequential one upon the other. I expressed that surprise before the grouping of the amendments was finalised. I would still welcome a explanation from the Minister as to why what appear to be not mutually contradictory amendments in the literal sense but amendments moving in different directions should be grouped together in this way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 68, line 23, after first ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 68, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (1Kb),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 68, line 25, after ("The") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 98.
Page 68, line 25, leave out ("not give any") and insert (",provided that to do so would not be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of any police authority, the functions of the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad or the duties of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, give his").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are back to the commissioner not having to give reasons for a determination and not having to answer in any court. This amendment attempts to provide that he will give reasons for a determination, for his decision, provided that doing so would not be prejudicial to the functions of a police authority, or to the service authority for NCIS or to the service authority for the National Crime Squad.
We are again attempting to put some greater degree of openness into the system. Unless there are operational reasons why the commissioner should not give reasons for a determination, it should be exposed to the public gaze and the public should be aware of any reason that he may have for deciding that an authority has or has not been properly given for the use of surveillance equipment. We see it as an important safeguard of civil liberties that so far as possible without jeopardising operational efficiency and effectiveness the commissioner's actions should be open and the actions of the police should be open to scrutiny. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I must point out the parallels between the provisions contained in this Bill relating to the role and functions of these commissioners and those of the other commissioners. All will be dealing with serious crime and we see no reason why the role of a surveillance commissioner should be different.
The amendments tabled allow a commissioner to give reasons for his determination to the Prime Minister and the authorising officer. This is necessary if the authorising officer is to know why the commissioner does not believe an authorisation should have been given. The commissioner can also give reasons to the Prime Minister so that the Prime Minister will be aware of any concerns about the way in which these provisions are being used. It would, though, be extremely difficult for the commissioner to give reasons for his determination to a complainant without revealing details of the activities of the police and Customs and revealing damaging information about the techniques and methods being used. It would also, doubtless, lead to insubstantial complaints being made by criminals merely to test whether they are the subject of surveillance. I believe that the amendment would be the criminal's friend. I hope it will not be pressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my concern is for the innocent person who has been

507
subjected to these surveillance techniques. Of course I have no concern for criminals in this situation, but inevitably mistakes will be made and innocent people will have bugs planted in their houses or have their telephones tapped or be subjected to other methods of surveillance. It is curious that the Government are not concerned for innocent people who may be exposed to these methods of surveillance. In a democracy it is surely important that these methods should be as open as possible to scrutiny.
There is the idea that people do not know about this equipment. However, one can buy it at Heathrow. One can buy a vast array of surveillance equipment in the duty-free part of Heathrow airport. There are also shops selling it. I saw one off Queensway the other day which sells this surveillance equipment. People who read thrillers, as I do, are well aware of the equipment that is available. Police often have the notion that things are secret when they are not. Sophisticated criminals of the kind we are talking about will be well aware of the equipment that is available.
I am concerned to protect innocent people who may be subjected to this surveillance in their homes. It is not a question of protecting criminals. In this amendment we have provided exemptions for situations where operational effectiveness would be jeopardised. I am talking about the innocent citizen who is subjected to bugging in his house. That is something the Minister seems to fail to gather when she talks about amendments supporting criminals. Nevertheless, at this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 68, line 28, after ("the") insert ("Chief).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 101 to 104:
Page 68, line 29, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 34 and insert ("(whether or not he has exercised, or intends to exercise, the powers under section 96(1 C))").
Page 68, line 35, leave out ("granted") and insert ("gave").
Page 68, line 36, leave out ("granted") and insert ("given").
Page 68, line 37, after ("the") insert ("Chief").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been dealt with. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 68, leave out lines 38 to 44.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 109, 121 and 126. These amendments are intended for the purposes of clarification and interpretation only. They are intended to provide clarification and assist in the interpretation of certain of the Bill's provisions. Amendment No. 126 represents a transfer of the
508
definition of criminal proceedings from where it was previously located in Schedule 7. Amendment No. 106 deletes the previous reference. These changes are necessary as there is now more than one reference to criminal proceedings in the Bill and it is more appropriate that this definition be included in the specific interpretation clause. Amendment No. 109 is also intended for clarification and interpretation. Paragraphs (b) and (e) of Clause 91(6) refer specifically to the Metropolitan Police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. These are the biggest police forces in the United Kingdom, and the operational demands on them are reflected in the fact that the Bill makes provision for more than one authorising officer. This amendment confirms that any written notification of reasons for an adverse decision from a commissioner will be directed either to the commissioner of police or the chief constable of these particular forces, as appropriate.
Amendment No. 121 ensures that the reference to serious crime is correctly read in accordance with the definition in Clause 91(5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108: Page 68, leave out lines 38 to 44.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
("Interpretation
5. The references in this Schedule to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation or in whose absence it was given shall, in the case of an authorisation given by or in the absence of a person within paragraph (b) or (e) of section 91(6), be construed as references to the Commissioner of Police or, as the case may be, the Chief Constable mentioned in the paragraph concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Supplementary provisions relating to Commissioner]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 38, line 35, after first ("The") insert ("Chief).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 114 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 115 and 116:
Page 38, line 39, after ("the") insert ("Chief).
Page 39, line 1, after first ("the") insert ("Chief).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, both these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 39, line 2, after ("to") insert ("the prevention or detection of serious crime or otherwise to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 120.
Page 39, line 8, after ("the") insert ("Chief).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 39, line 10, at end insert—
("() In this section, "serious crime" shall be construed in accordance with section 91(5).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): Amendment No. 122: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 123 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
Clause 98 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 39, line 17, at end insert—
(""criminal proceedings" includes—
(i) proceedings in the United Kingdom or elsewhere before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted under section 50 of the Act of 1957,
(ii) proceedings before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, and
(iii) proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [The Police Information Technology Organisation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 71, line 10, at end insert—
(".—(1) The Organisation shall be liable in respect of a tort committed by a member of a police force engaged on service with the Organisation in the performance or purported performance of his functions in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.
(2) In relation to Scotland, sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply but the Organisation shall be liable in reparation in respect of a wrongful act or omission on the part of a member of a police force engaged on service with the Organisation in the performance or purported performance of his functions in like manner as a master is so liable in respect of any wrongful act or omission on the part of his servant in the course of the servant's employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 127 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 188. These two amendments are technical in nature and among other things paragraph 80 of Schedule 9 provides that the Police Technology Organisation shall be liable for torts committed by police officers while on secondment to the organisation. The provision is defective in that it only makes PITO liable for torts committed by officers on secondment from forces in England and Wales. The replacement provision to be inserted in Schedule 8 ensures that PITO is liable for torts committed by seconded constables from all parts of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Criminal conviction certificates]:
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 40, line 42, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall issue a Criminal Conviction Certificate to any individual who seeks nomination for election to Parliament under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which certificate shall require to be lodged with the Returning Officer as a condition of nomination and to be open to public inspection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I were to pause a moment that might enable the Government Chief Whip to do the wise and sensible thing. As we have completed one part of the Bill, may I invite the noble Earl the Whip to rise in his place and, in the interests of the way in which we conduct our business and the regard in which this House is held, suggest that the very important issues which still lie before us should not be taken today but should be postponed until next week. We have already made it clear that the important decisions taken earlier today by the House need careful thought by the Home Secretary. I shall give the Whip the opportunity to rise and to suggest that instead of proceeding with Third Reading next week, we should deal with the rest of Report stage. I shall pause for a moment to enable some response to be given.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can speak for my noble friend. I know that he has given serious consideration to this question. He is not only aware that it has already been raised in the Chamber, but

511
was aware that it was going to be raised in the Chamber. My noble friend has considered the matter carefully and has suggested—and I absolutely agree— that we should continue as planned to complete this Report stage.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if this is to be an endurance test, we are up to it. We shall continue to debate these important issues, but it should be on the record that we are letting down the public and all those who are closely interested in the Bill by debating it at this hour. I believe that that was never the Government's intention in the first instance. The Government Chief Whip has now entered the Chamber, so I give him the opportunity which I gave earlier to one of his colleagues because I know that he wishes to rise to suggest that we should now conclude the business for today.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the House knows, I have just entered the Chamber and heard my name being called. I think that the noble Lord is complaining that we are sitting rather late and is suggesting that we should stop. I believe that that is the broad thrust of what the noble Lord has been saying. I am happy that we should continue to finish Report stage, which is what we intended to do when we started this afternoon. Nothing has happened to change my opinion so, rather than discussing whether or not we should continue, I hope that we shall get on and complete the Bill tonight.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I was not complaining at all. I was saying that the Government Chief Whip should have regard to the high standing in which this Chamber is held and to the very widespread belief that if we discuss these important matters at this late hour, inevitably they will not receive the scrutiny they deserve and we shall not be performing our proper scrutiny under the constitution. I have no complaint. As I have said, our endurance is at least as great as that of Ministers. However, I believe that the Chief Whip should have some thought for the hard work which the noble Baroness the Minister has put in today and that he should assume that, despite all her denials, it is time to go home. If the noble Lord refuses to let us go home, then let us get on with the business, which is what I now propose to do.
At Second Reading, in reference to what was then Clause 100, I referred to the extent to which what is now Clause 102 was unacceptable. We strongly support Clauses 103 and 104 in so far as they provide for criminal record certificates and in so far as they protect young people and other vulnerable groups. Therefore, in Committee I sought to delete what is now Clause 102. Further amendments (which we shall now be discussing in the early hours of tomorrow) are designed to postpone the coming into operation of Clause 102 for good and sufficient reasons. This amendment is without prejudice to that view.
At Second Reading, I referred to the possibility of introducing such an amendment in order at least in part to ridicule the unfairness of this clause and to
512
draw attention to the extent to which it distorts priorities. If we are to legislate in the way proposed in Clause 102—we know that in the private sector it will become the practice for employers to require prospective employees to have criminal conviction certificates—surely it is most important that that is the rule within a key public role.
I do not believe that any noble Lord denies that trust in Members of Parliament is something for which we must all ask. There is no better way of safeguarding trust in Members of Parliament than for it to become essential that they deposit criminal conviction certificates at the time of their nomination. If building and factory workers are required, as they will be, to produce such certificates, surely it is reasonable to ask any candidate to deposit such a certificate at the time of his nomination.
It was argued by the Minister, and referred to by other Members of your Lordships' House, that candidates for Parliament appear before selection conferences. That is not wholly true. If at the next election there are about 3,000 candidates, on past evidence at least 500 of them will not have been before selection conferences. Noble Lords know that the procedures to enable people to be nominated and stand for election are very liberal in this country, and rightly so. But they are so liberal that any individual who properly gets himself or herself nominated can stand for Parliament without a party label. In those circumstances, it is not possible to argue that a selection conference provides a natural obstacle that a candidate has to overcome. Therefore, it is for a selection conference to require the production of a criminal conviction certificate.
I believe I said in Committee that during a normal party hearing it would be ridiculous to expect someone at the back of the hall to pipe up and say, "Can we see the candidate's criminal conviction certificate?" That is not the way of the world or the way that we want it to be. My amendment does not refer to Members of Parliament. It would be improper to seek to legislate on their behalf. However, the amendment refers to parliamentary candidates. It is within the capacity of your Lordships' House as a second chamber in our parliamentary system to express a view on that matter without any possibility of a conflict with another place.
The case for the amendment is simple. There should not be one rule for a voter seeking a job and another for a candidate seeking election to Parliament. Although that is not what the Bill says, that is the purport of what will happen. A voter seeking a job will increasingly be required by his employer to show a clean criminal conviction certificate while a candidate who seeks election to Parliament has no such safeguard to demonstrate.
I do not believe that a failure to take account of this matter will win support for the institution of democracy. The appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and the well justified stories of sleaze in another place have brought Parliament into disrepute. The acceptance of this amendment by the

513
Minister would be a very minor and otherwise non-controversial matter, but it might be a large step for the reputation of Parliament in the eyes of the public. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no requirement in this Bill, or in any other statute, for any particular person or member of any group to produce criminal record certificates. It simply makes provision for such certificates to be provided to individuals and other bodies in certain circumstances. Criminal conviction certificates would be issued only to individuals. If this amendment were accepted, any parliamentary candidate would be compelled to disclose his certificate to the returning officer. It would also be necessary to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 in order to give returning officers the power to disqualify candidates who refused to lodge their criminal conviction certificates.
I cannot see why the noble Lord singles out candidates for election to the United Kingdom Parliament for this special treatment when there are equally valid reasons for requiring candidates for a whole range of other occupations or posts to be treated in the same way. I have in mind, particularly, candidates to the European Parliament or local councils, and a significant number of nominees for public bodies and committees, many of whom give their time voluntarily.
As I made clear in Committee, a selection committee, or indeed an individual elector, has a perfect right to request sight of a candidate's criminal conviction certificate if they so wish; but it should be up to the candidate himself to decide whether or not to disclose it. The committee or elector may, of course, infer what they wish from an unwillingness to disclose these details; that is a matter for them and for their prospective candidate. But at least the individual would be given the right to make the decision himself, like every other citizen in the land. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I fully understand what the Minister said; namely, that there is no requirement in the Bill that people should show a criminal conviction certificate. But the message is very plain. That is why this clause was included in the Bill: employers will in future have a very convenient way of finding out whether their employees have or have not any spent convictions by asking them to produce a criminal conviction certificate. It will of course be issued on request; it will be issued on payment of a fee. However, I am sure experience will show that it becomes a routine requirement, although the legislation does not make it a requirement under statute.
Secondly, if it requires an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983, so be it. I am not aware that noble Lords are unwilling to legislate when there is a case for doing so because there may be consequential legislation required elsewhere. The noble Baroness has not said, nor could she say, that
514
it would be improper for this House to legislate in that way. Noble Lords could choose to pass this amendment and the consequences could follow.
Thirdly, the Minister asked: why the UK Parliament? I was tempted to go much further. Originally I had it in mind to table an amendment of the kind that she proposes, although I am not sure that she proposes to table it herself, in order to add completeness to the proposal I presently have before the House.
The Minister is right in saying that all those elected to public office, whether to local councils or to the European Parliament, have a special trust. Were there time, and perhaps on another occasion or even at Third Reading, I might want to extend this provision to them. But I thought it wise to start somewhere. I thought it right to start at a point which is most attractive to Members of this House.
Whatever we believe about the European Parliament or about probity in local government, the fact is that we in this Chamber are part of Parliament itself. There are many, particularly in the party of the noble Baroness the Minister, who believe that the sovereignty of this Parliament is the essential part of our constitution. I believe that it has been compromised, and quite rightly, by our membership of the European Union. Yet it remains a fact that this Parliament of the United Kingdom is a source of the institutional democracy in which we all believe. And it is this Parliament of the United Kingdom that has been most under criticism for the sleaze which led to the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and the adoption of new practices both by another place and by ourselves.
To argue that because we have provision in this amendment only for the UK Parliament and that somehow negatives its justification is a very narrow and rather mean way of looking at the amendment.
I said earlier that I thought we were proceeding beyond the point at which legislation could have proper scrutiny. I think it behoves me in those circumstances, as no other Members of this House feel prepared at this hour to participate, and it would be consistent with my view about proper scrutiny and not seeking to make progress with the Bill or to change it without other Members being able to take part in the discussion, to withdraw the amendment, which I now do.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 41, line 13, at end insert—
("(5) Any day appointed by an order made under section 121 below for the coming into force of this section shall not be earlier than two years after the coming into force of sections 103 to 113 below.

515
(6) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an evaluation of the effect of sections 103 to 113 below and his assessment of that evaluation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if you felt that the previous amendment was less serious than some others before the House, and for that reason felt that it was not one on which you wished to intervene, I believe that this amendment gets to the heart of Part V of the Bill, in particular the provisions for criminal conviction certificates.
I referred to it briefly in moving the previous amendment. It is a development of what I moved in Committee. In Committee, I moved that Clause 102, as it now is, should not stand part of the Bill. There was significant cross-party support for that view, especially from the Labour Benches. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt unable to support it, but a number of his noble friends found that it had merit and would have preferred not to see the clause stand part of the Bill.
What I want to say tonight is, first, that Clause 102 is not central to the Bill nor to this part of it. Secondly, there is a clear distinction between Clause 102, which deals with criminal conviction certificates, and Clauses 103 and 104, which deal with vulnerable groups and which we strongly support. Thirdly, there is widespread anxiety about the consequences of Clause 102 as it stands.
In Committee, I drew attention in particular to the views of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is not a campaigning organisation in the normal course of affairs but has made very strong representations about Clause 102. I also drew attention to the views of the Penal Affairs Consortium. Indeed, it was felt on all sides of the Committee that the consequences of this clause for those who have at some stage been guilty of a criminal offence were the strongest case against it.
As the Minister said that, and as she will no doubt say again in respect of this clause, those with a spent conviction have no need to worry. However, in Committee I made clear that many of those who committed an offence 10 years or more ago and have had a clean record since will nevertheless find that conviction on a criminal conviction certificate. It will make it far more difficult to rehabilitate criminals if they find it impossible to obtain work.
Although, as the Minister said in our previous discussion, there will be no requirement to show a criminal conviction certificate, I repeat that for a very large variety of jobs employers will require prospective employees to show one. If they fail to do so and the prospective employee when employed commits an offence, they will be open to criticism. However, if they require a prospective employee to produce such a certificate and that certificate shows unspent convictions, it is very unlikely that they will seek to employ such a person because they will know what criticism would fall upon them if that person, once employed, were guilty of a breach of trust. Indeed, I greatly fear that once a criminal conviction certificate has been made available to an employer, if
516
there is an occasion when suspicion falls on any member of the workforce, it will fall on the man or woman who has unspent convictions on his or her criminal conviction certificate.
Therefore, I believe, like noble Lords on all sides of the House, that there are very strong reasons against Clause 102 as it stands. The clause is an unnecessary intrusion into privacy and, as I say, would make much more difficult the rehabilitation of those prisoners who wish to go straight and who need jobs. Indeed, those with a criminal record may be tempted to perpetuate the course upon which they once embarked or an attempt to go straight may be reversed because of the problem of finding employment as a result of the certificates.
It would not be appropriate on Report and the procedures of your Lordships House do not allow me to press again the amendment which I tabled in Committee. Therefore, I have tabled an amendment which is a compromise. I hope that it may be acceptable to all parties in the House. The phased introduction of Clause 102 is put forward as a compromise which I hope will be reasonably considered.
It is common among all parties in your Lordships' House and on the Cross Benches that the most important clauses in this part of the Bill are Clauses 103 and 104 which provide for criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates. Therefore, the priority is that those clauses should pass through your Lordships' House and be embodied in the Bill. On these Benches it is our anxiety that that should happen as soon as possible. But if the priority is that Clauses 103 and 104 should be put first, there is no cost whatever involved in allowing Clause 102 to be introduced over a period of time.
Secondly, widespread concern was expressed in Committee on behalf of many organisations affected by the Bill as to the matter of cost. Indeed, the Government are gravely concerned about the cost implications of the passing of the amendment which stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. If the provisions of the clause are not introduced except after a pause and reference to your Lordships' House, then that would be for the convenience of the Government as well as for the convenience of many organisations outside.
Thirdly, we are in new territory in Clauses 102 to 104. Sometimes, when we are in new territory, it is wise to walk warily and one step at a time. I am sure that we shall learn by experience how the rest of Part V works. When we have learnt by that experience, after the pause embodied in this amendment, it will be time, following report to Parliament, to go forward with the provisions of Clause 102.
Fourthly, and it follows from what I have just said, there are those of us—and I have expressed my view very plainly—who are deeply sceptical about this clause. We are very unhappy with it. But we may be wrong, just as the Minister may be wrong in believing that the clause is essential to the Bill. However, if we reach the compromise I mentioned we shall all learn

517
from experience. Under the compromise, there will have to be a report to Parliament which will evaluate the effects of Clauses 103 and 104. That may very well persuade myself, my colleagues on these Benches and other noble Lords that Clause 102 needs to be implemented without delay. On the other hand, it may make the Government feel that there is reason to pause still further. Therefore, it provides this House with an opportunity to think again, although the clause itself would be embodied in the Bill.
I believe that my amendment is a painless solution to multiple problems facing the Government and the Opposition parties. As I say, the Government are worried about costs and where they will fall, as are the public. Perhaps I may say, with great respect and not wishing to be critical in any way at this juncture, the Labour Party does not wish to be misunderstood in its belief in zero tolerance. Therefore, it is anxious that Clauses 103 and 104 should go through. I wholly understand and support that view.
In such circumstances, the House could support my amendment—as I believe it would indeed do if we were debating the matter at a different hour—which, if carried, would strengthen the Bill. It would take nothing away which is essential to it and would strike a degree of harmony which, alas, has been absent for large parts of today. Surely it should be our meeting point in a piece of legislation which many of us support in so many of its respects. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is quite right to remind the House that we were unable to support his opposition to Clause 102 in Committee. He is also right to claim that what he now proposes is a compromise—a fall-back, if you like. It seems to us to be entirely sensible. In the end there will have to be some form of criminal conviction certificate, but we believe that the highest priority must be for the criminal record certificates and for the protection of vulnerable young people and, indeed—in the light of the amendments that we shall shortly be discussing—vulnerable adults. The delay proposed in the amendment is simply a recognition of reality. Such certificates and procedures will be expensive, although not as expensive as the Government claim, partly because of the amendment which was passed in Committee under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
If we delay the implementation of Clause 102 as is now proposed, then the preservation of Clause 103 and 104 within reasonable budgetary limits, including the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is that much more likely. I believe that it is in the Government's interest to agree to this modest and sensible amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As my noble friend Lord Rodgers said a moment ago, we are entering into new territory in considering criminal record certificates. The first question that we have to consider is: what purpose are they supposed to serve? Clearly there is no intention that a member of the public
518
should be able to approach an individual in the street and demand to see his certificate of criminal record, so there must be a purpose to it. That purpose is clearly in connection with applications for appointments and for jobs. When one reaches that point, one realises that there is a balance to be struck—where does the public interest lie in considering who should have access to criminal record certificates?
When one looks as Clauses 103 and 104 and considers that these certificates are to be used and shown for the purposes of jobs and appointments in a very vulnerable sector, one can see quite clearly that the public interest lies in showing such certificates to the employers who will employ people for the purposes of dealing with children, and so on. Such assurance should be given to them. However, when one enters into the whole field of work, employment and appointments, very different considerations then arise.
It is certainly right that information should be available to employers showing that a person has been convicted of dishonesty if he is applying for a job or an appointment which involves a position of trust. Equally, it is of importance that a person who has convictions for violence should disclose those convictions if he is concerned with an occupation which is in direct contact with the public. It is a matter for the employer when he considers the risk he takes in employing that person, the insurance implications and the possible effect of having such an employee upon the other people who work for him. These are short-term protections for the employer.
There is a public interest in preventing further offences altogether. The rehabilitation of an offender is simply another and better means of protecting the public. In the long term it is healthier for society that people who have convictions should not re-offend.
The problem that arises in relation to Clause 102 in considering the whole breadth of the employment field is that, in order to avoid re-offending, a person who has been convicted must be given the responsibilities of a job and must have his home and family. A person who has been convicted, has received training and rehabilitation in prison and is given all the support services when he comes out of prison may be faced with severe job discrimination because of the fact that he has convictions recorded on his certificate of criminal record. It may be that he may apply, in competition with other people, for a job which has no obvious connection, or no connection at all, with the type of offence for which he has been convicted. If, through job discrimination arising out of a certificate of criminal record, the past offender cannot obtain a job and remains unemployed, the cycle is not broken. He is likely, through necessity, to commit more crime; he is liable to go back to prison; and so his life continues in that downward spiral.
Clause 102 gives rise to the problem that we are attempting to go into new territory without any form of pilot scheme or experience as to how this type of

519
certificate will work. Where the public interest is firmly in favour of the person seeking employment in a vulnerable field, surely that is the place for a start to be made. It is only in the light of experience over a number of years that we can truly evaluate whether the principles that lie behind Clauses 103 and 104 should, in the public interest, be extended to the whole range of employment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that the criminal conviction certificates are not as malign and intrusive as has been suggested. They will be issued only to the individual concerned and to no one else. They will contain details of unspent convictions only, in line with our commitment to the rehabilitation of offenders; and they will enable employers to confirm that the information that they have been given by an applicant is full and accurate.
It may well be the case that we will choose to phase in the introduction of criminal conviction certificates so that the fledgling agency is not flooded with applicants from the outset and is able, initially, to concentrate on issuing the more important and probably less numerous criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates. However, their eventual introduction is an administrative matter concerned with workload and timing. It will be done when it is considered that the agency will be able to manage this extra work. The introduction of the certificates is not dependent upon the perceived success of other certificates, nor should it be. They are different types of checks which are being introduced for different purposes.
I would suggest that it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the initial success of criminal record and enhanced record certificates before any criminal conviction certificates can be issued. During the passage of this Bill the whole subject of criminal conviction certificates will have received full parliamentary scrutiny, and, if the measures become law, parliamentary approval as well. In these circumstances further scrutiny should not be required.
The evaluation that will really matter is the evaluation undertaken when a system is properly up and running to measure the impact on those people who will be subject to it. By delaying the introduction of criminal conviction certificates by at least two years, we would perhaps be unnecessarily delaying the implementation of a new criminal record system which will be coherent, cost effective, transparent and, above all, fair.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not understand why there would be delay to the introduction of a new criminal records system if a decision were made simply not to issue certificates for a period of two years until there had been the possibility of evaluating the effect of Clauses 103 to 113. I must have misheard the Minister because I thought she implied that it was open to the Home Secretary to implement this clause when and how he
520
chose within the statute. The Minister is nodding her head. Perhaps she will explain the position more fully as I did not catch everything she said. Is she saying that it lies within the capacity of the Home Secretary, with the Bill as drafted, to delay the coming into effect of this clause of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is open to us to make decisions about implementation dates for the commencement of parts of the Bill, but I made it clear that we could choose to phase the introduction of criminal conviction certificates. I also said that our considerations would be workload and timing.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I shall want to read that response carefully. It sounded to me a sympathetic response. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the amendment was a recognition of reality. It may well be that what the Minister is saying is also a recognition of reality. She referred to the evaluation. The evaluation as provided for in this amendment would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. He would have the final say in deciding what came before Parliament. I think that the Minister is moving in the direction of my amendment. Certainly I shall wish to scrutinise carefully what she said. I ask her only to think further on this matter. If it needs an amendment, it may be possible to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 41, line 13, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall issue a criminal conviction certificate to an applicant within 7 days of the receipt of his application.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 131 I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 137 and 172. These are self-evidently probing amendments. They set what I think would probably be impossible deadlines for the delivery of criminal conviction certificates, but they do so because of the concern that has been expressed in a number of quarters about whether the Phoenix database, which will be necessary for the establishment of the Criminal Records Agency, will be up and running. We moved different amendments with the same purpose at Committee stage making the Secretary of State responsible for the accuracy of the contents of the certificates. This time we are not concerned so much with the accuracy of the certificates but the timescale with which they will be supplied.
Despite what I said, it is not entirely stupid to require that certificates should be available within seven days; after all, it is always a question of urgency to apply for jobs when they are vacant. Any significant delay, in particular as regards criminal record certificates—I refer to Amendment No. 137— could be damaging. We are looking for an assurance that the Phoenix database system will be up and

521
running and that it will be possible—I refer to Amendment No. 172—for information to be exchanged by electronic means between those concerned with criminal record certificates and the Criminal Records Agency. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support what I believe is the intention of these amendments, which is to ensure that the Criminal Records Agency operates speedily and efficiently and that the information it passes on, in whatever form, is not misused. Given that in many cases criminal conviction and criminal record certificates will be applied for by those seeking employment, it is important that these applications are dealt with as quickly as possible.
This Government have done much to ensure that the service that government departments and agencies provide to the public is efficient, a principle that is enshrined in the Citizen's Charter. The Criminal Records Agency will, of course, be required to adhere to strict targets relating to its performance. In line with other agencies, these will be set out in its business plans and key performance indicators.
To lay down in statute what these time limits should be, as Amendments Nos. 131 and 137 do, is somewhat foolhardy given that we do not yet know exactly how big the agency will be, where it will be located, or exactly how many certificates it will be required to issue each year. Nor does it take account of situations when there may be justifiable delays in issuing a certificate. It is important to ensure that the information on the certificates is as accurate as possible and delays may occur, for example, if it proves necessary to go back to an applicant in order to ask him to provide further proof of identity.
These amendments do not specify what the sanction should be if the agency does not meet these time limits, but if it is intended that applicants should be entitled to compensation, even though they may not have suffered any loss or inconvenience, this would divert the agency's resources or lead to an increase in the cost of checks.
I would, however, like to assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it should be possible to deal with applications for these checks, which will involve consulting only the Police National Computer and in some cases, the microfiche records held by the National Identification Service, and not local police records, very speedily indeed.
I also share the concern underlying Amendment No. 172. This amendment insists that all information about criminal records which is provided to registered bodies, whether transferred electronically or otherwise, should be covered by the code of practice. I am glad to say that it already is.
In addition, our proposal in this Bill to punish those who disclose information when they should not will apply to data passed electronically, and I can assure noble Lords that there are also substantial protections in the Data Protection Act about the electronic use and transfer of information.
522
Changing the Bill in this way may be counterproductive, as, specifying that certain types of information exchange must be covered by the code of practice, might suggest that others which do not appear on the face of the Bill fall outside its scope.
I am minded that the noble Lord did, as a preface to this amendment, say that it was only a probing amendment. I am advised that Phoenix is already in operation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—
PROHIBITION ON ENFORCED SUBJECT ACCESS BY EMPLOYERS
(".—(1) A person commits an offence if he requires an applicant for a paid position to supply him with information relating to any criminal convictions of the applicant (other than a criminal conviction certificate) supplied by a data user to the applicant as an individual exercising his entitlement under section 21 of the Data Protection Act 1984.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a serious matter, and it is one which I did raise in discussion of what is now Clause 102 at Committee stage. The problem with the introduction of Clause 102 is that it is not in substitution for provisions of the Data Protection Act, but in addition to them. That is against the wishes, as I understand it, of the Government, certainly against the wishes of the Data Protection Registrar and of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. The White Paper, On the Record, which is the basis for this part of the legislation, refers to the practice of enforced subject access, where prospective employers who require information about criminal convictions and who have an interest in establishing whether individuals have a criminal record, often require them to make an application for information under the Data Protection Act. This practice, known as enforced subject access, is unsatisfactory—this is dealt with in paragraph 7 of the White Paper—because it elicits both spent and unspent convictions, which clearly undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
The noble Lord said:
Paragraph 44 of the White Paper says that the Government's proposals will provide employers and others with a legitimate means of discovering about individuals' current convictions.
There will, in the Government's view, be no justification for the practice of enforced subject access discussed at paragraph 7 when the new arrangements are in place; and the Government therefore propose to consider what action should be taken to discourage or prevent enforced subject access to criminal records once the new arrangements are in place.
That is not new. In his 1989 report, the Data Protection Registrar referred to the practice and said:
"I do not believe that this is a proper use of the Act. I recommend that it should be prohibited with a criminal sanction".
The Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place made a similar point in 1990.
The amendment gives effect to the wishes of the Government, the Data Protection Registrar and the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. It

523
provides that it should be an offence, and subsection (2) provides for a penalty. I commend it to the House, and I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the increasing practice of enforced subject access, which this amendment seeks to outlaw, is undesirable and is contrary to the spirit of the Data Protection Act 1984. It also undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. If it did not cease as a result of the introduction of criminal conviction certificates provided for in this Bill it would undermine the measures we introduce to protect information about spent convictions in this Bill.
We very much hope that the new criminal conviction certificates will give employers a legitimate means by which they can obtain confirmation of an applicant's unspent convictions and reduce the practice of enforced subject access. But I share the noble Lord's concerns that this may not eliminate the problem. We will think further about this problem and try to find a way of amending this Bill in order to outlaw this practice.
I am advised that the matter is not straightforward, but I promise that we shall attempt to address it in this Bill. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can hardly resist that plea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 [Criminal record certificates]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 41, line 17, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 133, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 134, 135, 136, 138, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 153, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 169.
These are the first of a number of Government amendments to Part V of the Bill. Before explaining their purpose I wish to make noble Lords aware that although we would have wished to bring forward all government amendments before the Bill left your Lordships' House, it is likely to be necessary to bring forward two further amendments when this Bill reaches the Commons. These are both issues which require further consideration in order to ensure that they can be properly addressed. The first will extend the provisions which the Bill contains to allow the Lord Chancellor access to checks for judicial appointments to other Ministers of the Crown. This will be necessary to cover Scotland but also judicial appointments which are the responsibility of other Ministers. However, there are certain other situations in which Ministers of the Crown might also require access to checks for which we would seek to make provision.
The second matter is a difficulty which has emerged in relation to regulatory bodies, in particular the financial regulators. There are circumstances in which, in order to fulfil their regulatory duties, it is necessary and is current practice for them to pass on criminal record information which has been provided to them. The Bill currently makes no provision for this. We need to consider ways in which it might be possible to amend the Bill so that its provisions do not stand in the way of necessary regulatory functions.
I now turn to the amendments. The purpose of these amendments is to permit office holders, such as the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery, to register for access to criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates. As these office holders are not bodies corporate or incorporate, they would not be entitled to register unless the Bill is amended in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 136 en bloc:
Page 41, line 19, leave out ("a registered charity or appropriate body") and insert ("the registered person").
Page 41, line 25, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
Page 41, line 26, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 41, line 32, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 139: Page 41, line 34, leave out ("and cautions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 139, I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 141, 150 and 151. I apologise to the House for the fact that Amendment No. 140 makes no sense. It should not have been there. I have already informed the noble Baroness the Minister of that.
I make it clear that from these Benches we fully accept, as has been said by my noble friend, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the very important aims of Clauses 103 and 104.
The main purpose of these amendments is to ensure that only appropriate and necessary information about criminal records is given to potential employers, even in sensitive areas, for two reasons: first, to avoid frustrating important objectives of the criminal justice system; second, to avoid creating individual injustice and unfairness. Now that it is early morning, I am sorry to have to do this, but perhaps I may explain it more clearly to a House agog with interest in this matter.
Under Clauses 103 and 104 as they stand, details of cautions recorded in central police records and of spent convictions in cases of absolute and conditional

525
discharges and of spent bind over orders, will all be disclosed in criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates. These certificates will be issued only in respect of sensitive occupations and offices, including health, pharmacy, the legal profession and senior managers in banking and financial services, to cite the Government's White Paper. It will cover a wide range of jobs in those sensitive areas.
I turn to Clause 103 to explain the position. As regards criminal record certificates under Clause 103 as it stands, the information which may be included in those certificates—for example, to employers in the legal profession, such as my own chambers—would include cautions. Clause 103 as it stands also covers absolute and conditional discharges and bind overs which would otherwise be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
These amendments seek to remove cautions from criminal record certificates, as well as to remove absolute and conditional discharges and bind overs spent after the appropriate rehabilitation period has expired. In the case of enhanced criminal record certificates under Clause 104, the amendments seek only to remove cautions from their ambit.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the position about cautions. The police have a wide and useful discretion to issue a formal caution. Guidance is contained in Home Office Circular 1994/18. Although records are kept of the administering of cautions, they are not a sentence and they do not rank as convictions. According to the Home Office national standards of cautioning, the purposes of a formal caution are threefold: to deal quickly and simply with less serious offenders, to divert them from unnecessary appearance in the criminal courts and to reduce the chances of their reoffending. A caution is not a form of sentence but it is a serious matter because it is recorded by the police and may influence them in deciding whether or not to prosecute someone who re-offends, and it may be cited in any subsequent court proceedings. Clause 103 as it stands would make a caution a very much more serious matter because it would become a part of someone's criminal record certificate to be passed on to potential employers and services in sensitive areas.
In the case of juveniles, there are strong policy reasons for delaying entry into the criminal justice system for as long as possible in the hope that the juvenile will grow out of his delinquent behaviour and never enter the system at all. That is why the Home Office circular refers to the presumption in favour of diverting juveniles from the courts. The Home Office rightly recognises that, as a general principle in the case of first-time juvenile offenders where the offence is not serious, it is unlikely that a prosecution will be a justifiable course. The choice will then lie between an informal word of warning and no further action; or, if the matter is too serious for that, a formal caution where the offence and the offender's record are not serious.
In the case of adults, there is no general presumption in favour of cautioning, but membership of certain vulnerable groups may point, according to the circular, to a sympathetic consideration of the case. The groups mentioned in the circular are the elderly or the infirm, young adults between 17 and 20 and those suffering from mental illness or impairment or suffering from severe physical illness. It is an essential requirement for a caution that the offender admits his or her guilt.
Let me say, after that rather long introduction, for which I apologise, that one concern about Clause 103 as it stands is that, by giving cautions wider circulation in criminal record certificates, it will become much more difficult to persuade minor juvenile and adult offenders, whether from vulnerable groups or otherwise, to admit their wrongdoing and accept the salutary warning given by a formal caution.
Another concern—I should be very grateful if these matters could be dealt with—is about the lack of effective procedural safeguards if cautions are to become a form of quasi-conviction whose disclosure to a potential employer may severely prejudice the individual's chances of obtaining employment. At present there must be evidence of the offender's guilt, the offender must admit his guilt, and the offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to the caution. But there is no obligation at present on the police to offer someone a right to legal representation before deciding whether to admit his guilt and accept a caution. It is clear from the Home Office circular that there are also concerns in the Home Office itself about the accuracy and consistency of the recording of cautions. I suggest that that is a further powerful reason for not permitting cautions to have wide currency as part of the individual's criminal record.
The existence of a procedure in Clause 106 for dealing with disputes about accuracy is useful so far as future recording and use are concerned. But that procedure will scarcely be effective in relation to stale and inconsistent records of, say, a 10 year-old minor shoplifting, road traffic or public order offence. It is also unfair that existing cautions will be given wide currency in sensitive areas—I stress this point because it seems a particularly unattractive position—even though they were administered at a time when those who admitted their guilt did so with no warning or expectation that such an admission of guilt would be permitted to be given wider currency and treated as relevant for employment purposes without any time limit or rehabilitation period.
If Clause 103 is agreed as it stands, it will in that way impose a retrospective penalty on those who admitted their guilt under the old system without a fair warning. I regard that as a particular vice and should be very grateful if that could be addressed.
I leave cautions to one side and turn to the absolute and conditional discharge. Where a court by which someone is convicted of an offence considers, having regard to the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that it is

527
inexpedient to inflict punishment and that a probation order is not appropriate, the court may make an order discharging him absolutely; or if the court thinks fit, discharging him subject to a condition that he commits no offence during a period not exceeding three years from the date of the court's order.
An absolute discharge is appropriate where a person is convicted of an offence in circumstances where no moral blame attaches to him. An example is the case of the Queen against O'Toole in 1971 where an ambulance driver was driving an ambulance along a main road at about 50 to 60 miles an hour answering an emergency call. The vehicle's blue lights were flashing and the siren was sounding continuously. Another vehicle pulled across its path from a garage forecourt and a collision resulted. The Court of Appeal said it was very difficult to say there was any moral blame and substituted an absolute discharge for an order disqualifying the defendant from driving for 12 months.
A conditional discharge is appropriate in the case of an offender who might otherwise be suitable for probation but who is not in need of supervision by a probation officer, or where an offender who commits an offence which does not justify imposing a term of imprisonment has no resources with which to pay a fine.
Finally, there are bind-overs. Bind-overs can be part of a sentence following conviction for a minor offence, the rehabilitation period lasting until the date the bind-over ceases or one year whichever is longer. In addition, magistrates have the power to require a person who has not been charged with an offence to enter a recognisance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour. When that happens there is no necessary compliance with due process principles.
Liberty has drawn attention to a case where, for example, an elderly woman who had no legal representation was bound over for a potential breach of the peace as a result of a neighbour dispute. That type of bind-over information will be made available under an enhanced check. If the elderly lady were to volunteer at a local children's play group, that information would be highly prejudicial to her chances.
How are these matters dealt with under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? One has to follow that to see the impact of the Bill. That Act was designed to rehabilitate offenders who have not been reconvicted of any serious offence for periods of years and to penalise the unauthorised disclosure of their previous convictions. The 1974 Act provides for a rehabilitation period of six months from the date of conviction in the case of an order discharging a person absolutely for an offence and for a rehabilitation period of one year in respect of a conviction of someone who was conditionally discharged or placed on probation or bound over to keep the peace.
The practice direction on crime-spent convictions issued by the Court of Appeal in 1975 directs the courts to have regard to the spirit of the 1974 Act by refusing to allow any mention to be made of a spent conviction except where it is in the interests of justice to do so. Only a judge can authorise such a disclosure.
It is surely unjust and lacking any sense of proportion if absolute or conditional discharges and bind-overs which would otherwise be spent under the 1974 Act are now to be permitted to mar someone's prospects of obtaining particular employment without any time limit. I recognise that the situation is quite different in relation to enhanced criminal record certificates under Clause 104 dealing with paedophilia and matters of that kind. That is why my amendment would still permit even spent and minor sentences of that kind to be included and would remove only cautions for the reasons I have endeavoured to explain.
I apologise for the fact that I have taken so long to explain the matter but, if it serves no other purpose, it will at least enable noble Lords who are not familiar with this field to see the full picture as far as I understand it. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we had a most confusing debate on this subject in Committee, and I am still not convinced, even despite the lengthy introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I am clear about all the issues to which the noble Lord referred. However, I want to support the part that I did understand about cautions.
As I understand the position, cautions are not covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and that is presumably because they are not considered important enough to be covered by the Act. If that is the case, since we have been worrying about a conflict between this Bill and the 1974 Act, surely the failsafe position would be that, if they are not important enough for that Act, they cannot really be important enough for this Bill.
There is also the worry that cautions can be accepted by people without any warning being given about the fact that they will appear on the record, most commonly by people who do not have legal representation. They accept a caution as a way of avoiding escalation of the confrontation with the police.
Another of my worries concerns the extent to which cautions are used for victimless crimes. I am talking in particular about consensual sexual acts which are offences that do not involve any victim. I would prefer in most ways to pursue the line which we pursued in Committee about the relevance of the information for which purpose the criminal record certificate is designed. However, failing that, it seems to me that some at least of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, have validity.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be seriously to restrict the type of information that could be included on criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates. I should remind the House that both of these certificates

529
constitute the higher levels of check being proposed by the Bill and apply only to those occupations which are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Perhaps I may say in passing that the noble Lord referred to there being no victim in a consensual sexual act. I can think of occasions when there would be. Even in consensual sexual acts a very young boy might consent to sex with a much older person. I would regard the young boy as being very much a victim of that situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that there is no such thing as consent by a young boy under the age of 16. That is an offence. It is not a consensual offence.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if they consented when they were over the age of consent it would not be an offence at all. We are talking about offences here. We are saying that if there was a young person who consented—there is nothing to stop a young person consenting—to sex with someone much older, that person could be cautioned. I am suggesting that there would be a victim in that situation.
For routine employment purposes, a criminal conviction certificate, which will only include details of unspent convictions, is perfectly sufficient. It is consistent with the spirit of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which allows for most convictions to become spent after a given period.
During our discussion in Committee noble Lords asked why absolute and conditional discharges can be included in criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates. Both types of discharge are a disposal given by the court after a finding of guilt. As such they are covered by the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and, like the details of other convictions, should be included on these higher levels of certificate.
Amendment No. 139 would define "central records" as relating only to convictions. This would mean that details of cautions recorded centrally could not be included in criminal record or enhanced criminal record certificates. Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 deal specifically with criminal record certificates, and propose that they should only contain information on unspent convictions, including absolute and conditional discharges, bindovers and probation orders. It would not allow the certificates to contain information about spent convictions and cautions even though the groups who would be eligible for the certificates would only be those who are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act such as medical and legal professionals, public servants, and those who work with children and vulnerable adults; in all cases, professions where it is accepted that only the most trustworthy are appointed. Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 deal specifically with enhanced criminal record checks and propose that although they should contain details of spent, as well as unspent convictions, they should not include details of cautions. This is insufficient and
530
will unnecessarily put at risk the most vulnerable. Only a very limited number of people will be eligible for enhanced criminal record checks. They will be restricted to those who work with children and will also be issued in connection with certain gaming and lottery licences. Following your Lordships' decision earlier this afternoon, it is our intention to extend the scope of these checks to cover those who work with vulnerable adults. In all cases it is necessary for an employer to be aware of an applicant's past convictions and cautions so that they can assess risk most accurately.
There may be some noble Lords who are persuaded that details of spent convictions should be contained on both of these types of certificate but not cautions. Spent convictions have all been tested by a court and may have been for relatively serious offences which could be relevant to the type of employment being sought. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, explained during our consideration at Committee stage, cautions have not been tested by the courts and are not afforded the protection of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the way that convictions are. I will address these points.
The cautions which are recorded on the police national computer are limited to those which have been given for reportable offences; that is to say, those which may attract a prison sentence. Because a formal police caution can only be issued if an individual admits committing an offence they cannot simply be regarded as insignificant matters in respect of those who apply for sensitive occupations. Although the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to cautions, details of cautions will only be shown on criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates, which would only be available for occupations and offices which are exceptions to that Act and which would also include details of spent convictions.
We are aware of the importance of providing safeguards in connection with information about spent convictions and cautions. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act already provides some protection against the wrongful disclosure of information about spent convictions, and this Bill will also make provision for a new criminal offence if a member, officer, or employee of a registered body discloses information from a criminal record certificate other than in the course of his duties. This will apply equally to information on cautions and convictions.
As Minister with responsibility for the work of the Probation Service I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I attach great importance to the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, particularly if their offences were committed some years ago and are clearly no longer relevant to the type of work that is being sought. I am pleased to say the Government will publish a code of practice for registered bodies which will cover the way in which criminal record information should be handled. In addition we intend to publish guidance which will advise employers, for

531
example, that they should take account of the time since the last offence, its relevance to the appointment in question and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested that the inclusion of cautions makes them more serious, and referred to no obligation to legal representation, nor of recording them. Only reportable, broadly imprisonable offences, as I said, are recorded centrally, and cautions have only been recorded centrally since November 1995. On the point of no legal representation when the caution is administered, the person need not accept a caution and can do so having taken legal advice, or indeed without legal advice, if they so choose. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation although it has not really dealt with the main concerns that I articulated—probably because I spoke for too long and it may be that my concerns were not sufficiently brought out. Those concerns are fourfold. The first is that the effect of the measure as it stands will make it more difficult to persuade offenders to admit their wrongdoing and therefore accept the caution—a very undesirable consequence because I value the cautioning procedure. The second point is the lack of effective procedural safeguards that have obtained in the past, such as legal representation, when admissions of guilt have been obtained. My third concern is the lack of consistency and accuracy in the historic recording of cautions. I accept that that will be dealt with in the future but we are dealing with historic records. The fourth and final point is my concern about the retrospective penalty—that is, people are now to be treated as worse off than when they admitted their guilt for the purpose of the caution without having had fair warning that that would be the position.
All those concerns remain firmly with me and I am particularly concerned in the context of Clause 103 which deals with sensitive occupations, including my own. I cannot believe that the legal profession, or my chambers or those of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would think it right that they should be provided with information about historic cautions because we belong to sensitive occupations within the White Paper. I do not know whether the noble Baroness or her colleagues have consulted members of the legal or health professions, but I very much hope that further thought will be given to these concerns because a great deal of what the Minister said showed sympathy with the need to ensure a proper system. There is no dispute between us about the importance of Clauses 103 and 104 as such. However, at this hour and with the matter being so complicated, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
Clause 104 [Enhanced criminal record certificates]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 144:
Page 42, line 2, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
Page 42, line 4, leave out ("a registered charity or appropriate body") and insert ("the registered person").
Page 42, line 10, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were considered with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 145 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 42, line 11, leave out from ("that") to end of line 22 and insert ("person—

(a) in the course of considering the applicant's suitability for a position (whether paid or unpaid) within subsection (2A) or (2B), or

(b) for a purpose relating to any of the matters listed in subsection (2C).

(2A) A position is within this subsection if it involves regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons aged under 18.
(2B) A position is within this subsection if—

(a) it is of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and

(b) it involves regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons aged 18 or over.

(2C) The matters referred to in subsection (2)(b) are—

(a) a certificate for the purposes of sections 19 or 27(1) or (5) of the Gaming Act 1968 (gaming);

(b) a certificate of consent for any purpose of Schedule 2 to that Act (licences);

(c) registration or certification in accordance with Schedule 1A, 2 or 2A to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (societies, schemes and lottery managers);

(d) a licence under section 5 or 6 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (running or promoting lotteries).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 145 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 179 in my name and with Amendments Nos. 146, 147 and 152 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen who communicated with me before he left the Chamber earlier this evening. The amendments are concerned with some of the groups eligible for enhanced criminal record checks when the measures in this Bill come into force.
First, part of amendment No. 145 deals with the gaming industry, and clarifies the sections in the Gaming Act 1968, the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and the National Lotteries etc Act 1993 to which the provisions for enhanced criminal record checks will apply. This amendment also enables enhanced checks to be made where an application has been made by an individual who is applying for a licence, registration or certificate under these Acts, or who has been appointed as a director or employee of a body which already holds such a certificate. In effect, this means that not only will the existing directors and staff of a gaming body be eligible for enhanced checks at the time when a licence, registration or certificate

533
is issued, but so will any others who take up post subsequently. This measure is supported by both the Gaming Board and the Office of the National Lottery and will help to clarify existing practice better to ensure that those who work in the gaming industry are fit to do so.
Secondly, the other part of Amendment No. 145 and Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 179 enable the provisions for enhanced criminal record certificates to be extended by the Secretary of State by means of regulations. It is our intention to specify those who work with particularly vulnerable adults.
During our previous consideration of this issue I listened with great care to the forceful arguments put forward in particular by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who also communicated with me before he left the Chamber this evening. They have been doughty campaigners for vulnerable groups. In Committee I expressed much sympathy with the views of noble Lords who wished to see the scope of enhanced checks extended to cover vulnerable adults as well as children and undertook to come forward with an amendment which would seek to better protect those groups from those who abuse their positions of trust. The reason why this is being done by way of a statutory power rather than by stating on the face of the Bill which groups this measure will apply to is that we want to ensure that we get it right. I have sympathy with those charitable groups who work with vulnerable adults and the vulnerable generally who wish us to clarify which groups we specifically have in mind, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to do that. This is a complex matter. I assure noble Lords that we intend to consult widely with interested parties, including the charities involved, on the difficult question of which groups of vulnerable adults most need this extra protection. We believe that taking a power in this Bill to enable the provisions for enhanced checks to be extended is the right way forward. In the meantime, vulnerable groups will not be left exposed. As soon as the measures in the Bill come into force those who already work with vulnerable adults will be eligible for full criminal record checks which will include details of spent and unspent convictions and cautions, as will those who appoint, dismiss, manage or supervise such workers. I believe that this is a sensible measure which will allow us time to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced criminal record checks before we widen their scope and assess carefully which groups of vulnerable adults most need this extra protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen have told me that they accept the Government's amendments in this regard. Therefore, I apprehend that if my noble friend Lord Swinfen had been here he would not be pressing the amendments in his name on the Marshalled List.
1 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lord, we welcome the Government's recognition of the force of
534
the arguments put forward at Committee stage. We need a good deal of faith in the Government's goodwill in this matter because the whole question of who are vulnerable adults is left to subsequent regulation. I have that faith, and I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 148 and 149:
Page 42, leave out line 44 and insert ("person.").
Page 42, line 45, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 152 not moved.]
Clause 105 [Enhanced criminal record certificates: judicial appointments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 43, line 18. leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause—
ENHANCED CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: EXEMPTION FROM FEE
("An applicant for a certificate under sections 104 and 105 shall be exempt from paying the fee required by section 104(1)(b) and section 105(1)(b) if he is—

(a) a childminder registered under the Children Act 1989;

(b) seeking registration as a childminder under the Children Act 1989:

(c) a member of a household where registered childminding takes place for whom a police check is required under the Children Act 1989.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 154 is of rather different quality from that which we have just been discussing. I believe that its purpose is plain; namely, to exempt from the payment of fees for enhanced criminal record certificates those who are involved in child minding. At Committee stage on 2nd December when we discussed the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for the waiving of fees in respect of charities, many noble Lords were concerned about whether the financial provisions of the Bill had been properly thought through. It is one thing for the Government to decide that the cost of these provisions should not fall on the exchequer but on individuals or organisations; it is another for those affected to find the money that is likely to be involved. Your Lordships took the view by a narrow majority that it was right to waive fees in respect of charities. My amendment seeks to put before the House the desirability of making exemptions in another field.
I can anticipate what the Minister will say about the cost of the Bill and of this amendment. I want to limit myself simply to saying that the organisations principally representing child minders are deeply concerned about the consequences of the Bill. I refer to the views of the National Childminding Association

535
and the separate associations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together they represent over 100,000 child minders.
Those noble Lords who are close to these matters fully understand the very important role that registered child minders fulfil. Those who are responsible for them and anxious to represent them and to draw attention to their concerns take the following view of the provisions of the Bill as drafted.
First, the Bill will act as a disincentive to registration and increase the number of unregulated carers of young children, thus compromising their safety. Secondly, it will reduce the number of registered child minders, many of whom already find it difficult to make a living because of the high costs and expenses and low earnings, and therefore make good child care even more difficult to find. Thirdly, as a result of these factors it will threaten the good practice advances that have been made as a result of the Children Act 1989.
I do not want at this hour to discuss in detail the role of child minders or indeed how they are financed. I say only this to those who were not aware of it. Registered child minders in the United Kingdom are self-employed, independent child care providers. In that respect, detached as they are from the public service, they no doubt satisfy the wish of government to see more and more of our social provision out effectively to tender. They presently pay a fee of £10 to the local authority to register, and a further annual inspection fee of £7.50—although the Department of Health has just notified the association that these fees will increase by 25 per cent. from the beginning of next month.
The associations strongly believe that it is essential to have the checks provided for in this Bill. There is no argument at all about that. Indeed, as I have said before, there is no conflict of view in this House in respect of these clauses of the Bill. However, it is plain that if indeed some provision is not made to help child minders by avoiding the payment of these fees, then there is a threat to the whole profession as it has developed and to the safety of children in registered care.
I recognise that the Government will be very reluctant, and I know that the Minister will give no undertaking whatever this evening even to examine the amendment I am moving; however, I want to place it on record that I believe this is another respect in which, despite the long consultation period, which I fully recognise, the full consequences of the provisions in the Bill were not thought through. The fact that it has a number of virtues, particularly in Clauses 103 and 104, does not make it any less difficult for those whose job it will be to implement the provisions of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will indicate her concern and sympathy for the child minders who are put in this position and indicate, if she will, how she believes they will get over the payment of a fee which, although it may seem small to noble Lords, can be
536
large to those who are registered child minders and who are doing a first-rate job but who receive a very, very small reward for their efforts.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Children Act 1989 does not require criminal record checks to be carried out on childminders. There is, however, a requirement for childminders, and other adults living on the same premises, to prove their fitness to be in the proximity of children. It has become the practice for local authorities to require applicants for registration as childminders, and other relevant adults, to undergo criminal record checks when they first apply for registration. At the moment, such checks are sought by local authorities and provided free of charge by the police.
Around 24,000 new childminders register each year in England (centralised figures are not held for the other parts of the UK) and would be eligible for checks. Records are not kept of how many other adults would be eligible for enhanced criminal record checks because they live in a household where registered childminding takes place. But it is reasonable to assume that this might be in the region of 24,000 to 48,000—that is one to two per household—which could be made up of the childminder's spouse or partner, and any children, relatives, or lodgers who are over 16 in England alone. The figure could, of course, be higher and it is those households which contain a higher than average number of adults which would be hardest hit by these proposals. I believe that the noble Lord used a figure of 100,000.
Currently, childminders also have to pay a small one-off fee to register and a further annual fee so that their premises, as well as the service they provide, can be inspected. These charges are being increased with effect from 1st February from £10 to £12.50 for the registration fee, which includes the first year's inspection, and from £7.50 to £10 for each subsequent inspection. These figures relate to childminders and sessional providers. The fees for providers of full day care are somewhat higher and will increase from £100 to £110 for registration and from £75 to £85 for annual inspections.
As your Lordships are aware, we propose to set up a criminal records agency to undertake the work necessary to implement the provisions in this part of the Bill. This will be viable only if it is self-financing. We intend that its costs would be met by charging each applicant for a certificate a modest and affordable fee. This issue was debated at length during Committee. As your Lordships know, the Bill as amended would now place a large extra burden of cost on either the Exchequer or those who are in paid employment in order to subsidise volunteers. I notice that that did not feature in the speech of the right honourable colleague of the noble Lord, Lord

537
McIntosh, when he made his speech today, because the Labour Party has signed what amounts to a blank cheque on these matters.
In deciding on this course, the Government did, of course, look at whether certain groups should be exempted from paying for checks. But we did not consider that the relatively modest fees that are being proposed would be prohibitive to any of these groups. Childminders, and those adults who reside with them, would therefore be charged a fee in the region of £8 to £10 for the enhanced criminal record checks for which they would be eligible.
As noble Lords are aware, it would only be possible to offer certain groups free checks if an alternative means of funding could be provided. If the agency is to be self-financing, this would mean a substantial increase in the fees paid by other users of the agency, many of whom may be unemployed or on income support and who require a criminal convictions or criminal record certificate in order to find work, or employers or local authorities bearing the cost.
This measure would apply to new childminders of which around 24,000 register each year in England alone. Although records are not kept centrally, it is fair to estimate that in England each year there are around 24,000 to 48,000 adults who, because they live in the same household, would also be eligible for criminal record checks. If all these fees were to be waived the annual cost in England alone could be around £720,000. This is a significant sum. If the Government were to accept the principle that certain groups should have their fees waived I am sure that it would be possible to identify a considerable number of other groups, such as the unemployed or those otherwise on low incomes, who are equally, if not more, deserving of similar treatment. That is allied to the fact that any system of differential charges would be complex to administer and would add to the overall running costs of the agency and its financial viability.
The noble Lord would wish me to say this and I say it willingly: I assure the House that the Government fully recognise the important service which is provided by childminders. I agree that all care must be taken to ensure that those who look after or are in the proximity of young children are suitable and do not present a risk to the safety of those children. That is why we have consistently kept to a minimum fees which childminders pay for registration and inspection of premises. However, I cannot accept the principle that that group should be exempt from paying a modest fee for those checks to be carried out. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, in her opening remarks the Minister said that the Children Act 1989 does not require checks. I hope that she did not imply—and her latter remarks suggest that she did not—that because the Children Act 1989 does not
538
require checks, there is no need for checks to be made. It seems to me that that was an unfortunate way of expressing the matter because it suggests an area of discretion where discretion should not be exercised if it exists.
The Minister said that the fees are relatively modest. That seems to be so. But even relatively modest fees are a burden on those whose income from childminding is very limited; so I remain of the view that the full consequences of this Bill were not considered in advance.
The Minister referred to the agency being self-financing. I did not make that assumption, even though I might have been prepared to see some contribution to its total cost. I appreciate fully that legislation, including legislation of this kind, may need adjustments of one sort or another. But I hope very much, although I fear it will be the case, that there are no consequences for childminding of one kind or another. If there were fewer childminders of the quality required as a result of this Bill, it would be very unfortunate indeed. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 [Disputes about accuracy of certificates]:
[Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment
No. 157:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
CRIMINAL RECORDS TRIBUNAL
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the Criminal Records Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to hear an appeal from any individual applicant who disputes the accuracy or relevance of a new certificate which is issued to him under section 106 and which contains the same information as the original certificate.
(2) The Tribunal may examine any information held on theapplicant and that contained on the certificate and assess the accuracy of the certificate.
(3) A person who appeals to the Tribunal may be represented by a person of his choice.
(4) The Tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions.
(5) An appeal shall lie from a decision of the Tribunal to the High Court.
(6) The Tribunal may award compensation to an individual applicant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must move this amendment because it is very important. It encapsulates the concerns which we have about the provisions in this part of the Bill. It is not that we are opposed to the part of the Bill; far from it. We have been supportive throughout of the need for the protection of children and, I am glad to say now, vulnerable adults from people who might abuse or harm them. The principle of criminal record certificates is as dear to our hearts as it is to that of the Government. But at the same time, in the interests both of justice and economy, as well as the protection of vulnerable children and adults, there must be

539
provision that the accuracy and relevance of certificates should be safeguarded.
Clause 106 provides for a new certificate to be sought by somebody who has a doubt about the accuracy or relevance of the certificate which has originally been produced. That is fine. We do not propose any change to that. But if, at the end of that procedure, a new certificate has been produced and it contains the same information as the original certificate—in other words, when the subject is still dissatisfied as to its accuracy or relevance—then we think that there should be a criminal records tribunal which should examine the information and assess the accuracy of the certificate.
In subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6), that matter should be subject to legal representation; the tribunal should give reasons for its decisions; there should be the possibility of a further appeal to the High Court, if necessary; and there should be compensation awarded in appropriate cases.
We are not even anticipating that Clause 106 will be used very frequently. But, obviously, to the extent that the information provided by the criminal records agency will come from a limited number of sources— for example, from the police national computer and, if I may put it that way, very official local records— there should not be major problems of accuracy or relevance of the certificates in any but a small number of cases. But when that happens and when, despite the provisions of Clause 106, there is still a dispute, then, in our view, the interests of justice require that there should be a tribunal of the sort suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we support the amendment. If one looks at Clause 106(2) as drafted one sees that the Secretary of State has an absolute right to issue a new certificate without any further check upon its accuracy. With the certificates that will be issued under the legislation—indeed, the large number of certificates that it will be necessary for people to have—it is difficult to believe that they will always be accurate. If they are not accurate, what happens?
The formation of a criminal records tribunal as proposed in the amendment would give a proper means of redress. Such a tribunal could receive information and evidence and assess the accuracy of a certificate. Most importantly, it could also hear representations that are made and, finally, where a person has suffered damage of any sort, it could award compensation. Those are the necessary concomitants to the issuing of such certificates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be wholly wrong if, for instance, someone's prospects of
540
securing employment were disadvantaged by inaccurate information appearing on a certificate. The need to ensure that that does not happen is already recognised in Clause 106. If an individual wishes to query the accuracy of the information on a certificate he will be able to do so. A thorough check will be carried out and the complainant and, where applicable, the registered body will be issued with a new certificate if any inaccuracies are discovered. I believe that this is a sufficient system of appeal. The accuracy of information in central records can be checked by means of fingerprints and chief constables will be responsible for the accuracy of local information.
A criminal records tribunal along the lines proposed by the noble Lord and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would be unwieldy, bureaucratic and, I have to say, would add yet more costs to the Bill. Those costs would have to be borne either by those who were unsuccessful in their appeals, or, if that was not feasible, by all other users of the agency or, indeed, taxpayers. I am sure that our proposals are a sufficient guard against injustices. Individuals will see the certificate in every case and will have an opportunity to query the accuracy. I believe that that is a sufficient safeguard.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I find the Minister's response quite unconvincing. Clause 106 has very limited scope. It has very limited detail and does not set out the nature of the further inquiry which would be carried on. All the Minister is saying in response is that if, for example, there has been a mistake in transcription from the records, that would be corrected in the new certificate. What we are saying is that the possibility of serious injustice from wrong material being included on whatever source material is being used—there being no possibility whatever of challenge to that—is a danger not only to the liberty of the applicant but also, in the end, could result in jobs working with young or vulnerable adults not being filled because no suitable person was available. I do not find that argument satisfactory and I shall seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I suspect that the noble Lord will find that we do not have a House and are therefore unable to complete a Division; we may find that that is not the case. If we do not have a House, if the noble Lord continues to press his amendment, we shall have to return at another date in order to complete the Bill at a time that may not be convenient to him. Having said that, he may wish to reconsider whether or not he wishes to push this amendment to a vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have three things to say about that. First, the Chief Whip cannot say that he has not been warned that we were dissatisfied with the timetable which has been imposed on this Report stage.

541
Secondly, it would not be my intention to ask those who agree with me to abstain from voting in order not to achieve a House; that is not the purpose of my seeking the opinion of the House. My purpose is to make sure, and make it absolutely plain, that there is proper consideration of all parts of this Bill at a proper time. It is the Government's responsibility to provide a House for government legislation. I shall not seek to frustrate it by refraining from voting or asking my friends to refrain from voting.
The final point I want to make to the Government Chief Whip is that the normal procedure under these circumstances is for the remainder of the business—it is a very small amount—to take place at the beginning of the next business day. If that happened, I would have no objection and there would be no delay—and need be no delay—whatsoever to the passage of the Bill through this House.
1.29 a.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 157 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:
1.34 am.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55, I declare the Question not decided, and further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before two o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the

  Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  The Committee met at half-past four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Disposal of crofting property]:
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 25. at end insert—
  ("( ) In any disposal of property under this Act no value shall he attributed to the land.").
  The noble Lord said: May I just say a few things before addressing the particulars of Clause 1. First, the procedure that has been adopted on the Bill is wholly helpful and beneficial. We all—I believe that I speak for the whole Committee—found the visit to Inverness and Skye (those of us who survived Skye) added to our knowledge and understanding of the issues underlying the Bill. In this case, therefore, the procedure is wholly appropriate and it has worked well so far.
  I also hope that in going through the amendments today we can adopt a general discursive approach to see the extent to which issues that may be shared across the Committee can be dealt with in a reasonable, consensual way.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 relate to the whole business of. the terms upon which the transfer will take place. They are designed to make clear that the transfer of the land would be on a virtually no price, no value basis. If the crofting trusts that follow upon the transfer are to have a fair wind behind them, it is vitally important that they do not start off by having to fund any transfer value given to the land itself.
  Secondly, Amendment No. 3 deals with the assets and the mineral, sporting and perhaps fishing rights of the individual crofts. I appreciate the difficulty here, but it seems to me that these are perhaps the most valuable assets that will transfer, and to leave doubt that they may or may not transfer is opening a degree of uncertainty that is not beneficial to the whole scheme; again, they should transfer on the basis of no cost. In many of those cases the assets and rights on transfer will be the only basis upon which the crofts can achieve viability and succeed, and it would be penny-pinching to saddle the trusts with having to finance a transfer fee for the assets that transfer with the crofts,
  We are all agreed that we want to see this concept succeed and this is a way of helping it to succeed. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I generally go along with these amendments. There is one thing I feel we
  CWH2
  need in order to understand how important is the principle of handing over the estates for free, or transferring at no cost to use the correct term. We need to have an inventory of each estate in order to understand whether the estates, generally speaking, have virtually no assets, because there may be a case for a fee in the event of an estate having an asset which is quite disproportionate to what the others have. Here I quote the corny example of the potential super-quarry. I see that as the greatest problem—that we do not have before us details of each estate.
  It is easy for me to say that now, and I know now that the Minister cannot produce the inventory immediately. However, it would be helpful if we could have a sight of it at some time.
  Lord Gray of Contin: I do not want to speak against the amendment, but I want to raise one or two points which the Minister may be able to help us with later.
  Is it really right for the Secretary of State to give land away in this way? A charge could be made at a rate of £1 an acre. It is the principle of handing away land that concerns me. Although that land has perhaps been worked by the same crofter or the same family of crofters for a considerable period of time, the land has probably been nurtured and improved by feeding, which has been obtained by government grant. Is it right that that land should just be handed away? I would be appalled if the Secretary of State was to ask some prohibitive figure, which would undo all the good of this measure, but it worries me a little that public money has been used in order to assist the crofter to improve the land. That should be reflected by some means if that land is going to be disposed of. Perhaps the Minister has an answer to this. I would be most interested to hear what he has to say.
  Secondly, who knows what may follow in the years ahead? Perhaps the time will come when a government will decide that a measure should be introduced affecting private landlords. I cannot see private landlords, however public spirited they might be, willingly handing over their land without any remuneration whatever, for the reasons which I have already explained.
  Nobody knows more than I do how hard crofters work, and we all know the history of how they were wronged in the past, but the for the past 50 or 60 years they have really been treated rather well. Let us make no mistake about that. Indeed, there are many crofters who are the envy of farmers in the treatment that they have received. It is not a case of going into this with a very guilty conscience. The Government can go into this with a very clear conscience because governments of both persuasions have been very sympathetic to the cause of crofting. That should not be overlooked. This may be debated again at Report stage and there may be a vote on it. Before I can make my mind up how I would vote, I would like to hear what the Government feel about this.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I do not know how many noble Lords have seen the report. I believe in Scotland yesterday a Frenchman or a French group acquired a

  CWH3
  large part of Scotland for £2 million. I believe it was 50,000 acres, but it does not matter what acreage it was. It is not a question of giving land away on the part of the Secretary of State; it is giving land back to the people to whom it belongs. That is a principle which we should bear in mind during consideration of this Bill. There is no doubt that, during the time we were in Skye seeing people there, everybody regarded the Secretary of State as being the best landlord that they could have. We have to overcome any prejudice. The whole objective behind this Bill is to hand independence back to the people to whom the land belongs.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, mentions landlords not giving things away. In fact, on our visit to Borve—no doubt the noble Earl the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in my figures—the local people there were "handed" the crofts back for a sum of £30,000. They readily acknowledged that they were dealing with an understanding landlord who wanted them to get on with their own lives in their own parish. If that is the spirit with which the Bill is presented and with which landlords can act within the Highlands, a lot of the rubbish that is talked about landholding in the Highlands can perhaps disappear. It is a spirit of co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Sewel has said. We are here to co-operate and to do the best we can for the crofting communities, and not to fight the landlords all over again.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wonder whether it does not depend rather upon what the buyers of the land can do with it. If they can flog it to the first Frenchman who comes along with £2 million, then, indeed, one should charge them a proper price. However, if it is restricted to social need and the continuance of the crofting system and its expansion, it is a different thing all together. But certainly, if the buyers can immediately take an enormous profit, which is the normal practice for people who benefit from privatisation of public utilities in this country under this Government, they should be charged.
  Viscount Thurso: May I ask the Minister whether he can clarify that what is being proposed to be transferred or sold in this case is in fact the landlord's interest in the land, which is quite different to perhaps selling the land itself. I have an actual case myself, with which I am quite happy, where one of my crofters has bought a field because it is about to go into the local town plan, and he will sell it on and make a lot of money; and good luck to him as far as I am concerned. That is the individual crofter who is doing that, buying it from the estate, i.e. me. In this case, what is being sold is the estate interest, which really has very little, if any, value, and therefore the principle of transferring it from the Secretary of State to the body acquiring it at the very lowest price should be adhered to.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): May I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in anticipating a constructive Committee stage in the
  CWH4
  Moses Room, and the Moses Room is particularly well suited to a constructive dialogue on matters such as the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill.
  The effect of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and spoken to with fairly broad support by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, would be to make all transfers of land and transfers of rights associated with land free of charge.
  On the question of transferring land, which is the focus of Amendment No. 1, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that we would be willing to transfer this free of charge where this is necessary to ensure the viability of a trust.
  It is likely that the vast majority of land on the Secretary of State's estates would benefit from free transfer. There are, however, some estates which consist of individual crofts without any common grazings and where the land is very much better quality than is the norm. These estates are largely to be found in the eastern Highlands. It is unlikely that free transfer would be necessary to ensure economic viability. We do not believe that free transfer of such properties would represent responsible management of publicly owned and publicly maintained assets, which is a point my noble friend Lord Gray touched on.
  We need to bear in mind that where common grazings are not involved, crofters have had the right to buy all of their croft land since 1976, based on the statutory formula of 15 times the annual rental value. Free transfer to a trust consisting of individual crofts with no common grazing might be seen as a way of circumventing the existing statutory right to buy provisions. This would contrast unfavourably with the treatment given to neighbouring crofters who had already purchased their crofts on that formula. It would also contrast unfavourably with the treatment given to tenants of Scottish Office lowland estates, comprising similar smallholdings, who are required, under separate arrangements, to pay approximately 30 per cent. of the value of the land.
  The Bill specifies that disposals of crofting estates by the Secretary of State should be on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the agreement of the Treasury, may agree with the body acquiring the property. This is a much more flexible approach which allows each case to be considered on its merits.
  Amendment No. 3 seeks to ensure that any rights transferred with the land are also transferred free of charge. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, sought perhaps a review of an inventory of the Secretary of State's estates in order to form a better view of them himself. The problem with an inventory, however, would be that we are talking about a land mass of some 105,000 hectares, with nearly 15,000 crofters, 150 townships and so forth. The point at which an inventory becomes relevant is the point at which a group of crofters proposes that land be transferred to them: it would be impractical for my officials to provide the sort of comprehensive inventory that the noble Earl requires.
  There are, however, broad categories of rights attaching to those lands, on which I hope I can comment constructively. In relation to sporting rights, in most

  CWH5
  cases I envisage that the Secretary of State's interest in sporting rights such as deer stalking and trout fishing will indeed be transferred free of charge with the land itself. In some cases, of course, these rights have already been let and, where this is the case, trusts would benefit from this income for the period of the lease.
  In law, salmon rights are dealt with separately from other sporting rights. Where these exist, and the decision is to transfer them, the question of any consideration would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The same logic would apply for mineral rights. In relation to the next amendment, we will be discussing the question of the transfer of these rights—here, we are just discussing whether, if they are transferred, there should be any charge.
  In many cases it may be prudent to retain these in order that the returns from their exploitation can benefit not only the surface proprietor—that is, the crofting trust—but also where the returns are disproportionately high they could benefit the taxpayer who has for decades invested heavily in the maintenance and the well-being of these estates. I refer once again to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin in describing the general principle that lies behind our approach here.
  However, where land is transferred, I reiterate to the entire Committee that each case will be considered on its merits. Although the arrangements would be specific to each case, I can reassure noble Lords that where the level of income from mineral rights is at current levels on each estate—and here I am talking about figures in thousands of pounds rather than, say, tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds—the Government will be content to ensure that crofting trusts benefit from this income in full and are free to exploit the minerals.
  As I have already said, we envisage that the vast majority of the land will be transferred free of charge, but exceptions may be necessary to protect the public interest and on the grounds of equity.
  Similarly in relation to rights associated with the land, our intention is to be as generous as the circumstances allow us to be and to ensure that the trusts get off to a good start. We have certainly not been penny-pinching, which is the allegation that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dared to aim at us.
  However, because it is not possible at this stage to anticipate every set of circumstances across the 105,000 hectares, it is sensible to retain the flexibility which this Bill as drafted gives to the Secretary of State. It allows him to tailor individual solutions to individual circumstances, and that fact allows the concerns of other noble Lords who have spoken to be taken on board in each and every case.
  I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Sewel: The Minister has a genuine point in seeking to distinguish between the west coast common grazing crops and the east coast crops, which many of us tend to see as smallholdings in any case, small farms. I wonder whether it might be possible for the sake of
  CWH6
  clarity to work that distinction into the Bill, and I would ask the Minister to see whether some form of distinction like that could be included.
  On the mineral and other assets, the Minister is going as far as he is able at the moment, but we are all genuinely concerned that many of these crofts have very few assets. If they have the good fortune to enjoy mineral rights, it would be generous, fair and proper that those rights should transfer at the lowest possible cost in order to give a fair wind to the success of the trusts. Obviously at this stage I seek to withdraw the amendment, but I hope the Minister may be able to come forward with something a bit more precise at a later date.
  With my local government background on planning issues, when I hear people continually say, "We want to be flexible and will treat all cases on their merits", I tend to remember that that meant one did not have a policy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: I have referred to this already in moving the earlier amendment. At the present time the Bill gives a permissive power to the Secretary of State to transfer rights. I am seeking to make that mandatory, but clearly not transferring the rights against the wish of the trust. There is some further drafting to be done on that. But the issue must be that, if the land transfers, the rights that flow from the land should transfer as well. There should be no doubt about that. We should make it clear that it is a mandatory procedure rather than a permissive procedure. People would feel somewhat cheated if, having secured the transfer of the land, they found that a major asset which could make the difference between success and failure was not transferring at the same time. I beg to move.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the Minister replies, are there any instances where the mineral rights or any other rights do not belong to the Secretary of State?
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for moving Amendment No. 2 briefly. It picks up many of the issues that we discussed with the first group of amendments. I can immediately inform the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that the Secretary of State owns mineral rights on only 27 estates and only a few of those rights generate income. The total income from mineral rights at present is around £17,000 per annum.
  As I said in answering the points made in respect of the first group of amendments, it is our intention at the moment that the crofting estates where those mineral rights reside should gain full access to that kind of level of income. It is only where income is disproportionate that we believe that the taxpayer—who has for decades invested first in purchasing the estates and subsequently in their continuing wellbeing—has a legitimate stake.
  In addition to that reassurance, I reiterate to the Committee, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that we are proud of a policy that includes

  CWH7
  flexibility and the determination to measure each circumstance and each case on its own merits. I would hate the Committee to think that the noble Lord's memory of Labour local government in Scotland applies here, and that measuring things on a case-by-case basis is merely the wrapping for a policy vacuum. In our case, when it comes to crofters, this is a deliberate and positive policy.
  On a serious note, we recognise that, although one can perhaps define broad categories of crofting estate and crofting township, when it comes to the kind of detailed inventory that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is anxious to see, then distinct differences will emerge.
  I would also mention in passing that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and others, raised some points on the first group of amendments. I have hesitated to respond to them in detail because I realise that they are points which will be dealt with fully in later amendments.
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will accept that it will often be appropriate that all the rights that go with the land are transferred, whereas there will be other instances where the circumstances suggest it is not prudent simply to transfer all the rights. The assessment will be made by the Secretary of State and the crofters involved on a case-by-case basis.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble Earl for referring to my request for an inventory. I certainly believe that, as this discussion has shown, there is a clear need to understand how each of these estates differs. I leave that point there.
  I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, about the amount of money that has been ploughed into crofting. While crofters receive grants and soft loans to enable them to build houses and sheds, these loans have to be repaid. Therefore we are effectively running a revolving fund, whereas providing council housing would be a less effective way of populating the north-west of Scotland and would have a considerable impact on the PSBR, on which the crofting grants and loans scheme has a lesser impact.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Can the noble Earl say why it is impossible to change the word "may" to "shall"? Surely that would give a degree of certainty in the transaction between the crofter and the Secretary of State. Looking at it from a legal point of view, if one was asked to advise the purchaser or the recipient of the goodwill of the Secretary of State and one is left with the word "may", that means nothing in relation to the land. Surely there should be an absolute transfer and disposal of the land and any rights of hearing to that land to the person receiving it so that he has a degree of certainty and ownership.
  Taking the silly example which we used at the meeting in Inverness, if some great riches are found on a croft which has been given to the crofter in terms of Clause 1(5), the Secretary of State will then be able to say, "That's mine"—I do not mean that as a pun—"That was not transferred to you", because the word "shall" is not there.
  5 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: The key word in this is "effeiring", and one area which concerns me is in regard to the salmon rights at Strathy Point. Even using the word "shall" as opposed to "may", the salmon rights would still fall outside this since those rights are not effeiring. On that basis, I understand that the use of the word "effeiring" in large measure in Scottish law—although I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination—has the effect of "shall" to a certain extent. Therefore, using the word "may" with the word "effeiring" is almost a double negative.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful for the opportunity to give the Committee the long version of the points raised by various noble Lords. To an extent, I shall be going over some of the ground we covered in the first group of amendments. The underlying principle, which cannot be overemphasised, is that we must retain flexibility because of the diversity between different estates, different townships and different regions.
  As I explained, the ownership of sporting rights runs with the land, although that right may be let out to others. So, in all instances we expect sporting rights to be transferred with the land itself, with the caveat that actual freehold access, as it were, may be governed by a lease to a third party.
  I also explained—as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raised the point—that salmon rights are indeed separate from sporting rights. Therefore, they will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis depending upon the circumstances of the transfer that is being arranged between a group of crofters and the Secretary of State. Strathy Point is just one such circumstances that would deserve special consideration.
  In relation to mineral rights, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that not only is there nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State from transferring these either at the outset or in the future, but the general principle is that we want crofting trusts to have that fair wind that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, refers to in order to be viable at the outset. In some circumstances where the Secretary of State has the mineral rights and those rights are being worked, the income arising will be possibly a crucial part of that early viability. Therefore, as I stressed in dealing with the first group of amendments, while there may be circumstances where we see very good reason why we should not be transferring the mineral rights initially, in such other circumstances the income arising from those mineral rights will at the levels which are currently accruing be transferred for the benefit of the crofters concerned.
  My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin explored the principle that causes us to retain mineral rights for special consideration on a case-by-case basis and for the Bill to be drafted so that the Secretary of State "may" rather than "shall" transfer those rights. There are decades of investment by the taxpayer, by the public, in these estates, decades of investment in their well-being and their livelihood. Where there is the potential for considerable income to be generated from mineral rights—and we are talking about disproportionate levels

  CWH9
  of income—it is right that we consider retaining a stake for the taxpayer after decades of investment that the taxpayer has put in.
  I hope that I have dealt with the major points arising from the amendment. Given that it is very similar to the first grouping of amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Presumably where the Secretary of State does not own the mineral rights, the crofting tenant would have to negotiate with the owner of the mineral rights in order to buy them.
  The Earl of Lindsay: As I understand it, if on one of the estates that benefited from the Bill and was able to propose a transfer of land the mineral rights had never transferred to the Secretary of State in the first place, and there remained a third party, it would be up to the crofters to negotiate with that third party for access to those mineral rights.
  Lord Sewel: I have been trying to be as generous and as consensual as possible, but the Minister occasionally makes the odd point that is unworthy in some of his comments. When we look at the issue of transferring the rights, I believe that what the Minister has been saying actually supports the amendment. The intention seems to be that the sporting rights should transfer, as I understand it. When we come to the mineral rights I am slightly confused. If I heard the Minister correctly, he was saying that the present value of the mineral rights is £17,000 a year. Is that correct?
  The Earl of Lindsay: The present income. The actual value of those mineral rights could clearly be much greater.
  Lord Sewel: We are talking about an income of £17,000 a year. That seems to be a very low level. If that refers to the rights in minerals, why should those rights not be transferred?
  The argument is that perhaps at some time in the future there may be some value out there of which we are unaware at present. If that is driving policy, that means that one would seek to protect the future by not transferring the rights in the first place. Surely we should concentrate on the perceived income at this time and, as the Minister has explained, that generates an income throughout the whole area of only £17,000 a year. I would have thought that that makes the case for transfer. We are not talking about major, major sums in any case, and I hope that the Minister at a later date might be able to meet us on that. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Restrictions on disposal]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, line 11, leave out ("incorporate") and insert ("unincorporated").
  The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to tidy up some drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: I should like to raise one point with the Minister. Suppose either that the land were held or the crofting trust was incorporated as a charitable company limited by guarantee. I do not know whether that is a likelihood but it is probably possible. In such an event, would the deletion of the word "incorporate" prevent such a situation?
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am advised that such a situation would not be prevented.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichette: It would not?
  The Earl of Lindsay: It would not.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Why? Is that because a charitable company limited by guarantee is not incorporated?
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am advised that that would be a body corporate and, therefore, allowed under the terms of the Bill as currently drafted.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 4A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 4A:
  Page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
  ("(b) has the promotion of the interests of persons residing on such property as its primary objective.").
  The noble Earl said: I would like to speak to Amendment No. 4A and, in doing so, speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 25.
  Amendments Nos. 4A, 10 and 25 are government amendments which follow on from our consideration of the points which were raised through the evidence given to the Select Committee in Inverness. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in particular, asked me to reflect further on these terms and to consider whether we should add definitions to the Bill. I refer, of course, to the references to "crofting interests" and "the crofting community" as they occur in Clause 2 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was also diligent in his interest in this aspect of the Bill.
  We believe that the term "crofting community" would include not only residents of a particular crofting estate but also other members of the wider local community, such as doctors, teachers and ministers living outside the estate itself. We believe that the interests of such people should be taken into consideration by the Crofters Commission when it gives advice to the Secretary of State on proposals to establish crofting trusts. This is sensible and proper, and it is ensured in the terms of the Bill as currently drafted.
  However, we do not believe that a crofting trust should be placed under a duty to promote the interests of those who are not resident on the land which it owns. Amendment No. 4A therefore makes clear that the trust

  CWH11
  should have the promotion of residents as its primary objective. This would not bar non-residents from being members of the trust, or from benefiting from its objectives. It does, however, mean that the interests of the residents would be primary.
  Amendment No. 10 is consequential to Amendment No. 4A. It ensures that, when advising the Secretary of State on proposals to establish a trust, the Crofters Commission will have regard to the general interests of the crofting community in the district in which a property to be transferred is situated. We have been advised that the word "district" would be read as "districts" where the proposed trust covers more than one specific community. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Sewel: In talking to Amendment No. 4A I will, of course, refer to the grouped amendments standing with it. I thank the Minister very much for the slightly wider definition that has now been produced. That helps enormously, if the trusts are to achieve a broader contribution to the local development of their districts.
  It will be realised that minds on all sides of the Committee have been exercised as regards our amendments. We have come up with the phrase "local community development" because that is essentially what the whole exercise is about. It is about producing a vehicle—for example, the crofting trusts—that actually enables local community development to take off and flourish in these areas. We are all strongly in support of that particular concept.
  It seems to me right that that should be recognised when it comes to the process of consultation that has to take place before a transfer is agreed and, indeed, the objectives of the body to which the land is transferred. The legislation would benefit enormously if reference to the interests of local community development could be incorporated into the Bill. I recognise that the Minister has widened the scope quite significantly by his own amendments, but I still maintain that there is merit in having the reference to local community development in the Bill as it stands.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: It appears to me that it changes the point of the description. I do not know why it simply could not have said that "a body" would look after the interests of the crofting community, and other persons residing in the area, on such property. Which would seem neater?
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister replies, may I say how very grateful I am to him for taking note of the issues which were raised on what I regard to be a very important aspect of ownership of the crofts. I echo what my noble friend Lord Sewel has said, but I still find that, even with the best will in the world, the amendments do not deal with the issue of ownership of a person who, for example, is not residing on the island but actually owns the croft. That was the point which I believe we tried to raise during our visits to the North. I wonder whether the question of ownership of
  CWH12
  the croft is being ignored in the construction of the Bill, and too much emphasis is being placed on residence instead of ownership.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we believe there is a need to distinguish between two important considerations, one of which should have primacy over the other but with both of them still being valuable and unavoidable. The primacy should go to the interests of those who are residing on the property as tenants of the Secretary of State. The second consideration, which should form part of the advice from the Crofters Commission to the Secretary of State regarding any transfer, should not only include the interests of those who reside on the estate but also the interests of the wider community in the district in which that estate is situated.
  As I explained in moving government Amendments Nos. 4A and 10, the future interests, were they to involve community development, or whatever, of those who are involved in the estate but who do not actually live on it, should not have the same priority as those who live on that estate.
  The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and spoken to, in addition, by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, seek the specific inclusion of the phrase "local community development" into Clause 2 of the Bill. As I hope I have already explained, our proposed amendment to Clause 2(1)(b) seeks to make it clear that crofting trusts should have the promotion of the residents on the property being disposed of as its primary objective. That would include both crofters and non-crofters. We do not believe that a trust should be required to represent the interests of those not resident on the land of which it has taken ownership, and which it will be responsible for managing. "Promoting residents' interests" is, in our view, sufficiently broad to encompass community development as provided for by Amendment No. 5. In short, we agree with the sentiment expressed by this amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in moving it. However, we believe that the sentiment is already incorporated into the existing provisions of Clause 2.
  Amendment No. 8 refers to the considerations which the Crofters Commission must take into account before advising the Secretary of State on any crofting trust proposal. The proposed amendment would require the Crofters Commission to take account of community development in the relevant district. Under the existing provisions of the Bill, the Crofters Commission is able to take account of "local community development" if it considers that to be important, either as part of the general interest of the crofting community or as another matter which is considered relevant.
  I was remiss when speaking to Amendments Nos. 4A and 10. I also intended to speak to Amendment No. 25 with this group, which provides the definition of the term "crofting interests". As I explained earlier, when your Lordships' Committee was taking evidence in Inverness the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked, and I agreed to give further consideration to, the precise

  CWH13
  definition of "crofting interests". These are interests of which a proposed crofting trust must be representative, and Amendment No. 25 seeks to define those interests.
  We have always maintained that a crofting trust should be representative of the crofters on the estate. We therefore propose defining "crofting interests" to include crofting tenants and others, such as owner occupiers, who may have rights to use common grazings which form part of the property transferred to a crofing trust. This amendment is introduced for the avoidance of doubt. I hope that my comments on these various amendments have helped to clarify our position and that, in the light of my additional clarification, noble Lords who are involved in these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
  I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will accept that in circumstances which will vary from trust to trust in terms of those who own crofts but do not reside in them, it will be for the Secretary of State to judge on the exact circumstances—having been advised by the Crofters Commission formally, and I would have thought in most instances, by other bodies as well which will want to make their views known to the Secretary of State—the best solution and future circumstances that reflect the interests of that estate and those who reside on or are involved in that estate.
  Lord Sewel: Again I am in the position of thanking the Minister for his clarification on the issues, but my response is very much the same as on previous occasions. To be frank, the Minister is meeting us more than half way but, if we refer to the fact that the Crofters Commission may take into account local community development aspects, there is no harm in specifying and directing the commission to take that into account for the avoidance of any doubt. There is merit in making it clear that in proposing and encouraging this concept we have in the forefront of our minds the contribution that this policy can have to local community development in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Bill would benefit enormously from that direct and explicit reference. While withdrawing the amendment at this stage, I retain the hope that the Minister may be able to go the last third of the way.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 17, after ("consultation") insert ("or consenting to any subsequent conveyance from a transferee to a new owner").
  The noble Lord said: We come now to the thorny and quite difficult problem of on-selling. I admit quite openly that the problem of on-selling is difficult. It was an issue which took up a considerable amount of time in Inverness. There was a recognition of the danger referred to in an earlier discussion on an earlier clause that once the initial transfer has taken place with what we must recognise are likely to be fair if not generous terms, there is the possibility that the whole concept will be eroded by the subsequent on-selling of the land.
  Amendment No. 13 in particular is moved with the object of trying to establish a procedure. The procedure in the amendment may be flawed; there may be
  CWH14
  something completely wrong with it; but it is there to highlight the issue. I hope that the Government will be able to move their own amendment at a subsequent stage to deal with this problem.
  What was worrying in Inverness, and it came through the evidence of Professor Bryden, was that in Assynt the recurrent cost of the trust's activities was being financed at least in part by the sale of the capital assets. Now, that is a path to perdition if one is not careful. There is at least the possibility that where there are housing development pressures outside the main villages in the Highlands, there will be enormous pressure in relation to decrofting and on-selling of land.
  Perhaps I may look forward a little. It may be that over time those trusts will come under the control of perhaps a relatively limited active group of people, and the community will find that its major asset has partly disappeared from it. I appreciate fully the difficulties of finding an appropriate mechanism to control on-selling, but we shall have to look at that. As drafted, Amendment No. 13 presents an opportunity. I am quite prepared to accept that that is not the right way forward, but of all the issues, it is the one issue about which there was the greatest amount of concern shared among Members of the Committee and among those who gave evidence. I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to the principle if not the actual detail of the amendment. I beg to move.
  Viscount Thurso: I would concur with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. This was one of the areas of greatest concern which was shared by everyone on the Committee. The problem is that, on the one hand, it is absolutely right that these fledgling birdies, which we are trying to ensure grow into big birdies, need to be protected. There is a period of time when they have to be looked after.
  On the other side of the coin, however, one could easily see how, by imposing upon them the restrictions which their counterparts in the private sector are not bound by, they could not only miss out, but be seriously hampered by something that would be right and proper for them to do in the future. I regard this amendment as one which provides an opportunity to the Committee to perhaps explore this or other ways of finding the right formula because that is what we are all concerned to do.
  One possibility might be to look at a period of years. Rather than attempting to amend the specific parts of Clause 2 by these two amendments, it may be better to deal with the matter as a subsection of Clause 2. I believe that there should be provision of a period of five or perhaps even 10 years during which there should be a mechanism of control. Thereafter, once the scheme is bedded in and mature, it should be left to fly on its own.
  I did rather cheekily think of another way of dealing with it; namely, that perhaps the Secretary of State might retain the right of pre-emption!
  5.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay: We always welcome fresh ideas on these matters and I am therefore grateful to the noble Viscount for bringing forward those new ideas for us to consider. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for bringing this subject back to the attention of the Committee. The Government would share the concerns of the Committee which lie behind the amendment if there were a complete absence of safeguards. Perhaps I may explain why we believe that there are sufficient safeguards. I hope that I shall reassure those noble Lords who are feeling concerned. However, I would also refer to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, on the first group of amendments which really dealt specifically with the focus of this group of amendments. He speculated as to what might happen when the first crofter owners through a crofting trust then sold on to a second owner.
  There are two safeguards in place which I hope the Committee will feel provide the reassurance that is widely sought. The first which applies across Scotland is planning law and planning regulations. The second is the most vital one; namely, the significant legislative safeguards which are there to prevent land being taken unnecessarily out of crofting tenure. Any landlord wishing to remove land from crofting tenure for development must apply to the Scottish Land Court to resume that land. The Land Court can authorise the proposed resumption only if it is satisfied that it is for a reasonable purpose and that that is a reasonable purpose as defined in the Crofters Act.
  Crofting trusts, as crofting landlords, will be subject to these existing provisions in the same way that they will be subject to planning legislation. We are content that existing crofting legislation provides very efficient safeguards to protect the interests of the crofting tenants of a crofting trust. The proposed amendment would, therefore, introduce a bureaucratic hurdle which we see as being unnecessary in the light of the Crofting Act for trusts which wish to dispose of land in order to further the interests of the crofters which they represented. They would gain permission from the Scottish Land Court to resume that land for such development only if it passed the strict criteria imposed on any judgment made by the Land Court on the application.
  The proposed amendment would also impose a requirement on crofting trusts established on land previously owned by the Secretary of State which would not apply to other crofting landlords, including crofting trusts established on privately owned land or, indeed, on crofting trusts on land which had been owned by the Secretary of State but which had been transferred prior to the Bill being enacted. The implication of this amendment is that crofting trusts cannot be trusted and that their decisions need to be subject to approval by a government agency; namely, the Crofters Commission. That is a specific reference to the second amendment.
  The Crofters Commission has a continuing role where there are applications to decroft but the most significant factor in our response to both these amendments is the role of the Scottish Land Court in judging whether crofting land can be taken out of crofting and be
  CWH16
  resumed for further development. Our vision is for crofters to have the responsibility for making decisions which affect their lives and their estate and this is quite contrary to the paternalistic approach which has existed for many years on the Secretary of State's estate and which, with good reason, nevertheless lies behind these amendments. We want to provide freedom but we want to do that within the constraints and the safeguards that already exist through the Crofting Act and through the Scottish Land Court. Therefore, I am not unsympathetic to the fact that these fears have been envisaged.
  However I would stress that, if we felt that those fears were a reality, we would be supporting these sorts of amendment ourselves. However, we do not believe that those amendments articulate a reality because of the Scottish Land Court and the important role which it plays.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: I would like to as the Minister one question. I have before me the 1993 Act section 20 dealing with resumption of croft and decroft. I do not know if it is that to which the Minister has regard, but this would appear to relate to a situation where the land is being resumed by a landlord against the will of the crofter rather than with his consent, I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that, in the event of all the members of a crofting trust agreeing to a disposal of part of the land, it would be necessary then to go to the Land Court at all.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: Further to that point, I know the Government do not like majority voting but would the trust be set up with majority voting? In other words will it affect the issue, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, if all are in favour of a move or if only the majority are in favour and some people wish to retain the present position.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I shall write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in order to give him a definitive answer, rather than an answer which is less than complete now. The interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, touches on the different structures of trusts and different balance of majority versus minority as regards how a certain proposal might be handled or might be relevant in the event of a proposed development. We are not seeking to prescribe, through this initiative and through legislation, exactly what sort of format any crofting trust should take. We are not seeking to prescribe whether, before any development is allowed to take place, there should be thresholds achieved on a democratic basis; whether the voting should involve votes which are allocated on a per head basis or per property basis; and so forth. We believe that it is better that such management mechanisms are designed to reflect the circumstances pertaining to the trust which is involved in the transfer of land, rather than the Government or any other government agency dictating exactly how they should run their lives. Therefore, it is for the crofters themselves to decide the best way to make those decisions.
  Lord Sewel: I thank the Minister again for his comments. To demonstrate how consensual we are this

  CWH17
  afternoon, I shall do what I have been urging him to do: I will take it away and reflect deeply on what he has said, and see whether there is a need from our point of view to persist with the amendment at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 19, leave out ("that district") and insert ("the district in which the property is situated").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(3) In the application of this section to property mentioned in paragraph (b) or of section 1(3)—

  (a) in each place where it occurs, the word "crofting" shall be omitted: and

  (b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) for the word "crofters" there shall be substituted the word "tenants".").

  The noble Earl said: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour who drew our attention during the debate on Second Reading to the discrepancy which the amendment rectifies. The provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill allow the Secretary of State to transfer property which is part of his crofting estate, but not under crofting tenure. I refer in particular to the fishermen's dwellings and holdings in Lewis. While Clause 2(1)(a) requires that the body to which the property is transferred be representative of crofting interests, in order to ensure the inclusion of those tenants who do not benefit from the legal status of crofters but who are tenants of property covered by the Act, we propose this amendment. The effects of the amendment will therefore be to ensure that, where property is transferred with non-crofting tenants, the trust is representative of their interests and their views are taken into account by the Crofters Commission before giving advice to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Financial assistance by Secretary of State]: Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 2, line 27, at end insert (": and
  ( ) to defray the costs of meeting outstanding liabilities which may persist on the crofting property at transfer.").
  The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 14 we are discussing Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 14 relates to the problem of liabilities, and its purpose is to try to achieve some balance. Earlier, we discussed the assets which may or may not transfer with the property, but there seems no doubt that the liabilities will transfer—you may get the goodies, but you will certainly get the baddies. That is the basic message to those seeking to set up a property trust.
  The scope of Amendment No. 14 is modest. It seeks to give the Secretary of State powers to make payments to defray the cost of meeting the outstanding liabilities
  CWH18
  which may persist on the crofting property at transfer. It does not require him to do so, but it gives him a power to make a payment to defray the liabilities if, in all fairness, the scale of the liabilities is grossly out of proportion to the assets and likely income of the crofting trust itself. If we do not make this provision, there is the very real danger that a trust may find, after a couple of years and a severe storm perhaps, that it is faced with a liability, the costs of satisfying which would be so disproportionate as to undermine the whole viability of the trust's activities. The amendment is modest in its scope, and its purpose is to guard against that type of event having devastating consequences on the future of the trust. It does not impose any duty on the Secretary of State; it simply gives him a power. I hope that this modest amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has explained how Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 seek to extend the powers of the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to trusts. As I have outlined in our deliberations to date, the Secretary of State has already determined that all trusts should be viable at their establishment. Therefore, the scenario that the noble Lord has painted of a trust which starts its life with a scale of liabilities way in excess of its assets or its income is extremely unlikely. We are determined that trusts should start off on a viable and promising basis. Clause 3, as drafted, enables the Secretary of State to deliver some of that vital assistance to ensure that they are viable on establishment.
  Amendment No. 14 would allow assistance to defray costs arising from outstanding liabilities. Ownership of the land offers considerable opportunities for crofting trusts and many, if not all of the goodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, referred to them, will be transferred to trusts. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that we are somehow retaining—to employ the adjective he used earlier—in a penny-pinching manner all the goodies while imposing all the obligations is misleading. We are seeking to transfer as many assets as we can, depending upon the exact circumstances, and we are seeking to ensure that no trust is established that will not be viable.
  In taking advantage of the opportunities it would clearly be appropriate for crofting trusts to take on normal maintenance and repair responsibilities that go with ownership: for example, a responsibility for march fencing. There may, however, be cases where the Government, for some historical reason, have a broader responsibility for maintaining a particular community asset. That is dealt with currently by the section of the department responsible for the crofting estates. One such example is the drainage system on Benbecula. In that instance we would not seek to transfer that obligation on to the appropriate crofting trust. I can give immediate assurance, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that there are types of burden that we would not seek to transfer.
  Given that, we do not believe that there would be any merit in giving the Secretary of State power to defray costs that would arise out of normal management responsibilities that go with the ownership of the land.

  CWH19
  The noble Lord also referred to specific events such as storms and the chaos that they can bring. When there are emergency circumstances, both within and outside crofting Scotland, we would always hope that emergency procedures and emergency services would be triggered by such an event in order to bring succour.
  I would like to refer to Amendment No. 15 in slightly greater detail than the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. It refers to transport and other infrastructure in and related to the crofting community. Burdens of that kind are relatively exceptional and where they did not form part of the normal maintenance and repair responsibilities of an estate they would be retained by the Government. Where the department retained a particular responsibility and wished to use the trust as an agent for undertaking certain work, that could be arranged on a contractual basis with the crofters concerned. But I can see no case for giving financial assistance to a trust to maintain transport and other infrastructure as a general principle. Those responsibilities properly lie with other bodies, such as local authorities. In taking the opportunity to own their land, crofting trusts will accept responsibility for normal maintenance and management of estates in the same way that they will have normal access to the opportunities that go with land ownership.
  I hope that I have explained in some detail those circumstances where the Government would not be seeking to impose a transfer of obligations. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
  5.45 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. I have clearly misunderstood the word "liability", perhaps through being from a commercial background rather than a legal one. I always understood a liability to be the opposite of an asset on the balance sheet. Therefore, I thought that the amendment sought to ensure that in the process of handing over the assets the worst case would be a nil point but the trusts would not be handed over a minus point where there was a liability, as I understand it, equal to or even greater than the assets they were receiving.
  If I have understood the Minister's reply, he is really speaking about the costs of running the estate, which would form part of the profit and loss. It is quite right that the proper ongoing costs, which would be defrayed by the income of the trust, should be met by the trust. I had thought that the amendment was addressing the liability, namely the opposite of an asset on the balance sheet.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I hope that I can help the noble Viscount by saying that it is an even more simple principle. We intend that any trust to which land is transferred by the Secretary of State must be economically viable. In terms of its balance sheet, we do not want to see a trust being created which then has little chance of surviving economically.
  CWH20
  In considering the amendments we are discussing, especially Amendment No. 14 which refers to outstanding liabilities which may persist, I took the opportunity to focus on continuing liabilities such as on-going maintenance. In terms of liabilities as the opposite of assets, we would insist that there was a liability at the point of start-up in terms of normal on-going maintenance. We would normally expect the trust to be able to afford that. We have no interest in setting up trusts which could quite clearly not meet the normal maintenance requirements of running such trusts.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Are there any liabilities which would be transferred with the land other than heritable securities? I presume the Secretary of State is not hocked to the hilt over the crofting communities, with bonds and dispositions and so forth. Reading the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, it appears that he is concerned that the Secretary of State may have occurred certain liabilities which would be personal to him as landlord but which would be transferred to the crofting trust. I would have thought, speaking as a lawyer, that was a very unlikely event. It would only be that liabilities attach by way of standard security or some heritable security which would pass with the land.
  Lord Sewel: May I help here? I am not a lawyer and my advisers are not lawyers. But for "liabilities" read "burdens".
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: As we have gone through this Bill I seem to have come across what may be only a rumour, or at worst a construct of my own mind, but one or two of the estates of the Secretary of State have somewhat unreasonable burdens in the form of public roads and public bridges, which I can only assume somehow or other were not adopted by the local authority. Since I believe maintenance of a public road and a public bridge is a considerable burden, I wonder whether the noble Earl could help me on that.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I reiterate the assurance which I gave earlier to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that liabilities which attach to transport and other infrastructure of an exceptional nature will not normally be passed on to the trust. We are talking only about the normal maintenance and repair obligations that pertain to land ownership.
  I shall offer to write a second letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. We have embarked upon a series of concepts and definitions which are drawn both from the legal field and the accountancy field, and I would rather look in detail at the noble and learned Lord's question before replying.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has clarified my mind. It appears only to be concerned with burdens on the land. I am grateful.
  Lord Sewel: Before withdrawing the amendment, it seems to me that this has been a useful exchange. For the first time the Minister has indicated that there would be some burdens which would not be transferred and, if

  CWH21
  I understand him correctly, the only burdens which will be transferred will be the normal maintenance burdens. That is wholly acceptable. If the Minister could clarify that, it would help us enormously at a later stage. If that clarification cannot be given, we would seek to identify those particular burdens, to which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred—bridges and roads—that we would wish to see specifically excluded from the transfer. I hope the Minister can respond positively.
  The Earl of Lindsay: To save time at a later stage of the Bill, I can reassure the Committee that the burdens and obligations that will be transferred to a trust are the normal burdens and obligations which attach to land ownership per se and that, as I said earlier, there are aspects of some of the obligations attaching to current crofting estates that are unusual or exceptional. I have referred to one particular community asset, which was the drainage system on Benbecula. In terms of its maintenance and the costs arising from it, we would not be seeking to impose that or to transfer it, nor exceptional infrastructural assets which are more properly the responsibility of others such as the public roads and public bridges that the noble Earl, Lord Marr and Kellie, mentioned.
  Lord Sewel: Is there any possibility of the Government bringing forward an amendment at a later stage that actually makes this clear? It is a matter of some importance, especially for those who may wish to set up crofting trusts themselves. It is not actually clear in the Bill what they are letting themselves in for. It would be very helpful if this clarification could be incorporated into the Bill.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I shall consider anything that the Committee asks me to consider. I would also remind noble Lords that on the case-by-case negotiation that will precede any transfer of land, the details that we are looking at closely at the moment would form a large part of the discussion that will take place between the Secretary of State, possibly the Crofters Commission and any crofters who were seeking to have that land transferred.
  Given that we do not want to see crofting trusts created which then are immediately less than viable, I can reassure the Committee that we would not be seeking to impose obligations or burdens that could not immediately be afforded.
  Lord Sewel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Rights of pre-emption]:
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 1 line 32, leave out ("this section, be extinguished") and insert ("the disposal, be extinguished in respect of that disposal and").
  The noble Lord said: On this occasion I take refuge in the well-known phrase that Amendments Nos. 16, 21 and 22 are technical drafting amendments and perhaps the Minister might care to respond to them. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for the full and detailed explanation he offered to the Committee for these technical amendments!
  As I understand Amendments No. 16, 21 and 22, they seek to define critical points at which a disposal has been completed, at which a claim has been accepted and at which the right of pre-emption is extinguished. We believe that the Bill, as drafted, makes clear that the right of pre-emption over a property is extinguished for all time at the point of disposal and, therefore, that Amendment No. 16 is not necessary.
  Amendment No. 21 seeks to broaden the description of the point at which a claim for compensation has been approved by the Secretary of State. We also feel this amendment to be unnecessary. It will be obvious when the Secretary of State has accepted a claim for compensation since he is required by Clause 5(4) to notify the claimant of acceptance of rejection. The Bill makes no provision to allow identification of the point at which the Secretary of State might be deemed to have accepted a claim for compensation; indeed, in contrast to the amendment, the existing provision in the Bill is clear and definitive.
  Amendment No. 22 seeks to define the point at which disposal is affected. This does not require further elaboration on the face of the Bill. We believe that the date at which the Secretary of State transfers legal ownership to a trust is the point at which disposal is affected. Legal practice would be that this occurs on the date of settlement.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to explain some of the strengths of the existing drafting of the Bill. I hope that, with those reassurances, he might feel able to withdraw his technical amendment.
  Lord Sewel: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the tour de force that he has given to the Committee in explaining these amendments and why they are not acceptable. With alacrity, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 2, line 34, leave out ("he shall") and insert ("in respect of which a right of pre-emption existed at the date of disposal, he shall, within six weeks of such date, give notice of the disposal to any person who is entitled to exercise the right, provided that where he is unable, with reasonable diligence, to identify such person, he shall instead of giving notice").
  The noble and learned Lord said: I move this amendment, appreciating first of all that rights of

  CWH23
  pre-emption, which we discussed a certain amount at the hearing Inverness, may well be of little or almost no value. I do not suggest that the terms of the amendment are ideal, but the purpose of the amendment is simply this. It seems to me that, as a matter of principle, where rights are being expropriated—which is the position here—and where compensation is being offered therefor, it is appropriate that notice, where possible, should be given to those whose rights are being taken away.
  There may well be cases in which it is not possible to determine now in whom is vested the right of pre-emption which may have arisen in 1919 or perhaps even earlier. At the hearing in Inverness when I raised this matter with the Minister, he said that where the Secretary of State knew of the existence of holders of rights of pre-emption, he would notify them, in addition to advertisement. However, as a general principle, where compensation for removal of rights is to take place, it seems that notice ought to be given as a matter of statute and not as a matter of decency on the part of the Secretary of State. Notice ought to be given to those who are entitled to compensation, howsoever small that compensation may be.
  As the Minister said, there will be cases where it is known who is entitled to the right of pre-emption and in that situation the matter should be written into the Bill. I do not suggest that my formula is by any means ideal, but I move it simply so that the Minister may consider it and an appropriate provision may be included. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As my wares are displayed alongside those of my noble and learned friend, perhaps it might be appropriate if I said a word about them.
  In the first place, I should have put down three amendments because I should have put down a similar one on page 2, line 42. But having said that, I have to say that I infinitely prefer the amendments of my noble and learned friend to my own. However, it seems to me that he has asked for what he was prepared to settle for, whereas I have done my Persian carpet seller trick and asked for about twice what I am prepared to settle for on the basis that we might negotiate.
  Six weeks is not long enough. We have been through all this before in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill over the length of notice that the Secretary of State would have to give for designating a natural heritage area. It is not sufficient, particularly when people may be at the other end of the earth. Having said that, I shall leave the matter to the Committee.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: On the subject of the right of pre-emption, when a property is being transferred at no consideration, it suddenly becomes rather attractive to someone with a right of pre-emption. Normally one has to pay rather a lot of money but in
  CWH24
  this particular case one would not, so the extinction of the right of pre-emption could come as quite a blow to someone who hopes one day to operate it.
  I would like now to talk about the various definitions of the length of time that ought to be allowed for a pre-emptor to identify himself. I do not believe it matters at all, because under the scheme that we have the pre-emptor—or someone with a right of pre-emption—is not a factor at all in the negotiations or ultimate transfer of the estate. From Royal Assent, or whenever the Secretary of State determines, every right of pre-emption becomes what one might call a potentially extinguished right. At the point, presumably, of conveyancing it becomes an extinguished right. I therefore do not believe that we need to have any time limit at all. The Bill is ungenerous in allowing only six weeks. If someone is to come forward it does not matter. It is only a question of the compensation, and the person with the right of pre-emption does not have any say in whether or not the transfer should occur.
  Viscount Thurso: I do not wish to retread the ground so ably trodden by my noble friend, but there seems to be a rather dangerous principle in the context that where a contract has been made we in Parliament can, by statute, remove a right under that contract in such a way that a party to the contract never comes to know of it. As my noble friend says, it is not a factor in the conveyance and disposal; it will not hold it up, and I have yet to meet the Scottish lawyer who can complete a conveyance in 12 weeks, present company excepted.
  Even if it is part of the conveyance and is required to be completed before disposal, I do not believe it would hold it up. We are entering dangerous ground, not so much in respect of this Bill, under which it is only some poor landowners of ancient history who might lose, but for future legislation in which the principle of extinguishing something on a time frame as ungenerous as six weeks may well come back to haunt us.
  The Earl of Lindsay: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, spoke to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made constructive contributions. If the Government were seeking to extinguish these rights with the callousness that the noble Viscount envisaged, then I would be the first to look at how we might amend this clause. We are seeking to avoid any callousness and wish to be conscientious in delivering the obligations that we acknowledge.
  I can only describe the situation which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, envisaged as a Highland fantasia—an expression I read in the newspapers this weekend. Clause 5(1) extinguishes the rights of pre-emption at the point of disposal, so the noble Earl imagined that he could somehow exercise that right of pre-emption on a disposal that may take place free of charge; the proposed legislation quite deliberately prevents that from happening.
  Amendment No. 17 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, requires the Secretary of State to

  CWH25
  attempt to identify existing holders of rights of pre-emption as a statutory requirement. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that where we believe a person might be entitled to claim compensation we shall give notice to that person to that effect. However, there would be particular difficulty in placing any statutory requirement upon the Secretary of State to try to identify current holders of all the rights of pre-emption.
  Unlike practice with regard to rights of pre-emption in private sales, there is no paper record of the right which would identify transfer from one owner to another. Since very few, if any, of the original owners of the land in question are likely to be alive, there is no readily accessible and definitive source of information which could be used to identify the current owner of any rights. In those circumstances, attempting to trace through the statutory obligation of those holders would be disproportionately expensive in resources and would offer no guarantee of success.
  However, I can reassure the Committee that, where the department believes that an individual or organisation may be entitled to claim compensation, we shall give notice to them to that effect. I give this assurance very specifically on that point. This may happen where the estate to be transferred to a trust previously formed part of a larger estate which still belongs to the family of the original owner.
  In such cases, it is likely—but by no means certain—that the entitlement to rights of pre-emption may rest with the current owners of the estate of which the Secretary of State's land had previously formed a part. Even in such cases, there is of course no certainty, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and others will appreciate that, therefore, we would have difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 17 as a statutory obligation. To underline the effort and the intelligence that we would bring while seeking to inform those who may well be the current holders of rights of pre-emption, I should also point out that through ourselves and the agriculture offices that we have around Scotland (which administer many of the crofting schemes through the Crofters Commission) and through other organisations, we have a body of intelligence from which to make an educated guess as to where the current holders of rights of pre-emption may well be now. However, in terms of a statutory obligation to trace these people, there are insufficient records on paper to carry out such an exercise.
  Amendment No. 18 tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and Amendment No. 19, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Saltoun seek to extend the deadline for claims to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
  As noble Lords are aware, we have received several representations, which have suggested that a period of six weeks, in which claimants must lodge a claim with the Secretary of State, is inadequate. The length of the period allowed for lodging claims will have no impact on the transfer of estates, as the question of
  CWH26
  compensation arises only after the right of pre-emption has been extinguished, which happens at disposal of the estate. It is important to point out that, if the period in which a claim could be lodged were extended, it would in no way act as an obstruction to the disposal of estates and the creation of crofting trusts.
  In Amendment No. 19, my noble friend Lady Saltoun sought an extension of the period for lodging claims of up to six months and explained later on that this may have been part of a haggle in which she was seeking to indulge. The Bill here is extinguishing a right and we must treat the owners of this right fairly; of that the Government have no doubt. The Government are sympathetic to requests for an extension and it may be that we favour a period in line with the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, in Amendment No. 18. However, in any event, I should like to take away the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and my noble friend Lady Saltoun to take a fresh look at it.
  With regard to Amendment No. 20, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Saltoun, I am less convinced of the need to extend the deadline for claimants, who have had a claim rejected by the Secretary of State, to lodge an appeal with the Scottish Land Court. Here we are not dealing with people who may be unaware of the existence of their rights of pre-emption, or of their right to lodge a claim for compensation. In this case, we are talking about people who have already prepared and presented evidence to the Secretary of State and are aware of the procedural requirements for pursuing their claim further. Given this, a period of six weeks from the date of notification of rejection of the claim would appear to be adequate to allow the claimant to apply to the Scottish Land Court for a determination that the claim is valid.
  With the reassurances that I have been able to give on various points, and the explanation as regards Amendment No. 20, I hope that the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Given the Minister's detailed explanation, in particular pointing out how very difficult it was likely to be to trace individuals in whom the rights of pre-emption were presently vested, I withdraw Amendment No. 17.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Continuation of tenant's entitlement to buy holding]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 3, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 22 and insert ("Where relevant property is disposed of by the Secretary of State under this Act, section 6(3) and (4) of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 shall apply to the tenant of that property").
  The noble Earl said: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, for raising in Inverness the question of whether existing and new tenants of non-crofting lands will continue to benefit from existing rights to buy.
  Section 6(3) and (4) of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 provided tenants with the right to buy the land that they tenanted at a price exclusive of any increase in value which was due to improvements executed by the tenant. Tenants of the land in the crofting estate not held under crofting tenure (described in Clause 1(3)(c)) would qualify for this right to buy.
  The amendments are intended to ensure that this right is enjoyed by tenants who take up tenancy after transfer as well as those existing tenants at the point of transfer to a crofting trust. On the basis of the interest in the matter which was expressed in Inverness, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, I hope that the Committee will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This set of amendments had me reaching for a copy of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919 to see exactly what it said. I shall have to read it out in order to raise one or two points. Clearly subsections (3) and (4) of Section 6 of that Act are still in force. Subsection (3) says:
  "A tenant of a holding provided by the Board on land acquired by the Board"—
  "the Board" being the Board of Agriculture for Scotland—
  "who has been in occupation thereof for a period of not less than six years shall, on notice of his desire to purchase the holding being given to the Board at any time before the tenant has received notice to quit, be entitled to require the sale to him of the holding at the expiration of one month from the date of the notice at the then value of the holding, exclusive of any increase of the value thereof due to any improvement executed thereon by and at the expense of the tenant, and thereupon the Board shall in the first instance sell the holding to the tenant accordingly, unless the Board obtains the consent of the Secretary for Scotland to the requirements of the tenant being refused by the Board".
  Subsection (4) says:
  "The value of the holding shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Scottish Land Court".
  I have no problem with subsection (4), but I want to ask whether there is any intention to equalise the terms of sale of a Land Settlement (Scotland) Act tenant and those of a crofting tenant. The Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 and the 1993 consolidation Act do not incorporate any time-scale that I can see before the tenant has a right to purchase. I know that this is not directly related to the transfer, but I wondered whether
  CWH28
  there was any intention to equalise the two as such tenants will now be included in transferable estates. Secondly, I am interested in the last phrase:
  "Unless the Board obtains the consent of the Secretary for Scotland to the requirements of the tenant being refused".
  I think that that means that the Secretary of State has the right to decline to sell in a way that is not, as far as I understand the matter, accorded to crofters. My question is whether there is any intention to do anything about that and to equalise it.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Earl for two incisive questions on Clause 6. The first point which he made was about equalising the prerequisite period of occupation prior to a sale being possible by the tenant. As regards the distinction between tenancies which originate under different legislation, I shall certainly pay some attention to that issue after the Committee is over in order that I can be more familiar with what is concerning the noble Earl. My immediate response, I fear, is that if something requires to be done, this is not the right Bill in which to address a much wider change in tenancy law.
  On the second point, I hope to be able to reassure the noble Earl by reading an amendment that was brought forward later to the text that the noble Earl read to the Committee. The crucial text is as follows:
  "Unless it appears to the Secretary of State that there are good and sufficient reasons for refusing the requirements of the tenant".
  As I understand it, therefore, the presumption is on the tenant's part to have access to this opportunity and it is only if the Secretary of State sees a good and sufficient reason for refusing that he is able to refuse. I hope that that will give some reassurance.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for being able to respond. I am not certain whether I want to apologise for going back to the original document but the Minister's explanation is certainly extremely helpful. I wonder whether the Secretary of State ever did refuse or if he were so minded, whether that would get in the way during the process of transferring estates.
  The Earl of Lindsay: The answer that I shall give the noble Earl will be an encouraging one but it is an answer that will come by letter. We can then set out the matter on a more comprehensive basis and include any other references to other legislation which I know the noble Earl would want to have included. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) A tenant's period of occupation shall continue to run for the purposes of section 6(3) of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act

  CWH29
  1919 notwithstanding that the relevant property has been disposed of by the Secretary of State to a body under this Act or to any successor in title.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
  (""crofting interests" in relation to any property, means the persons with an interest in the property—

  (a) as tenants: or

  CWH30

  (b) by virtue of rights to use any common grazings forming part of the property:).

  The noble Earl said: I spoke to this when moving Amendment No. 4A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Title agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.

  UN Centre for Human Rights: Report
  UN Centre for Human Rights: Report
  Turkey: Human Rights Abuses
  Turkey: Human Rights Abuses
  Turkey: Death of Mr. Metin Goktepe
  Turkey: Death of Mr. Metin Goktepe
  Turkey: Demonstrations
  Turkey: Demonstrations
  Foreign and Defence Policy Negotiations: Co-ordination
  Foreign and Defence Policy Negotiations: Co-ordination
  Right of Individual Petition: Official Records
  Right of Individual Petition: Official Records
  Anti-Discrimination Legislation
  Anti-Discrimination Legislation
  Gulf War Syndrome: Press Statement by the Countess of Mar
  Gulf War Syndrome: Press Statement by the Countess of Mar
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  VAT Rate Changes
  VAT Rate Changes
  Gulf War Veterans: Pension Claims
  Gulf War Veterans: Pension Claims
  Child Labour
  Child Labour
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Electronic Publication of Reports
  Chief Inspector of Prisons: Electronic Publication of Reports
  Asylum Seekers: Detentions
  Asylum Seekers: Detentions
  Prison Service: Electronic Publication Licensing
  Prison Service: Electronic Publication Licensing
  Prisoners' Allegations to Prisons Ombudsman
  Prisoners' Allegations to Prisons Ombudsman
  Prostitutes Aged Under 18
  Prostitutes Aged Under 18