Sitting of 23 October 1997

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

Baroness Amos
Miss Valerie Ann Amos, having been created Baroness Amos, of Brondesbury in the London Borough of Brent, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.

Baroness Ludford
Miss Sarah Ann Ludford, having been created Baroness Ludford, of Clerkenwell in the London Borough of Islington, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Hamwee and the Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The Earl of Kimberley—Took the Oath.

Nursery Voucher Scheme
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Lockwoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are monitoring the residual financial impact on local education authorities of the nursery voucher scheme, which was based on projected numbers; how many authorities have been adversely affected; and whether the financial shortfall to such authorities will be made good.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, seventy-six of the 132 English local education authorities received less money from vouchers than had been deducted from their standard spending assessments last term. We have now scrapped the voucher scheme, and put in its place arrangements which better meet the needs of children, parents and local education authorities.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I congratulate her and her department on the speed with which they have moved on the issue. However, does my noble friend agree that there appears to have been some confusion about the way the earlier estimates of numbers of nursery places were calculated, and that those authorities which were planning to make provision on the basis of those calculations are now likely to lose out? That is particularly so because the earlier deductions for places were made on the basis of population estimates, while the reimbursement of funding for places is to be made
816
on the basis of actual numbers in nursery schools and classes. Bradford is an example of one authority likely to lose about £500,000 in that way, despite the fact that it has a very good policy for providing nursery places; indeed, it now provides for some 90 per cent. of four year-olds. Would it not seem that those authorities which have made good provision in the past are now likely to be penalised?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords; no authority will be penalised. However, it is important that every local education authority should expand its nursery provision if it is to be given additional funding to pay for it. I am aware of the particular problem in Bradford. It is the case that Bradford's shortfall was substantially larger than that of most LEAs. I also understand that, since the scheme started, Bradford is the only local education authority to have asserted that its original data was inaccurate. My officials are discussing Bradford's claims with the LEA. I hope that my noble friend will accept that those discussions will be helpful. However, I must also ask my noble friend to accept that we cannot provide additional funding if there is to be no increase in the number of places.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as the introduction of the voucher scheme was a major change and is now being replaced after only one term by another major, although much improved and welcome, scheme, is it not likely that such a rapid transition could have some unforeseen consequences? Would it not be possible, therefore, to build into the scheme some financial protection for those authorities which might be in difficulties? I understand that Bradford is not the only authority involved and that there could indeed be others.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the local education authorities were extremely keen to get rid of the exceedingly bureaucratic voucher scheme introduced by our predecessors, which involved them in a really rather pointless paper chase. The new arrangements were also developed in close collaboration with LEAs. They will be required to collaborate with others in the community to plan early years services for children in their areas. We believe that that is a productive use of their time and is a process in which many LEAs were already taking part. The local education authorities have taken on their responsibility for funding provision for children in their areas. I believe that most of them accept that it was desirable to scrap this scheme as soon as possible and move forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that about 94 per cent. or more of children were enjoying pre-statutory school education when the noble Baroness took up office as education Minister in this House? Will she clarify that a guarantee has been given to provide nursery class education for four year-olds throughout the land in nursery schools, not simply pre-school education? If that is the case, what will happen in a rural school which has only three classes—the first class containing young children of four to seven years; the second class containing children of seven, eight and nine years; and the third class containing

817
children of nine, 10 and 11 years—and which does not have buildings attached to it in which to hold nursery classes?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not correct in saying that a guarantee was given that every child could attend a nursery class. The guarantee that has been given is that all four year-olds should have access to pre-school education wherever they live. In urban areas it will of course be much easier to make provision in state nursery classes. However, local education authorities have been asked to work in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors. As regards the example given by the noble Baroness, I believe that the right solution will probably involve a partnership with the voluntary sector.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I may ask a related question. That is precisely what happens in rural areas; schools enter into partnerships with local play groups and with those offering pre-school provision outside the state school system. It appears, therefore, that the noble Baroness has only a 6 per cent. shortfall to make up because 94 per cent. of four year-olds were in some form of pre-school education under the previous government.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is a shortfall to be made up. The problem with some voluntary sector provision is that it can be set up and then a couple of years later the extremely hardworking and committed people who set it up may move on and the provision closes. It is therefore important that we should try to maximise the numbers of secure and permanent places that are available for all four year-olds. That will be done in partnership but there will be an increase in provision for four year-olds. The Government have also made a commitment to extend provision for three year-olds as soon as we are able to do so.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that as well as having a deleterious effect on many local authorities, the voucher scheme also had a bad impact on many playschools? Is it not true to say that the scheme has been a complete ideological disaster and that the only sensible thing that any government could do would be to scrap it altogether?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords.

The National Health Service
3.33 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reduce bureaucracy in the National Health Service.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the House as I am not my noble friend Lady Jay who
818
has a commitment outside London, nor my noble friend Lady Gould who unfortunately was taken ill and had to go home this morning.
The Government are committed to maximising the proportion of National Health Service resources devoted to patient care. We are doing this by removing the bureaucratic processes of the internal market and reducing management costs. On 22nd May we announced a programme of measures to make a start in reducing bureaucracy surrounding the internal market and to reduce management costs by £100 million this year. Further target reductions in the costs of managing the National Health Service for 1998–99 will be set shortly. Savings made will be ploughed back into direct patient care.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for standing in for his noble friends and answering the Question so fully. Does he not agree that, while efficient administration of the health service is essential, the Government should be confident that they will have the public fully behind them in anything they can do to ensure that not a penny is wasted on bureaucratic inessentials to the detriment of quality of service at the front line? Will he assure the House that in the review of bureaucracy the Government will investigate any waste, duplication and unnecessary expenditure in the administration of budget holding practices as well as considering what is going on in hospitals and other parts of the health service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his first question. In answer to his second question, the search for savings will include fundholding general practice. There are certainly savings which can be made. In the first place, savings will be gained from having a common waiting list based on clinical need rather than where a patient comes from. Secondly, management allowances to fundholding GPs amount to £150 million per year. Much of that work, for example on patient invoices, will be taken over by our locality commissioning groups. We shall therefore seek significant savings in management allowances.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the possibility of discussing this important subject with representatives of the NHS staff associations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the National Health Service Efficiency Task Force which has been set up consists of employees of the National Health Service; in other words, it comprises professionals not politicians. I am quite sure that it is holding discussions with the National Health Service staff associations and unions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the new arrangements involve getting rid of the system of extra-contractual referrals, which has been contentious?

819
In many cases bureaucrats have interfered with clinical decisions made by doctors as to where a patient should be treated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question concerns administration rather than savings and it is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, as I said, common waiting lists operating on the basis of clinical need rather than where patients come from will also affect where patients are sent for treatment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, following what the Minister said about the internal market within the NHS, can he say a little more about which elements of the internal market the Government intend to dispense with and whether they intend to abolish or retain the purchaser/provider split?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at an early stage of the first year of the review which is being carried out by the National Health Service Efficiency Task Force but already we have identified a considerable number of savings. For example, £20 million has been saved by deferring the eighth wave of GP fundholding. As regards the wider issue of the purchaser/provider split, as the noble Earl knows we are preparing a White Paper on all of these issues and that will certainly be an important element of that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the treatment of the millennium bug in the NHS computer system count as bureaucracy within the meaning of this Question? Will the Minister confirm that he will not attempt to pay for the treatment of that bug by making savings elsewhere in the NHS?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a number of estimates are circulating about the cost of management in the National Health Service. The department reckons that the figure is about £1.7 billion and the National Health Service Consultants' Association reckons it is about £1.5 billion. Inevitably, part of those management costs arises from processes which are essential for patient care. Effective information technology systems—I stress the word "effective" in view of some of the disasters that have occurred—clearly must be considered as contributing to patient care.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that nurses serve in the front line and that any benefits that are achieved might involve their receiving some recompense for their services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am the first to acknowledge that nurses are in the front line of patient care. It is true that the reclassification of some nurses into managerial posts, reflecting the proportion of their duties spent on managerial tasks, is one of the
820
problems that we have inherited. We would like to see nurses spending as much of their time as possible on patient care rather than filling in forms.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to the final part of the Minister's reply, is he aware that every time a patient attends hospital he or she is asked the same questions repetitively; for example, his or her name and address, or whether he or she suffers from diabetes or epilepsy? Is it not within the resources of the National Health Service to have a database of patients who regularly attend so that these time-wasting questions can be dispensed with?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a very sensible question, but one which I am not qualified to answer. I believe it relates to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who stressed the importance of effective information technology systems.

Nuclear Materials: Carriage by Air
3.40 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether extremely radioactive material is transported by the RAF by air from Brize Norton to the United States and what steps have been taken to protect the public in the event of a crash occurring over land.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence does transport special nuclear materials by air to the United States under the provisions of the 1958 UK/US agreement for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes. Special and stringent safety arrangements exist for the transportation of this material, and well-rehearsed contingency plans would be activated in the unlikely event of an accident over land.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it true that the material concerned is carried in containers able to withstand a crash of 30 feet at 30 miles per hour, whereas the aeroplanes fly at over 30,000 feet and at over 500 miles per hour? Is the Minister certain that the packaging and arrangements for transporting this material conform to realistic safety standards?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the material is carried in specialised containers. The noble Lord is right: the containers are designed and tested against accidental environments; they are tested against specifications laid down by the International Atomic Energy Authority.
The noble Lord asked whether I believe the containers are safe. Such flights have taken place for over 40 years. We have never had a transportation accident that has posed any radiation hazard to the public during the whole of that time. We maintain a nuclear accident response capability and forces who are prepared and well trained to respond to any defence nuclear accident.

821
They work with the local authorities concerned. In addition, exercises routinely take place. I assure the noble Lord that there is no complacency in relation to this matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this particular flight is a small matter compared with the constant over-flying of highly dangerous radioactive material brought to the United Kingdom from many other countries for reprocessing purposes? I have discovered that there is a feeling that unnecessary over-flying of populated areas takes place. Will my noble friend look into the matter to see whether the fears that I have come across for many years are justified? Does he agree that if over-flying of populated areas by planes carrying dangerous cargoes can be avoided it should be avoided?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Both in relation to the special nuclear materials I outlined and in relation to flights carrying nuclear waste for civil purposes, we stipulate the avoidance of population centres wherever possible. The stringent safety arrangements that I outlined for special nuclear materials apply equally to the loads to which my noble friend referred.

The Single Currency
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northeskasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will clarify their policy towards the single European currency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am tempted to refer the noble Earl to the answer given to the same question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, yesterday afternoon. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a Statement in the House of Commons, when it reconvenes, setting out the Government's position on the single currency and UK membership in 1999.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for a rather unedifying reply. Given the confusion in recent weeks do the Government now endorse the view expressed from within their own ranks that, in terms of presentation of policy in the media, "You have to be economical with the truth sometimes"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Earl is quoting from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, I can only say that that was some time ago. I advise the noble Earl to concentrate on what the Chancellor actually said rather than on press speculation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that considerable damage has been done to the very worthy aspiration of this Government
822
to play a leading role in Europe? Will the noble Lord assure us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he addresses the matter in another place next week, will indicate how he intends to deal with the issues of the probable premium on interest rates and the exposure of the pound to speculative pressures that are bound to flow from a decision to delay entry?
Finally, will the noble Lord assure the House that the Chancellor will make absolutely plain the standing of the statement so widely circulated that there is no possibility of the Government considering entering monetary union before the end of this Parliament—a statement which I hope can be attributed to spin doctors and not to the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the House will forgive me, I think the only way to answer the noble Baroness's question is to repeat in detail my remarks about the Statement that the Chancellor will make. The Statement will be about the formal communication to our European partners under the treaty about whether we will join in 1999; the Government's approach to the working of the stability pact and the convergence criteria; the Government's position on the future of ECOFIN and economic co-ordination in Europe; any action that the Government propose on economic convergence; the action that the Government propose on ensuring greater flexibility in Europe to avoid any risks of potential shocks if there is monetary union, and making the European economy more employment-friendly; the Government's determination to have a successful presidency to ensure that proper and orderly decisions are taken about EMU under the treaty; and the way in which the Government's business advisory task force will help business and the City to prepare, in or out, with the need for a period of stability.
As to the noble Baroness's first question about our reputation in Europe, the Prime Minister has met two European Prime Ministers in the past few days. I have no indication of any damage to our reputation in Europe.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the German finance Minister, Herr Waigel, very recently, and not for the first time, expressed the firm view that the Maastricht criteria cannot be circumvented, and in particular the criterion that obliges a country to enter into the exchange rate mechanism for two years prior to entry into monetary union. Will my noble friend indicate whether the agreement reached, I understand, by the previous government with our European partners that this could not be applied against a government's wishes, still stands? If that is the case, is Herr Waigel on sure ground in insisting that such an agreement is null and void?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of Herr Waigel's remarks; I am aware at the same time of differing views on the appropriateness of the period of membership of the ERM before entry into a single currency, given the changes that have taken place in countries' adherence to the broad band of the ERM

823
rather than the narrow band. That is an issue that can, and should, be addressed by the Chancellor when he makes his Statement and in debate.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, am I to assume from what the Minister said in his replies today and yesterday that statements and policy announcements put out by spin doctors from No. 10 or the Treasury, apparently representing government policy on vital economic issues, are encouraged? However, a Statement from a Minister in this House, where we have two Cabinet Ministers, is not allowed to be made on this vital issue. The misrepresentation which is going around has a drastic effect on the economy of this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a curious question. I had already made it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the only public statements in recent weeks to which attention ought to be paid have been those made directly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is particularly the case with the article in The Times last Saturday and his speech to the Stock Exchange on Monday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has responsibility for those matters. It is appropriate that he should make a proper Statement to the elected Chamber of Parliament at a time when he is ready to do so.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a danger in pressing at such an early stage for clarification which it is not possible to give? Clarification implies that there is an agreed policy. That is ridiculous. We do not have an agreed policy—not for reasons which are in any way disgraceful but for the simple one that, as my noble friend said, there is even a dispute as to which of the criteria for eligibility are still in force. We do not know whether the four convergent criteria are to be exercised. If those criteria were to be exercised, particularly the requirement that the national debt should not be more than 60 per cent. of GDP, very few of the applicants would qualify.
Finally, with a situation where our economy is governed by a 7 per cent. interest rate and Germany and France have a rate of 3 per cent., is it not the case that it must be a very long time indeed before we can sensibly accept that there should be one level of interest rates throughout the whole of Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend makes some interesting points. There are two ways in which we could address the issue of agreement, one of which is whether there is agreement within the Government about the approach that we make to these vital matters. I can assure my noble friend that there is agreement within the Government and that it is in line with the manifesto on which we won the election.
The second way in which we could interpret agreement is to say, "There are still issues which have not been resolved in Europe and which may not be resolved for months or even years to come". In that sense, my noble friend is right that there are still open issues and no doubt there will continue to be. As to the difference between our
824
interest rates and those of some other European countries, I am sure that it will be addressed by the Chancellor in his Statement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is beginning to sound like one of his gagged colleagues in the European Parliament. I now invite him to join the Strasbourg forum and speak out. In particular, could he answer the question put to him yesterday by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish? It was this. If the Chancellor knew, following the article in the Financial Times in September by Robert Peston, that the Government would not be making a statement on early joining of the EMU, as the article seemed to imply, why did he not make an early statement refuting that? That is particularly relevant as the effect on the markets was drastic and the Chancellor could have scotched it by making an early statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord grossly exaggerates the effect on the market at the end of September and this week. As to whether the Chancellor should issue statements refuting press speculation, as the noble Lord put it, if he did that he would hardly have time to do anything else.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord McNally: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, the House may realise that it is not with total enthusiasm that I say that it is my noble friend's turn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Does the Minister agree that economic and monetary union and a single currency are an experiment that has never before in history been tried? It involves enormous questions relating to our political, economic and financial life. Is it not right that any government should not be bounced by anyone, at home or abroad, into making an early decision or early remarks until the whole matter has been properly considered by all our institutions, including Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is undoubtedly right about the importance of the issue. It has ramifications across the whole of our economic life and beyond. As to the question of whether the Chancellor should be bounced into making announcements or decisions, I believe that I have made it clear that he has no intention of being bounced. Since he came into office he has instituted a very thorough review of the single currency and related issues. When that review is complete he will make the proper announcement to Parliament.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European

825
Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Plant Varieties Bill
3.58 p.m.
Lord Carter: 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 Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Plant Variety Rights Office]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 20, line 10, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 to this Bill my first and most pleasant task is to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who I believe has chosen to make her debut at the Dispatch Box at the Committee stage of this highly technical Bill. I think it is a cross between a baptism of fire and a devotion well beyond the call of duty.
This Bill provides for the pay and allowances of staff of the Plant Variety Rights Office to be determined by the agriculture Ministers, acting jointly. The amendment provides for this to be subject to the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.
In practice, PVRO is staffed by civil servants employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Their pay and allowances are determined in exactly the same way as all other staff of the Ministry and will continue to be so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Protected variety]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("may") to end of line 24 and insert ("impose reasonable conditions when giving authority for the purposes of subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his welcome to me in my new position. Whether it will be a baptism of fire will be apparent by the end of today.
Under Clause 6(1) a holder of plant breeder's rights is entitled to prevent anyone doing any of the acts listed in the subsection as respects the propagating material of the protected variety without his authority. Subsection (2) makes it clear that any authority granted by the holder for one of those acts may be given with or without conditions or limitations. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where the holder decides to give authority for such an act then any conditions which he, or indeed she, attaches thereto, should be reasonable. In other words, we are trying to avoid a technical grant of authority with conditions which are so unreasonable that the authority is thereby rendered useless to the person seeking the holder's permission. We are trying to achieve a fair balance between the parties.
Some might of course argue, and the Minister may do so, that such a change would be a recipe for litigation in the courts on what was reasonable. But I am assured that it is believed that in practice such a provision would act as guidance to holders to behave responsibly and that court proceedings should be an unlikely outcome.
I also notice that the Government are not themselves against using the definition "reasonable" in the context of this Bill as a matter of principle since that is the term used in their own Amendment No. 11 to Clause 13. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment today. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The very first amendment I moved in this House was in 1987 on an agricultural Bill, and it was accepted on behalf of the Government by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Unfortunately, I shall not be able to offer the same courtesy to the noble Baroness.
As she said, Clause 6(2) provides for plant breeders to give authority to others to use protected varieties, with or without conditions or limitations. It is this provision which establishes the basis for the licensing system whereby plant breeders control the use of their intellectual property and obtain a return on their investment, through royalties.
The proposed amendment would restrict the breeder's right in the commercial interests of individual farmers and seedsmen. In other words, it would limit the breeder's ability to conduct his business as he sees fit. It would also lead to the courts acting as arbitrators in determining whether a breeder was imposing reasonable conditions in a licence issued to a particular individual.
If the amendment is made, the licensing provisions would lead to situations such as the following. A breeder would issue a licence, which would be accepted by an

827
individual grower or seedsman, who would then decide that one or more of the licence conditions were not "reasonable". The grower or seedsman would then decide not to comply with the conditions he believed were unreasonable. Court proceedings would ensue and it would be up to the courts to decide who was right in what was essentially a business dispute.
I do not believe that this Bill should attempt to set the terms on which a plant breeder must do business with individual customers, and I therefore oppose the amendment. That is not to say that the breeder should be able to do just as he likes. If he acts against the public interest, Clause 15 provides for a compulsory licence to be issued. But the public interest is not the same as the interests of an individual farmer or seedsman.
The UPOV Convention is also clear that the breeder should be able to conduct his business as he wishes. The Convention is quite specific. It states:
"no Contracting Party may restrict the free exercise of a breeder's right for reasons other than of public interest."
Clauses 6(2) and 15, as drafted, reflect that position, as does the Community regime of plant breeders' rights.
I hope that that explanation will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I would like time to consider the points he made. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 39 and insert ("subsection (4A) below applies.
(4A) This subsection applies if, before the product was made, any act mentioned in subsection (1) above was done as respects the harvested material from which the product was made and either—

(a) the act was done with the authority of the holder of the plant breeders' rights, or

(b) the holder of those rights had a reasonable opportunity to exercise them in relation to the doing of the act.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 6(4) provides for the breeder's right to extend to directly made products prescribed by Ministers, where the breeder's right has been infringed at an earlier stage in the production cycle, in circumstances where the breeder has not been able to take action against the earlier infringement. The current drafting, mistakenly, provides that Clause 6(4) can only come into play if the product is obtained from harvested material by committing an act which requires the breeder's authority. These acts are listed in Clause 6(1).
It is, however, quite possible for a product to be made from harvested material to which the breeder's rights extends without committing any of the acts in Clause 6(1). In these circumstances, Clause 6(4) should provide that where rights are infringed in respect of the harvested material and the breeder has not been able to act against that infringement he can use Clause 6(4) to act against the directly made product whether or not one of the acts in Clause 6(1) is committed to produce the product.
My brief adds, "I hope you have found this explanation enlightening." The nub of the matter is that the amendment corrects the drafting of Clause 6(4) and brings the Bill into line with the UPOV Convention and the Community regime. I should also remind the Committee that extension of the breeder's right to directly made products only comes into play if Ministers make regulations prescribing those products. The Committee will be glad to hear that we have no plans to prescribe any products at present. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My note to myself says that this amendment makes the clause more comprehensible. I am not too sure what time of night I wrote my note.
I observe that the Government have retained the overall objective within this clause. It is one that we can support, and therefore we support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [General exceptions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 38, leave out (", or other") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: The 1991 UPOV Convention exempts from the breeder's right acts done for private and non-commercial purposes. This is to ensure, for example, that amateur gardeners may continue to take cuttings of protected varieties for their own private use.
The Bill as drafted refers to private or other non-commercial use. It could be interpreted as permitting the multiplication of large quantities of protected varieties for public use, rather than private use, provided it is done for non-commercial purposes, for use, perhaps, in public parks or something similar. That is not what UPOV intended. The amendment therefore brings Clause 8 into line with the UPOV Convention and the corresponding provision in the Community plant variety rights regime by making clear that an act must be both private and non-commercial to fall within the exemption. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Farm saved seed]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 20, after ("date") insert ("after 30th June 2001").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will know that farmers who have saved seed of a protected variety before the Bill comes into force are exempt from paying farm saved seed "royalty" on that variety until such time as Ministers discontinue the exemption by order (see Clause 9(5) and (6)). The Community plant variety regime includes a similar "prior use" exemption, which continues until at least 30th June 2001 and may be extended beyond that date.
Ministers have made clear that they do not intend to end the UK "prior use" exemption until the Community exemption ends. The farming unions were nevertheless

829
concerned that the Bill as drafted does not identify 30th June 2001 as the earliest date for discontinuing the "prior use" exemption.
At Second Reading I undertook to address those concerns. The amendment gives effect to that undertaking by providing that Ministers may only make an order discontinuing the "prior use" exemption on a date after 30th June 2001. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The amendment addresses the concerns raised in the debate in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. David Curry (Hansard, col. 697) and my honourable friend Mr. James Paice (col. 732).
At Second Reading, as he reminded us, the Minister reassured the Chamber that the reason for the absence of any reference in the Bill to the 30th June 2001 date was to ensure that the prior use exemption would not expire on 30th June 2001, if the corresponding date in the Community regime is extended. He recognised the concerns that had been raised on this point. Further concerns have been represented to us on the Opposition Benches about this matter. The Minister told us that the Government would bring forward an amendment at Committee stage to rectify the matter. I am grateful that he has taken that action after the discussions this summer.
I support the amendment. I believe that it will reassure farmers who save seed that they may continue to use varieties that they currently save, free of charge, until that date.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 36, after ("obtained") insert—

("() make provision for calculating the sensibly lower equitable remuneration rate payable by a farmer to a holder of the rights in accordance with subsection (3) above,").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 9 implements European Union law by obliging farmers (subsection (3)) to pay equitable remuneration to holders of plant breeders' rights for farm saved seed, set at a "sensibly lower" rate than the amount charged for production of propagating material of the same variety in the same areas with the holder's authority. I understand that after very lengthy and, I am told, tough negotiations an agreement was reached between farmers and plant breeders for a scale of payments for farm saved seed and that this came into operation in autumn 1996. It is hoped that that agreement will indeed prove durable and can be adjusted by further agreement between the parties as required in the future. But, if the agreement were to break down, farmers could be left in a vulnerable position to pay whatever the breeders demanded. We believe that it is in the public interest that there is a safeguard against such an eventuality.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has done so much work on the Bill on our behalf, told the Chamber that:
"We should like some long-term protection to ensure that negotiations continue to be conducted on a reasonable basis".—[Official Report, 18/7/97; col. 1136].
The amendment tries to achieve just that.
The amendment gives Ministers a long stop reserve power to intervene to impose a formula for payment if the parties were patently unable to agree. It is unlikely that the power would ever be required to be exercised, but we believe that its very existence would help to ensure that this was so.
Indeed, if by any chance the Minister is not inclined to accept this amendment today—the second refusal to me on the same day on my first time here—and believes that the amendment is not necessary, perhaps he can explain what powers Ministers already possess to take action to impose a formula for payment if the parties were unable to agree at some stage in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I think that the noble Baroness will find over time that charm does not work in this Chamber, I am afraid. The fact that I have turned down one amendment already does not mean to say that I shall not turn down this amendment.
The amendment is intended to give Ministers powers to determine how the rate for use of farm saved seed should be calculated. It would apply only to UK protected varieties. It would not—indeed could not—give similar powers in respect of Community protected varieties, since this is a matter for quite separate Community legislation. That is a weakness in the amendment.
My view is that this is a commercial matter between breeders and farmers. It is not one in which the Government should intervene. After long debate, the EC took this view when the Community regime was established. To give Ministers powers to determine how the rate should be calculated for UK protected varieties when they cannot unilaterally do the same for Community protected varieties strikes me as opening up the prospect of considerable confusion.
I know that the farming unions are keen to see this measure in the Bill. They regard the powers as "reserve" ones, as the noble Baroness said, which would be used only when farmers and plant breeders could not sort out their differences and reach agreement between themselves. I do not see them in quite the same way. My feeling is that if they are there, so is the incentive for one side or the other to dig in its heels and leave Ministers to sort out their differences for them.
I believe that the party opposite still believes in the free market and I suggest to the noble Baroness that we should leave commercial people to do what they are best at doing; namely, dealing with commercial matters.
These matters were successfully resolved through industry negotiations for EC protected varieties. The farming unions and plant breeders have also reached

831
agreement on the way UK protected varieties should be dealt with once this Bill comes into force, as I shall mention in more detail when we come to the clause stand part debate. It seems to me that that is the right way to deal with the matter.
In reply to the noble Baroness's question about the powers which Ministers have, my answer is that they have no powers in that respect. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel inclined to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St, Johns: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I shall still keep on trying. I shall not give up at this early stage. Certainly, it does my heart good to hear him express his free market theories. I hope that may continue—I do not say "for long" but at least for the odd year or so. In the light of his reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert—
("() Regulations under subsection (7)(a) above may include provision imposing obligations of confidence in relation to information supplied by virtue of the regulations.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 9(7) enables Ministers to make regulations requiring plant breeders, seed processors and farmers to provide information to each other for the purposes of the farm saved seed provisions in the Bill.
This amendment will enable Ministers to impose an obligation on the recipients of information to keep it confidential. If, for example, a farmer discloses that he has planted so many hectares of farm saved seed, the plant breeder who receives this information will be required to treat it as confidential.
Let me take as another example the tonnage of a species which a processor has cleaned for a client. We feel that in practical terms such sensitive information must be kept confidential. This information is provided at a plant breeder's by farmers or seed processors. I am sure that this will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendment and in particular that he gave an example of why matters should be kept confidential. It is something which any open government would not normally wish to enforce. But, in the circumstances and in view of the explanation, we support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill in order to raise points put forward at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Trumpington and by several growers and members of the public who
832
subsequently wrote to us again. They are points which do not appear as yet to have been resolved by the amendments tabled today by the Minister.
My noble friend Lady Trumpington pointed out that the principle that holders of plant variety rights are entitled to royalties was agreed as a result of the UPOV convention of 1991 and by the European Union in Directive 8167/94 on 1st September 1994.
The directive also allows exemptions from royalties for small farmers and limits the rights to newer varieties only. Difficult trade negotiations decided rates of royalties and collection methods. But the royalty-free status of older varieties was an important element in those negotiations.
Clause 9(3) of the Bill seeks to extend the royalty scheme to all protected varieties, including the older ones which do not enjoy such protection under the European scheme. We have been advised by such organisations as the National Association of Agricultural Contractors that provision will destroy a cornerstone of the trade agreement.
Can the Minister tell us today whether any progress has been made to resolve that problem? Will older varieties be permanently exempted from royalties and, if so, how? I understand that the Minister gave assurances at Second Reading to carry forward discussions on this matter. Have they had a successful resolution?
Lord Carter: As the noble Baroness is aware, this is an important clause. To summarise the essentials of it, the 1991 convention extends the breeder's right to all production and reproduction of propagating material, including farm-saved seed. It also allows for that extension to be limited, subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the breeder, to permit the use of farm-saved seed, and that ensures the purpose of Clause 9.
An order under Clause 9(2) will exempt farm-saved seed of the main agricultural species—cereals and fodder plants, oil and fibre plants and potatoes—from the breeder's right. Farmers may therefore save seed for use on their own holdings of protected varieties of those species without seeking authority from the holder of rights. In return, however, the breeder may require a payment which is "sensibly lower" than the royalty payable on certified seed. Small farmers may save seed of protected varieties for use on their own holdings without payment. Amendment No. 5 should reassure everyone that the prior use exemption will not be discontinued until after 30th June 2001.
Clause 9 applies exactly the same approach to varieties protected in the UK as to those protected under council regulations. For example, the definition of "small farmer" and "suitably lower" are prescribed by reference to definitions in the council regulations. That should avoid confusion between the national and the EC system.
The levels of payment for farm-saved seed are a commercial matter between plant breeders and their customers. Constructive discussions between

833
representatives of the farmers, seed processors and plant breeders led to a negotiated agreement on farm-saved seed payments for Community-protected varieties.
As the noble Baroness knows, when I met interested parties in July, I urged the different sectors of the industry to get together to discuss the treatment of UK-protected varieties, particularly older varieties. I am sure the Committee will be delighted to know that yet again plant breeders, processors and farmers' representatives reached agreement. I was pleased to play a part in ensuring that they reached that agreement and a formal document signed by all the farming unions and the British Society of Plant Breeders records all the details and is available in the Printed Paper Office.
A key element in the agreement is that plant breeders agreed to a zero rate for the farm-saved seed payment on UK-protected varieties granted rights before September 1994. Farmers will therefore be able to use them free of charge after the prior use exemption is removed. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is a most satisfactory outcome.
The Committee may also be interested to know that there are no fewer than 75 varieties. There are 14 varieties of spring barley, four of spring wheat, six of spring oats, 10 of field peas, 12 of winter barley, 15 of winter wheat, eight of winter oats and six of field beans which are caught by the agreement. In addition, I am sure that the Committee, particularly Members with a farming interest, will be even more delighted to know that the British Society of Plant Breeders confirmed that the saving on the royalties on the old varieties is worth £200,000 per year to those farmers who are caught by the provision. I am sure that we can all agree that it has been a satisfactory agreement on all sides.
I turn to the other point made by the noble Baroness. More generally, I received a number of representations, as I know others have, from members of Friends of the Earth who are concerned that Clause 9 will make the use of farm-saved seed uneconomic and also lead to a loss of biodiversity. I shall ensure that a proper response is sent to all those who wrote to me. However, I cannot agree that Clause 9 will make farm-saved seed uneconomic.
Clause 9 is there to ensure that those farmers who want to save seed of UK protected varieties produced on their own holdings may continue to do so. I use the word "may" advisedly. I have already explained that some farmers are exempted by the Bill from the requirement to pay and the agreement between the British Society of Plant Breeders and the farming unions ensures that farmers will not pay to use the older UK-protected varieties.
In those cases where a payment has to be made, it must be sensibly lower than the royalty on certified seed. The British Society of Plant Breeders and the farming unions reached agreement on the payments which apply to EC-protected varieties which are sown this autumn. I am told, for example, that the charge for wheat is £23.37 per tonne of seed used. That does not suggest that the use of farm-saved seed will become uneconomic or that the clause will lead to a loss of biodiversity.
834
In relation to the fear of a loss of biodiversity, perhaps I may refer to a point I made at Second Reading which was confirmed later by officials. It seemed to me as a layman rather than as a plant breeder—as a farmer—that over the years the number of varieties available has increased enormously. I am not sure where the argument for the loss of biodiversity comes from. When I started farming in the early 1950s and for a long time afterwards we had one variety of winter wheat (which was Cappelle Desprez) one variety of spring barley (which was Proctor), one variety of spring oats (which was S172) and one variety of oilseed rape (Primor). Perhaps I should stop showing off. There are now a large number of varieties; I listed 75. There are 75 older varieties which are exempt and hundreds of varieties on the recommended list. Therefore I am not sure where the argument for the loss of biodiversity comes from.
Baroness Trumpington: As the Committee heard, at the Second Reading of this Bill on 18th July I raised the question with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, of older varieties, particularly in regard to their exemption. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Carter, undertook to discuss this matter with me and with others. He recognised that there was a problem. He did indeed hold a meeting. He put forward today a solution which is very agreeable to those interested parties with whom I have been in contact. On their behalf I should like to express my appreciation. Charm does work sometimes! As it is my birthday, I give the noble Lord full permission to call me "Grandmummy" in the future if he so wishes.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may briefly express my welcome for the announcements made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this afternoon. The whole issue of farm-saved seed has been the subject of painstaking and patient negotiation between breeders and farmers over an extended period, as I well remember from my time at the Ministry of Agriculture. The balance eventually struck was one which it would have been unwise to upset, particularly that part of the agreement relating to older varieties which do not enjoy protection under the European scheme.
I am pleased that the Government felt able to recognise the arguments put forward at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Trumpington and others. We should now have a secure basis for the trade agreement to operate in the future.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Exhaustion of rights]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6. line 10. at end insert(", or

(b) is derived from material which has been so sold or otherwise marketed.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I will speak also to Amendment No. 9, which is grouped with it.
These amendments correct the drafting of Clause 10 which is concerned with the exhaustion of the breeder's rights. They do not change the policy in any way but simply ensure that the clause as drafted is effective.
It has always been the intention that the breeder should be able to exercise his rights only once in a cycle of propagation. If a farmer buys wheat seed to produce milling wheat, then the breeder's right obviously should be exhausted at the point of sale of the seed. The right of propagation to produce the commercial crop will be authorised in the sale and the breeder will have no rights over the subsequent crop of the milling wheat.
The breeder's right will not be exhausted, nor will he have authorised any propagation after this initial propagation. In other words, the breeder's right is not exhausted where there is further seed production. If, for example, some first generation wheat seed is sold and used to produce certified second generation wheat seed, then the breeder's right applies to the second generation of seed. Clause 10, as amended, will reflect that position.
There is a complicated drafting point about which I know the noble Baroness was concerned. The amendment introduces subsection (1)(b) and one quickly asks "Where is (a)?" I have a long note of explanation from the Public Bill Office. It relates to the printing of the Bill and I am assured that it is correct. If the amendment is accepted—which I am sure it will be—Clause 10(1) will read:
"(1): Plant breeders' rights shall not extend to any act concerning material of a variety if the material—

(a) has been sold or otherwise marketed in the United Kingdom by, or with the consent of, the holder of the right, or

(b) is derived from material which has been so sold or otherwise marketed."

I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I am not rising to frighten the Minister into thinking I am opposing this amendment but merely to thank him for circulating the technical note. I am still learning after being here for under a year, but this really did fox me as to why there was a (b) and no (a). I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance and explanation. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 12, leave out from ("variety,") to ("or") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duration]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6. line 35, after ("period") insert (", not exceeding—

(a) in the case of paragraph (a), 35 years, and

(b) in the case of paragraph (b), 30 years,").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 meets the commitment I gave at Second Reading to restrict the period for which Ministers may extend rights for particular species or groups to five years in total.
Rights for trees, vines and potatoes may therefore be extended to a maximum of 35 years and rights for other species or groups may be extended to 30 years in total. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: This amendment addresses the points raised on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Lucas (col. 1136 of the Official Report.) He pointed out that Clause 11(2) allows for the extension of plant breeders' rights beyond 25 or 30 years, apparently without limit. This would give the Government the power to decide upon any extension period without limit or a requirement to consult before taking such action.
My noble friend stated then that we would like to see the requirement for prior consultation to take place if such a wide-ranging power were to remain in the Act. The alternative he proposed was that the power should be limited to five years contained in the EC directive. In those circumstances, he made it clear that we would not require prior consultation.
I welcome and support the amendment because it meets fully the objections raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
PRESUMPTIONS IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO HARVESTED MATERIAL
(" .—(1) This section applies to any proceedings for the infringement of plant breeders' rights as respects harvested material.
(2) If, in any proceedings to which this section applies, the holder of the plant breeders' rights proves, in relation to am of the material to which the proceedings relate—

(a) that it has been the subject of an information notice given to the defendant by or on behalf of the holder, and

(b) that the defendant has not, within the prescribed time after the service of the notice, supplied the holder with the information about it requested in the notice,

then, as regards the material in relation to which the holder proves that to be the case, the presumptions mentioned in subsection (3) below shall apply, unless the contrary is proved or the defendant shows that he had a reasonable excuse for not supplying the information.
(3) The presumptions are—

(a) that the material was obtained through unauthorised use of propagating material, and

(b) that the holder did not have a reasonable opportunity before the material was obtained to exercise his rights in relation to the unauthorised use of the propagating material.

(4) The reference in subsection (2) above to an information notice is to a notice which—

(a) is in the prescribed form,

(b) specifies the material to which it relates,

(c) contains, in relation to that material, a request for the supply of the prescribed, but no other, information, and

(d) contains such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(5) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11 I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which are grouped with it. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will be moving Amendment No. 12 to Amendment No. 11 and I will deal with that after he has spoken to it.
Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 address the particular problems that breeders of vegetatively propagated ornamental plants face in enforcing their rights.
Ornamental plants are traded to the public through a wide range of retail outlets, including garden centres, supermarkets and by mail order. Ornamental plants, by their very nature, are easy to multiply through, for example, taking cuttings or using modern tissue-culture techniques. The products—for example, rose bushes or pot plants—which have been produced legitimately and on which royalty has been paid, can easily be diverted from their proper end use and used for further propagation, without the breeder's authority, as they are traded through a chain to the final consumer.
Illicit propagation, where no royalty is paid, enables less scrupulous traders to undercut those who are operating legitimately and gives them an unfair advantage. Plants which have been produced through illicit propagation are the same as those produced by authorised propagation—it is, after all, a condition of protection that plants reproduce true to type. A plant breeder cannot therefore identify infringing material by looking at the plants. He needs to know the source of the plants on sale.
If the seller refuses to provide information on where he obtained the plants—and those who knowingly trade in illicitly-produced protected varieties will almost certainly refuse to do so—then the breeder is left with a strong suspicion that his rights are being infringed, but nothing more.
The new clauses provide for plant breeders to issue information notices, in a form prescribed by Ministers in regulations, to people trading in plants or directly made products of protected varieties. Where the trader refuses to provide the information requested within a period specified in the regulations, without reasonable excuse the clauses require the courts to presume that the material or directly made products to which the notice relates were obtained in circumstances which infringed the breeder's right, unless the defendant can show otherwise. In effect, therefore, the burden of proof is reversed in these very carefully defined circumstances.
The information to be provided will not be onerous. I envisage that it will basically be details of the supplier and the amount of material supplied by him. It is reasonable to suppose that anyone selling plants, for example, will know who he bought them from and how many he bought.
The breeder must treat the information obtained in a notice as confidential, except where he uses it to establish whether his rights have been infringed, or in infringement proceedings. If the breeder breaches this obligation of confidentiality, the person who supplied the information will be able to bring an action for breach of a duty of confidentiality.
I must emphasise, of course, that I expect plant breeders to use these provisions in a proportionate and sensible way in respect of transactions which are in the normal course of business. There should be no question of plant breeders laying siege to local church fetes and bring-and-buy sales—and presumably car boot sales—demanding information on the source of plants on the plant stall. That would be Big Brother. I also emphasise that the clauses do not permit plant breeders to serve notices on private individuals growing plants in their own gardens, for their own private and non-commercial purposes.
I know ornamentals breeders, and their customers who trade in legitimately produced material, will welcome these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 11, Amendment No. 12:
Line 14, leave out from ("proved") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I should declare an interest in that I am a director of a family horticultural firm. Doubtless your Lordships will take what I am about to say with your customary pinch of salt because of that declaration of interest. However, borrowing from a Downing Street declaration, I have as of this moment no selfish strategic or economic interest in the Bill.
I could hardly be unaware of the long-running sore in the horticultural industry which is characterised by a diverse and open market at all levels of production and sale. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, almost said, any unscrupulous person can purchase a plant at retail level and from that plant multiply up commercial quantities for resale. The breach of plant breeders' rights is only discovered when a protected variety, cut flowers, foliage, or whatever, is offered for sale as a finished product. That event is obviously some distance from propagation. The breeder cannot show unauthorised use of propagating material or whether he had enjoyed a reasonable opportunity before the harvested material was obtained to exercise his rights in relation to the unauthorised use of the propagating material. Thus the drafting of Clauses 6(3) and 6(4) turns on itself to defeat the plant breeder. I therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on introducing the new clauses, marked as Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 on the Marshalled List today, recognising as they do that the person best placed to know the source of the harvested material is the person who is offering that harvested material for sale.
The new clauses propose that a plant breeder submit a limited questionnaire in a form to be laid out by Ministers in regulations. Incidentally, the last time, during debate on an earlier clause, the noble Lord mentioned matters prescribed under regulations I think I heard him say that the ministry did not intend to make any prescription. Perhaps he can confirm that on this occasion prescription will take place.
Assuming that it will take place, if the breeder does not receive a straight answer, the burden of proof in relation to the unauthorised use of propagating material should shift on to the person offering the harvested material for sale. That simple adjustment provides a

839
plant breeder with the opportunity of making an application to the civil court seeking to exercise his rights in relation to that harvested material. The person who has offered for sale the harvested material would have a right to defend such action and the opportunity of proving that either the harvested material had not been obtained through unauthorised use of propagating material or that the plant breeder had had reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights at a higher stage of production. I hope I have interpreted the new clauses, which are to say the least rather complicated, correctly.
I further assumed that the information provided by the first person approached would enable the plant breeder to serve a similar questionnaire on the person who had been the supplier to that person, and so on, until the chain was established. This shift in the burden of proof, which of course is not in itself final and which is subject to the ruling of the court in which any proceedings are tried, would underpin fair competition between enterprises in the horticulture sector. That is what we all want. So all well and good. However, there is a worry.
The worry is that one part of the first new clause potentially drives a coach and horses through an admirable protection for the plant breeder. A defence is given in lines 14 and 15 of Amendment No. 11 which allows the grower to show,
"that he had a reasonable excuse for not supplying the information",
to the breeder. What does the Minister mean by "reasonable"? Would he, for example, find it reasonable for the dealer to refuse to give information to the breeder on the grounds that the information was commercially confidential? Could the argument be that since the dealer in plants had found a cheap source he would not want his competitors to know that source? In this context it may be relevant that some of the large plant breeding firms also grow and sell their own crop. Another excuse that springs to mind rests on the fact that plans are often sold at auction, particularly in Holland, in large quantities, sometimes with no accompanying documents. Would that be a reasonable excuse? I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I should make it clear from the beginning that we support the objective behind Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14. The major problem of enforcement of rights is peculiar to ornamentals and is of equal concern to both breeders and licensed growers. The British association representing breeders has some 300 nursery firms licensed to produce protected ornamental varieties. I am grateful to that organisation for the information it provided on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has clearly outlined the problems facing BARB in enforcing breeders' rights. I do not propose to repeat those. I merely endorse them. In moving his amendment he has raised some reservations with regard to the phrasing of the government amendment. I listened with care to the points raised by my noble friend. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: Before I respond to Amendment No. 12 perhaps I may correct a statement I made about car boot sales. It has just occurred to me that car boot sales are for money. So a breeder might want to take action against a seller there and could therefore serve an information notice.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the provisions in Amendment No. 11 which provide that the burden of proof in infringement proceedings is not reversed if the defendant shows that he had a reasonable excuse for not supplying the information. We would say that it is for the courts to decide what constitutes a reasonable excuse. The kind of circumstances where a defendant might be able to rely on the provision are, for example, if his premises have been burgled and his records have been destroyed in the process. Without it the presumption would operate and the defendant would have no way of displacing it. This kind of defence is very common in UK law. I believe that it is right that it should be available in respect of information notices.
The noble Lord asked me to confirm that regulations will be made. The answer is yes. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the Committee will then accept my amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall of course consider further what the noble Lord has said and in a moment ask leave to withdraw my amendment. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that the whole object of the exercise is surely to avoid going to court if it is possible. That is my instant reaction. Therefore, the clearer the Bill can be to avoid that, the better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 12, as an amendment to Amendment No. 11 , by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
PRESUMPTIONS IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO PRODUCTS MADE FROM HARVESTED MATERIAL.
(" .—(1) This section applies to any proceedings for the infringement of plant breeders' rights as respects any product made directly from harvested material.
(2) If, in any proceedings to which this section applies, the holder of the plant breeders' rights proves, in relation to any product to which the proceedings relate—

(a) that it has been the subject of an information notice given to the defendant by or on behalf of the holder, and

(b) that the defendant has not, within the prescribed time after the service of the notice, supplied the holder with the information about it requested in the notice.

then, as regards the product in relation to which the holder proves that to be the case, the presumptions mentioned in subsection (3) below shall apply, unless the contrary is proved or the defendant shows that he had a reasonable excuse for not supplying the information.
(3) The presumptions are—

(a) that the harvested material from which the product was made was obtained through unauthorised use of propagating material,

(b) that the holder did not have a reasonable opportunity before the harvested material was obtained to exercise his rights

841
in relation to the unauthorised use of the propagating material, and

(c) that no relevant act was done, before the product was made, as respects the harvested material from which it was made.

(4) An act is relevant for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) above if it is mentioned in section 6(1) above and is—

(a) done with the authority of the holder, or

(b) one in relation to the doing of which he has a reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights.

(5) The reference in subsection (2) above to an information notice is to a notice which—

(a) is in the prescribed form,

(b) specifies the product to which it relates,

(c) contains, in relation to that product, a request for the supply of the prescribed, but no other, information, and

(d) contains such other particulars as may he prescribed.

(6) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 31 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER SECTION (Presumptions in proceedings relating to harvested material) or (Presumptions in proceedings relating to products made from harvested material)
(" .—(1) If the holder of plant breeders' rights obtains information pursuant to a notice given for the purposes of section (Presumptions in proceedings relating to harvested material) or (Presumptions in proceedings relating to products made from harvested material) above, he shall owe an obligation of confidence in respect of the information to the person who supplied it.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not have effect to restrict disclosure of information—

(a) for the purposes of, or in connection with, establishing whether plant breeders' rights have been infringed, or

(b) for the purposes of, or in connection with, any proceedings for the infringement of plant breeders' rights.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 39 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Regulations and orders]:
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 18, line 2, at end insert—
("() Before making any regulations or orders under this Act the Ministers shall consult such bodies appearing to them to be representative of farmers and growers and of the holders of plant breeders' rights.").
The noble Baroness said: In some 10 clauses of the Bill Ministers are taking powers to make regulations or orders. Given the complexity of many of the issues concerned, and the important commercial implications for the parties concerned of changes in regulations, we believe it is highly desirable that there is a statutory guarantee that Ministers will consult with the organisations which represent farmers and growers and
842
the holders of plant breeders' rights before they then exercise their powers under secondary legislation. The amendment is designed to introduce such a duty. I hope the Minister is able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: When I saw the amendment on the Marshalled List it seemed to be familiar. In my 10 years of Opposition on agriculture and other subjects I must have moved a consultation amendment any number of times. I was therefore quite prepared to be advised to resist, but I had overlooked that there has been a change of government! So I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that I can accept the amendment in principle.
In practice, officials at the Plant Variety Rights Office already consult all interested parties, including the representatives of farmers, growers and plant breeders on proposals for regulations. We agree that this good administrative practice should be made a legal requirement. But here comes a familiar phrase—the amendment as drafted is not quite right. It needs to embrace more interests than just farmers, growers and plant breeders. For example, the seedsmen have an interest. If the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment, I shall arrange for a government amendment to be brought forward at Report stage.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: It was almost third time lucky, but not quite. I am grateful for the response of the noble Lord. I hope that the Government continue to be a listening Government for the brief time that they will be on that side of the House. However, in view of the circumstances today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Carter moved Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) In Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, in the entry relating to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, for the words after "Tribunal" there shall be substituted "(referred to in section 39 of the Plant Varieties Act 1997)".").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to change a reference in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 previously overlooked in the Bill. It revises a reference to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 in relation to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal so that it refers to the relevant provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 26, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 40 and insert ("Part I").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment concerning the extent to which the Bill repeals the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964. As presently drafted, Schedule 4 leaves part of Section 10 of the 1964 Act in

843
force. It should not do so, and this amendment provides for all of Part I of the 1964 Act to be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill [H.L.]
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Historically speaking, the St. Helenians, or "Saints" as they are often euphemistically called, are descendants of those settled by the British. Britain landed the first permanent settlers on the island, many being evacuees from the Great Fire of London. The process of building an island fortress began. The British East India Company organised almost every aspect of the island's social and economic fabric. Hardwoods were grown for the repair of visiting ships; fruits and vegetables were grown for the hungry seamen. In some years over 2,000 ships anchored offshore. Many people settled, and there was prosperity.
In this century the technological advances made in maritime technology, together with the opening of the Suez Canal, ended the island's great trade era. Although it still had New Zealand flax to keep the island alive, prices of that commodity collapsed, making it uneconomic to produce, thus leaving the island with no major industry and the islanders with very little opportunity. The then government stepped into the breach by creating in some instances time-filling jobs. That policy has now, thankfully, been dismantled, hence the unemployment problem, which now stands at over 18 per cent.
Visiting the island this summer, I was touched by the overwhelming sense of Britishness. The majority of the people are Anglican; their schools teach using the national curriculum, and, of course, the language is English. The people in the street recount with pride the visit of Prince Andrew to the island. In huge white letters on the cliffs above Jamestown reads the message "Welcome Prince Andrew".
The civil rights of the St. Helenians were granted by King Charles II in 1673 by Royal Charter, which stated that its people,
"Shall have and enjoy liberties, franchises, immunities, capacities and abilities of free denizens and neutral subjects within any of our dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our kingdom England or in any other of our dominions".
This freedom has been eroded by the introduction of work permits for Saints who want to work in the United Kingdom, followed by the British Nationality Act 1981
844
which has effectively made them second-class citizens of their own country. The House of Commons debate in 1997 highlighted the widespread concern at the present situation. Sir Nicholas Bonsor, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, said:
"Everyone who has the welfare of St. Helena at heart agrees that the status quo is not an option".
Sir David Mitchell, on the Conservative Benches, said:
"I know that I am not the only hon Member who did not realise when we passed the British Nationality Act 1981 that we were closing off the route for St. Helenians to come to work in the UK".
Mr. Tony Lloyd, who is now the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, said in the same debate:
"There can be no doubt that our commitment…to the island and its dependent territories is legal and historical, but it is also a moral commitment and we cannot avoid that".
Why should we grant citizenship to St. Helenian people over and above others in the dependent territories? I believe that the special case for the island and its dependencies largely springs from its poor economic status. Restoring full British passports will create a much needed release valve for the islanders, who seek to raise their living standards from a very low base. Currently the annual income per head stands at 3,000 dollars.
The Saints do have the opportunity, it is true, under the work experience scheme to work elsewhere. However, they are often forced to spend long periods working, say, in the Falklands or on Ascension Island or indeed in Britain. Apart from splitting up families these jobs are usually short-term and thus they do not give the long-term security that we all crave. A law to prevent the abandonment of children was passed earlier this year. The abandonment of children is another symptom of social injustice which the present situation creates.
The island's economic status is punctuated by lost opportunity. A Ministry of Defence survey back in 1941 declared an airstrip as feasible. It is now 1997 and there are still no plans for an airstrip. The island is very well served by the RMS "St. Helena", which is an extremely versatile ship with a highly dedicated crew. However, the case for an airstrip comes into its own when we consider such things as medical emergencies and the development of the island's full tourist potential.
Fishing is another under-capitalised asset. Large reserves of fish stocks are thought to exist offshore, but they are currently unreachable due to the lack of a suitably large boat with refrigeration. A super-processing and canning facility awaits on the island. Another concern is the lack of reconnaissance over our fishing waters. On its way from Capetown the RMS "St. Helena" passed a long-distance South Korean trawler operating close to St. Helenian waters. We have no idea as to whether there is any incursion into our waters.
The restoration of British nationality is a humanitarian concern. It would merely be restoring what was sanctioned for a long time. Do we want to keep a minority of our people in a bureaucratic entanglement that denies citizens their full rights?

845
The status quo fails to conform to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 15 states:
"A) Everyone has the right to a nationality; B) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality".
My private visit to the island this summer put an end to any doubts as to the need for change. The legislative council and the citizenship commission both lend wholehearted support to the concept of British nationality, together, I might add, with the views of the people on the street. I urge Her Majesty's Government to take note of the views of the legislative councillors during their forthcoming visit to Britain.
The young people of the island in particular would benefit from the Bill. Chatting to the bright school-leavers at St. Andrew's School, I asked how many of them would like to get some form of higher or further education or to visit Britain. Twenty-two hands were raised. Under the present arrangements, between four and five school-leavers can come to Britain to study per year. That is a much lower percentage than for the lucky school-leavers in mainland Britain who enjoy further or higher education. To make things worse, the same generous budget could stretch far further if the "Saints" were not considered to be overseas students, thus having higher fees to pay.
I frequently asked how many from the island would leave to visit Britain either to work or to stay. The top estimate was 500 people. To those noble Lords who may be concerned that we may depopulate the island as a result of this Bill, I suggest that we look at what happened on Tristan da Cunha, which faced a full evacuation in the 1960s with total repatriation to the UK. An overwhelming majority of that population returned to their homes when the all-clear was given.
I urge your Lordships to support this Bill to restore full nationality to the St. Helenians. I finish by reiterating the plea to Her Majesty's Government to give back some hope to the young.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Iveagh.)
5.1 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have never been to St. Helena, but some years ago when I was in the Whips Office I remember being asked by the Foreign Office to dispatch a Whip to St. Helena to carry out some ceremonial duty because no Foreign Office Minister was available. The Whip was dispatched, weeks went by and we thought that we had seen the last of him. I shall not reveal to your Lordships whether that gave us pleasure or pain, but it certainly gave us a shock and it brought home to me the remoteness of St. Helena because it was literally weeks before the fellow returned.
St. Helena is not only remote—1,200 miles from the coast of Africa—and nowadays, unlike during the last century, on the way to nowhere; it has virtually no natural wealth, no mineral deposits and little cultivable land. I am told that its waters are not even particularly
846
rich in fish. Therefore, it is very different from the other dependent territories, which brings me to the simple point that I want to make today.
There is a powerful case for granting—some might say "restoring"—full British citizenship to those belonging to all our remaining dependent territories. I find it very difficult to accept the objections raised by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in her reply to our debate on the dependent territories in June. The Minister said that free access to Britain for those belonging to our remaining dependent territories would mean reciprocity—that is, unrestricted access by other British citizens to the islands. That is simply untrue, as is obvious from taking a simple look at the Channel Islands, where housing legislation is used to prevent strangers taking up residence by denying them the right to buy or lease accommodation and then denying the right to work to those who are not lawfully housed. Furthermore, there certainly was not reciprocity when we last shared a common citizenship with those belonging in the dependent territories when we were all citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Why, therefore, should there be reciprocity if we restore common citizenship?
The Minister argued that it would be cynical to grant British citizenship to those belonging in the remaining dependent territories so soon after the return of Hong Kong to China, but the sheer impracticality of granting free entry to Britain to 3.5 million citizens of Hong Kong now that Hong Kong is no longer a British responsibility is scarcely an argument for refusing to do what is right by the 160,000 people living in territories for which we do have a continuing responsibility.
Having said all that, I have to accept that it appears that for the time being the Government have set their face against the change that I advocate. I want to make it absolutely plain that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in Bermuda, for instance, takes the view that if all the remaining dependent territories cannot have British citizenship none should. They recognise that St. Helena poses very special responsibilities which simply must be addressed while the general argument continues to be pursued. I heartily support the Bill and I congratulate the noble Earl on having introduced it.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I very much hope that the Minister will indicate government acceptance of the Bill and its proposals. St. Helena is a very small island with a very small population. There seems to be very little justification for keeping it in isolation. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will say that he will advise the House to accept the Bill.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I took part in our debate on the dependent territories and urged the case for all their citizens ultimately to have what is, after all, a very limited privilege, given the numbers involved. I also

847
agree—I have been fortified in this view also by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—that St. Helena is in any event a special case. All of us will have been very moved by the speech of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill and who gave a graphic account of the various difficulties which the people of St. Helena, and particularly its young people, face because of the impact of legislation which was certainly not designed for their detriment. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will find this modest little Bill something which can be accommodated.
This Government should have a particular interest in St. Helena. We all know that one of the distinguishing features of the present Government is their employment of spin doctors. Whatever else is true of St. Helena, it is where the profession originated. It was the group of people who followed Napoleon into exile and who produced the documents, memoirs and books which created the Napoleonic legend which made that conqueror the apostle of liberty, democracy and "modernisation", that current buzz word. So, even if only out of gratitude for their spin doctors, I hope that Ministers will feel that St. Helena has a great claim upon their sympathy.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lady Hooper to apologise for her absence. She has another appointment that had been made even before her appointment with your Lordships this afternoon.
I must next congratulate the noble Earl—whom I am proud to call, as he allows me to, my noble kinsman—not only on his speech this afternoon but also on the energy with which he is pursuing something which he obviously believes to be right and on the initiative that he showed when he paid a visit to the island to see all that he ought for himself. If this does not make him blush too scarlet, perhaps I may say that all the reports that I have heard of his visit have been impressive. I have a number of spies at work and they report to me that my noble kinsman's visit created a great sensation on the island. That is not surprising and it is partly due to the difficulties mentioned by my noble friend Lord Waddington. It takes quite a long time to get to St. Helena and to get away from it. It was only by taking a month or two away from your Lordships' House that I managed to do so myself.
I hope that my noble kinsman's impressions are similar to mine. I suspect that they will be. First, I hope that he greatly likes the people—it would be impossible not to do so. Secondly, he has made it clear that tonight, and in the future, we must take account of the unique isolation of the island. Thirdly, and most importantly, he has shown in introducing the Bill that he believes, as do I, that the continued refusal of British citizenship cannot be justified.
I understand that the present position on the island depends on the British Nationality Act 1981. In that respect, I wish to make a personal confession. I was a Member of your Lordships' House in 1981 and had the opportunity of opposing what the Conservative Government were then suggesting, but I did not take it.
848
My only excuse in my defence is that my knowledge was less clear that the 1981 Act changed the 1948 Act, which had been introduced and carried by the Labour Government after the war.
The 1948 Act gave to the Home Secretary the power to grant a certificate of naturalisation—in other words, to confirm citizenship—to any applicant who had lived for four out of the last seven years in the colony or dependency, who was of good behaviour and who had an adequate knowledge of English. In the light of that legislation a number of my noble friends and I were disappointed by the refusal of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to restore the right which my noble friend Lord Iveagh rightly said was granted to the St. Helenians not yesterday or 10 years ago but more than 300 years ago. On that occasion, the noble Baroness based her refusal on three grounds. The first, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Waddington, was that it would be necessary to make reciprocal arrangements with the colonies concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will say whether he has any grounds for believing that the Government of St. Helena will refuse recipricocity if we allow them the privilege that they want in this country.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that the issue of citizenship for the Falkland Islands had arisen only because a Private Member's Bill was introduced. That is exactly the vehicle which my noble friend is choosing to introduce the same privilege for the St. Helenians. The argument about Hong Kong convinces me no more than it convinced my noble friend Lord Waddington. If that argument is used, surely it will freeze the whole position as regards our dependent territories and it will make impossible for ever changes in dependent citizenship.
I wish to remind the Minister, if he needs reminding, that the Government he supports has as yet shown no reluctance to make changes to our own constitution, nor in the relationship between one part of Britain and another. Therefore, it seems wholly illogical that they should aim to freeze relationships between Britain and its remaining dependencies. It may be that in Scotland, and even more so in Wales, many people prefer the present situation rather than the Government's proposals for the future. But the Government—and rightly, in my opinion—gave to the Scots and the Welsh the power to express a view. On a number of occasions, I have heard the Minister give sympathetic if not wholly satisfactory answers to some of our problems. In the light of the decision in respect of Scotland and Wales, I beg him in discussions with colleagues to pay heed to the intense wish of the people of St. Helena and restore their right of citizenship in this country.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on introducing the Bill. I feel perhaps even a little jealous. When in 1994 I introduced the first debate on St. Helena for 10 years, I said:
"I am not tonight asking about citizenship and the right of abode. That is in the minds of all your Lordships who know anything about St. Helena, and we shall come to it in due course in your Lordships' House, possibly when the affairs of Hong Kong are on a more even keel".—[Official Report, 1/2/94; col. 1242.]

849
That time has now come and it is right that a Bill has been introduced by the noble Earl. I hope that the Government will treat it sympathetically.
My noble friend Lord Lester, who has been producing a legal opinion for the benefit of some citizens of St. Helena, greatly wished to take part in the debate and I know that he would have been able to add a great deal. However, he has unfortunately been summoned away to talk to a member of the Government and cannot be here.
I speak on behalf of my party in wishing the Bill well. We hope that in their forthcoming review the Government will examine the whole position of dependent territories and will consider the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I am delighted to learn from him that the people of Bermuda do not in any way have a dog-in-the-manger attitude towards this problem. One or two other sources led one to believe that they might have done so, but I am delighted to know that is incorrect.
There are very few countries coloured red dotted around the globe—the dependent territories, to which we owe various forms of friendship and gratitude. I believe that in time we should be able to grant them all citizenship. I see no major reason why we do not do so. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, has chosen a good time to introduce this Bill relating to St. Helena. I understand that a delegation from its Legislative Council will arrive next month and will discuss this issue and others with the Government. I hope that the Government will be able to meet its case.
There was a time when St. Helena was very much a part of the experience of Britain. It was the staging post from India to the Cape and back to England. I have recently finished reading Vanity Fair and your Lordships will remember Osborne and Jos coming back from India and stopping off at St. Helena on the way. Many English people in India, English boats and the Navy owed a great deal to St. Helena in those days. That debt has been reciprocated in that the St. Helenians have always felt a strong affection for England. I regret to say that that affection has been tested during the past few years, but I hope that it will not be tested if the Bill is allowed to become law or if it is taken over by the Government, which I hope will be the case.
St. Helena is as English an outpost of the Empire as any. We owe the St. Helenians hospitality. They have no other major contact with other parts of the world. They do not, like the Caribbeans, have countries around them which are the same as they are. They are miles from anywhere, and their affections and loyalties lie with us. I hope sincerely, as does my party, that the Government will be able to see their way either to giving this Bill a fair wind or to making sure that the subject is taken over and made their own.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for giving us the opportunity to consider this Bill, a Bill which would
850
restore British citizenship to St. Helenians, who lost that citizenship and right of abode in the United Kingdom as a result of the British Nationality Act 1981.
I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, said about the qualities of the Saints, as they are known, who have for so long made that British dependency loyal to the Crown and a law-abiding place in which to live.
I regret that before I prepared for this debate, I knew little of St. Helena except for the information which I had gleaned nearly a quarter of a century ago as a history teacher and certainly over the past year from the many press articles which have appeared on the matter. I hope that I have now remedied that omission and I look forward to seeing the result of the debates on the Bill. I hope that it will give the British public the opportunity to learn more of St. Helena and its residents.
The previous Conservative government made it clear that their commitment to the island is more than legal and historic; that it is a moral commitment too. The question has been how we should best discharge that commitment. As we have known for some time, the problem is that economic and social pressures, when allied to aid dependency, can lead only to a downward spiral of economic stagnation. As with all the remaining territories, we as a government cared then and now in Opposition care still about the welfare of St. Helenians and share wholeheartedly their desire for a better and more prosperous future.
While in government we made available aid support of more than £8 million per year, which I understand equates with about £1,500 per year per head of population and is the highest per capita package of United Kingdom aid in the world. However, we, and the Saints themselves, always wanted to see a reduced dependency upon aid. We wanted economic development to lead to a prosperous future for the island. Private sector development and public sector reform are the keys to the island's future.
We worked with the island's government in their efforts to attract inward investment. Last year a British company established a fishing operation on the island and at the end of March this year a business forum was established to encourage more United Kingdom companies to invest in the local economy. The majority of Saints wish to stay on the island and it is therefore vital that whatever else we do today we remain determined to help them to achieve greater self-sufficiency and a stronger all-round economy.
But time moves on and the new Government have continued negotiations with the St. Helenians. Political constraints on policy-making can change. My noble friend Lord Waddington said today that he believes that people in other dependencies—he mentioned Bermuda, of which he has so much experience—would not feel slighted if St. Helenians were given citizenship and they were not. I bow to his expert knowledge in that field.
Other distinguished noble friends on this side have spoken most strongly in favour of the Bill. On these Benches we maintain our commitment to the welfare of St. Helena. Perhaps the time has now come when it is

851
right to look again at the question of whether the residents of St. Helena should have British citizenship. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
5.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Earl for his speech today and also, just as important, for the contribution that he has been making to the search for solutions to what I think everyone recognises are real difficulties.
I want to say quite plainly that the Government share many of the concerns which have been expressed and I say on behalf of the Government that we have considerable sympathy for the people of St. Helena in relation to the problems which they face. The point of disagreement is whether what is proposed in the Bill is the best and most appropriate way to deal with those problems. At the moment the Government have some doubts about the noble Earl's citizenship proposal.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the British Nationality Act 1981. However, in point of historic fact, restrictions on entry from the former colonies into the United Kingdom and on right of abode here were introduced almost 20 years before that by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. The inhabitants of the dependent territories have not been free to come here at will, to work or settle since the introduction of that Act.
If this Bill became law, it would mean undoubtedly—it is a matter of judgment whether it is acceptable—a further erosion of the scheme set out in the British Nationality Act 1981, to which a number of your Lordships have referred. That scheme was intended to apply to the dependent territories as a whole. The Act of 1981 provides for different forms of British nationality to be acquired according to whether a person has close connections with the United Kingdom, a British dependent territory or elsewhere. If we adopt the Bill, we shall be departing from the fundamental principle which has been followed over the past 35 years to restrict the right of abode in the United Kingdom to those who have close links by birth, parentage or residence with the United Kingdom.
It has been the policy of all British governments since the early 1960s to distinguish between British nationals who have connections overseas and those who have connections with the United Kingdom. All governments have imposed immigration controls on those nationals who do not have close links with the United Kingdom. The exceptions to the general policy have been Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and certain people in Hong Kong. The reasons for the exceptions in relation to the people of Hong Kong are well known. As regards Gibraltar, those British dependent citizens who have their status through a connection with Gibraltar are, because of their position in Europe, included in the definition of UK nationals for EU purposes. They enjoy European Community rights of freedom of movement within the European Union. They are able to settle in the United Kingdom. The government of the day concluded that they should be able to become British
852
citizens if they so wished without residing in the United Kingdom. Specific provision for that was made exceptionally in the British Nationality Act 1981.
A number of references have been made to the Falkland Islands. Immediately after the Falklands war—I agree respectfully with what the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, said—a Private Member's Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. It became the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act of 1983. It conferred British citizenship automatically on 400 islanders out of a population of about 2,000 who were not already British citizens. Most had had sufficiently close links with the United Kingdom to qualify for British citizenship by descent when the Act of 1981 came into force on 1st January 1983. The government of the day provided help with the drafting of that Private Member's Bill, but they made clear also at the same time that they did not wish to see that Bill used as a precedent.
The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, asked whether reciprocity was a significant feature in the St. Helena connection. Nothing has been said by St. Helena on the question and I do not believe, given the notice that I have had of that question—which is limited of course—that that has been a topic of discussion between Her Majesty's Government and St. Helena. I shall revert to that a little more fully when I deal with the Government's review.
Because the British dependent territories' citizenship is of a unitary nature any proposals to change the situation in St. Helena must take into account possible consequences elsewhere. We cannot simply look at British nationality law purely in terms of the effect on St. Helena. There are about 150,000 British dependent territories' citizens living in our remaining territories. We have received representations from other territories as well as from St. Helena. There are 3.4 million British nationals overseas in Hong Kong, and many thousands of other British nationals across the world who do not have right of abode in the United Kingdom. Therefore, whatever the ultimate conclusion may be, the overall situation must be the subject of scrutiny by a responsible government, as also must be the possible implications arising in those areas.
There is a further question with which the noble Earl dealt; namely, the social and economic problems in St. Helena. I entirely understand the validity of the description which he put forward. One of the questions is whether the noble Earl's Bill will prove to be a solution to the problems of the islanders. That aspect also needs to be carefully considered. Some people doubt that there would be a great rush of the inhabitants of St. Helena to this country. It may be that the possibility of access to Britain would be a release valve; indeed, it might lessen the feeling of frustration among the young. There may well be financial benefits both ways. Others take the view that, if the Bill became law, it might encourage the gradual depopulation of St. Helena.
People have suggested, with a good deal of force, that it may well be preferable to concentrate on other ways of trying to improve the situation in St. Helena.

853
For example, as the noble Earl and other speakers pointed out, there could be more employment opportunities in the United Kingdom for St. Helenians who wish to come here temporarily for that purpose. We are currently looking at ways of improving opportunities on Ascension Island and on the Falkland Islands. At the same time—and I take the noble Earl's point—we are considering the question of access to training and employment in the UK and how that might be made easier for those who wish to come here for those purposes. There are 25 trainees at present in the UK under a training and work experience scheme. Because he mentioned the matter specifically, I am happy to be able to tell the noble Earl that we are trying to increase the number coming here under the scheme for between one and four years. We hope to ensure that the skills gained by trainees who come to the UK are relevant to the present and future needs of St. Helena.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made reference to the review. I respectfully agree with him in his view that it is something of great importance. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has announced that there will be a review of all dependent territories. That will be wide-ranging and will consider the nationality situation applying to dependent territories. In our view, it would not be sensible to pre-empt the outcome of that review in any way. The review ought to be in a position to allow the Foreign Secretary to announce its conclusions by February of next year. So it is not a case with which we are all wearily familiar of booting the ball into the long grass; indeed, it is intended to be a focused, short-term review. Therefore, while the Government reiterate the sympathy which we have for the difficult conditions under which the islanders labour, our intention is to reserve our position on the Bill until the review has reached its conclusions. We have an open mind and are eager to see what the review produces.
We are aware that the citizenship issue is one which the islanders consider lies at the heart of the relationship between the island and Britain. There is the history of more than 300 years which is a source of real pride, especially in St. Helena, but also I hope in the UK for those who consider such matters. We recognise that there are social and political tensions and, therefore, social and political grievances. We are alert to them and will do what we can to address them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that times change and that we need to review changing circumstances. I entirely agree. That is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary thought some time back that it was the right time to take stock of the present situation at this time in our history. That is why he commissioned the review. I cannot leave the topic without reference to the remarks made by my lunchtime companion and sparring friend, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He spoke about the first spin-doctors having sprung into existence in St. Helena. Oh, no! The noble Lord never gets his historical references wrong; but is there not a statue immediately outside your Lordships'
854
House to that great man the Lord Protector who in historical terms has not done too badly from spin-doctors?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he please answer a question about the review? Is he saying that when the review is completed all of the 160,000 people who are now inhabitants of the dependent territories will be looking at the possibility of getting proper British citizenship? I believe that 160,000 is a very small number and the idea that all of them would suddenly arrive in Dover at one moment seems to be silly. Is the Minister saying that the Government will look at the possibility of all members of our dependent territories becoming proper British subjects? If that is the case, it seems to me to be a very good thing. However, if that is not the case, I believe that we should support my noble friend's Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am saying that there will be a review of every aspect which relates to the 150,000 people in the dependent territories. Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. The whole point of a review is to approach all such questions with an open mind to see whether changing circumstances require changes in our legislation relating to right of entry and right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Most importantly—and I hope your Lordships will agree; indeed, this refers back to what the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, has said—we shall listen with great care to every representation put before us. However, I am not sensibly able to indicate any conclusion which may or may not be reached by the review body.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the Minister say whether his reference to a possible Statement in February amounts to a definite assurance that there will be a government Statement in February covering the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my right honourable friend has already announced that the review is in hand and he hopes, I believe with every confidence, to be able to make such a statement at the conclusion of the review, which should not go beyond February. I hope that that response is of assistance to the noble Lord.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank all speakers for their kind words of support. We have indeed heard some most convincing arguments for St. Helena citizenship; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, accepted that the island was a special case. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in that I believe the ideal situation would be to review the status of dependent territories citizens as a whole, although there is obviously a most pressing need for St. Helena in that respect.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her kind words of support. I should like to make one point of caution here. The figures for budgetary aid are indeed

855
high for the island. However, we must calculate how much of that budgetary aid actually stays on the island and how much returns to Britain in one way or another.
I should like ultimately to thank the Minister for outlining the Government's position. I believe that it is right for me to proceed with the Bill at this stage. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Justice
5.39 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the Statement by the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons on 30th July, what are their proposals for the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 30th July of this year on the day before we commenced our Summer Recess an important Statement was made by the Home Secretary in another place. It was not read in this House despite the crucial role this House played in the previous government's final penal statute which is now the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Therefore I believed, in tabling this Question, that we should have a short opportunity, as soon as possible after the Recess, to consider this vital part of the new Government's policies.
Law and order affect every citizen in the land. This debate also gives us the good fortune to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. I for one much look forward to that speech. I should make it plain that the decision that the Home Secretary's Statement was not read in this House did not rest with the Minister, nor with the government. For honourable reasons the leaders of my party decided that the other business of the House on that day—which was an important devolution debate—should take precedence and should not be interrupted by the reading of the Statement of the Home Secretary.
In opening this debate I do not wish to look backwards to the debates on mandatory sentencing and other issues that your Lordships discussed in the previous Session of Parliament. On the contrary, I wish to look forward to the development of the Government's policies on our penal system. But before I go forward I must make two points. I believe that the issues, and not simply the debates that were held on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, fell too heavily in the realm of party political point scoring. Further, some of the issues, particularly relating to mandatory sentencing, badly damaged, in my belief, the most important separation of power between Parliament and the judiciary. I elaborate briefly. Every responsible political party, and indeed every responsible citizen, wants a society freed of crime, and to have an effective penal system. Views may differ upon penal policies but political parties do not, or should not, cause crime.
Further, I believe that it was highly damaging for most senior judges—including the former, much missed Lord Chief Justice and the present Lord Chief Justice and other senior members of the judiciary—to have to come to this House to state that what Parliament was asking the judiciary to do was wrong. I hope that that will now change as a matter of intent on the part of all political parties. I wish to quote from the lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who most regrettably cannot be present today. He has written to me to express his apologies for his absence. Your Lordships will remember that he played a significant part in our debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill. In the James Kingham memorial lecture at Hertfordshire University the noble Lord said,
"The sentencing policy which the courts are required to impose and which Parliament lays down should as far as possible be separated from the party political debate. It should be a policy which commands support across the political spectrum and which has the approval of the judiciary whose duty it is to enforce it".
I believe that my party has every reason to be proud of its penal policy. Senior members of my party, both in and out of office, have been active in penal reforms. We have had some fine reforming Home Secretaries, including one former Home Secretary who is joining in this debate, my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. From my party we have had no fewer than three chairmen of the Parole Board. Members of my party head charities which are directly related to penal matters. I refer to the recent acceptance of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, to become president of the Prison Reform Trust and to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the Divert Trust. I remind your Lordships that the final act of the previous Home Secretary was to present to Parliament a White Paper entitled Preventing Children Offending, which had been prepared by the juvenile offenders unit of the Home Office. I am sure that the Minister has read that paper and I am sure that he has appreciated the wisdom of the advice which that paper contains.
Before I focus upon the Home Secretary's Statement I direct attention towards the Government's policy on sentences of imprisonment. During the debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill we heard expressions of frustration and indeed anger as regards persistent offenders. It is quite understandable that there should be frustration and anger towards persistent offenders in communities which are beset by crime. However, we must ask what imprisonment does. In attempting to answer that question I refer to the previous government's White Paper of February 1990 which states at Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1,
"A custodial sentence places the severest restrictions on liberty. A custodial sentence removes an offender from his home, determines where he will live during the sentence and decides how and where he will spend every hour of each day. Imprisonment of any kind is likely to diminish the offender's sense of responsibility and self-reliance. Prisoners are fed, clothed and housed with no effort to themselves. They do not have to find a job and they do not have to look after their families. They arc admitted to a culture of dependence at considerable cost".
In looking at the penal policy which this Government seek to establish and their intention to bring into force at least two of the mandatory sentence provisions of the

857
Crime (Sentences) Bill, I ask them to focus their attention upon those wise words of the previous government in the White Paper of 1990.
The Home Secretary in his Statement to the House raised a number of issues which I hope will have much support and will gain a consensus among all political parties. He referred to the removal of delays in the criminal justice system. He spoke of better bail arrangements. He spoke, too, of dealing with juvenile offenders. His Statement contains some interesting suggestions; for example, the taking away of passports of those who are undergoing community punishments. He spoke, too, of reviewing the effectiveness of fines. There is much in that Statement which I believe commends support, as I hope it will—and, as I would like to say, I am sure it will—from all sides of this House, from all political parties and indeed from all citizens who rightly care about law and order.
I should be grateful for a reply from the Minister to a few specific questions. The House will be anxious to know about the Government's proposals concerning parole and the future of the Parole Board. In debates there was a difference of opinion between the Government of the day and the Opposition on the usefulness of parole. Noble Lords will remember the speeches by the present chairman of the Parole Board, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on issues relating to parole.
Perhaps the Minister can help in relation to a further item, which may be described as honesty in sentencing. Difficulties have occurred in relation to the communication of sentencing as a result of the application of other provisions which permit the prisoner earlier release than the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced. The Crime (Sentences) Act contains a somewhat complicated provision. I understand that the Home Secretary is re-examining that provision and seeking to provide a different way of communicating the sentence, not only to an offender but to the public—and among the public the victim of the particular crime.
I now turn to a smaller point, but nonetheless an important one, relating to Section 39 of the Act, which carries the driving qualification punishment. I was certainly one of those who argued that it was unnecessary to include that provision in the Bill as it then was. There is already adequate provision for the taking away of a driving licence when a motor car has been used in some way or other in connection with the commission of a crime. I argued in Committee, but was unable to persuade my party to take a different position, that to have an omnibus right in court to take away a driving licence when the driving of a motor vehicle had no connection whatever with the commission of the crime was not a sentence that should be available. On the bottom line, the sentence should fit the crime.
Those are the specific issues that I draw to your Lordships' attention. However, the most important reason for introducing this debate, other than bringing to the fore the important statement by the Home Secretary, is to achieve a new era in penal policy—that is, a proper consensus between political parties.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I trust that the House will accept my expression of gratitude for the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. It provides me with the opportunity to address the House for the first time. I hope that my speech will not be, or seem to be, too long and that it will not unduly trespass upon the convention of the avoidance of undue partiality.
I wish to express my support for the measures announced by the Home Secretary on 31st July. They represent a firm response to the serious growth in crime over the past 20 years—an increase greater than at any time during the whole period since records began, possibly greater than at any time since the Dark Ages. A firm response was needed. Indeed, the reality may be greater than records show. Very large numbers of offences committed now are not reported to the police, whereas 20 years ago there would have been no hesitation about such reference.
The scale of the increase in crime can be judged by reference to almost any local newspaper. The national press reports the more brutal murders and assaults and the bigger robberies. It has been apparent over the past few years that an enormous proportion of the space available for news in local papers has been devoted to reporting the daily dripping of deceits, dishonesties and deplorable behaviour.
There is fear in our communities—fear of crime, fear of violence, fear of giving evidence against criminals. There is fear inhibiting movement and freedom in our society—and there is such a thing as society, although it was fashionable to decry the concept not so long ago.
But there is absurdity, too. For example, police morale has fallen badly. That is not surprising since police officers are now almost three times more likely to suffer violence on duty than they ever were. At the same time, the penalty for such assaults sometimes seems astonishingly slight. I give the House one example, which I raised in the previous Parliament.
A local criminal was released, unlicensed, from prison. The police immediately had grounds to suspect that further offences were being committed, and four officers went to the scene of one crime. All four were assaulted. The man was promptly given bail, even though he had on previous occasions never surrendered to bail—and he did not do so this time. A few months later he was caught burgling a house in the South-East. He was taken back to Yorkshire and put on probation. Those police officers believed, as did the Member of Parliament at the time, that the man should have been returned to prison before his feet touched the ground.
There is another anxiety, concerning another case that has caused me distress over quite a long time and continues to do so. It relates to solvent abuse. A man in my community has, for the past few years, caused a great deal of trouble and anxiety. There is concern about the man as well as the problems he causes. He has disturbed schools, troubled the community in all kinds of ways and caused shopkeepers to feel menaced. He must have been in court some 80 times. One senior police officer said to me that that was an extremely

859
conservative estimate. He has never once been given a sentence relevant to the case, which would have given him the chance to break his addiction. He did not receive such a sentence when he assaulted our community police constable—when we did see the law operating swiftly. Indeed, he was before the court and served his sentence before the community constable's facial wound had healed. That is an absurd situation.
I was so concerned about that situation that I visited the local office of the Crown Prosecution Service to protest and suggest that it should prefer proper and relevant charges. I left that meeting in despair because the Crown Prosecution Service was facing enormous pressure to cut expenditure at a time when crime was soaring and the proceeds of crime were increasing rapidly.
I do not claim any great expertise in these matters. However, before I entered the House of Commons in 1970 I was a senior schoolmaster in South Yorkshire. In those days when the boys I taught left school they started work. Indeed, at that time the National Coal Board was short of workers. The work ethic still applied and was deeply rooted in our society, but that is not the case now. The situation has changed.
When I entered the House in 1970 I occasionally drove home after the 10 o'clock vote on a Thursday so that I could be in my constituency on a Friday morning. When I left the motorway on the way home I would occasionally see a police car, and very little else. If I were to drive home tonight at the same time I should almost certainly see young people wandering the streets at 2 o'clock in the morning. To the unemployed youth 2 o'clock in the morning is not very different to 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
The Home Secretary is right to recognise that there should be a greater degree of responsibility in our society. There should be greater responsibility on the part of parents. It is absurd for us automatically to assume that children of 11 or 12, or 9 or 10, do not know the difference between right and wrong. They do. We should make sure that parents exercise responsibility. It would be an enormous help to our schools. It would help to raise standards in education. That is certainly necessary.
Macro-economic decisions are essential but we must also ensure that when they are considered the social consequences are not overlooked. For that reason I hope that in addition to the implementation of the policies which the Home Secretary announced in July we shall see some preventive measures by improving the meagre provision for public youth services. I hope we shall seek to develop more esteem and encouragement for the voluntary organisations for children and young people, because they are important.
I am gratified by the steps taken and the approach adopted by the Home Secretary. The one thing of which we can be proud is that it is not merely a question of promises because a large part of his proposals are already being implemented—17 are moving forward. If those bring success perhaps we may see a return to civilised conduct in many of our communities which have lacked it for a long time.
860
It is a fact that the attendance in our churches is still higher than the number of people in prison, but in many of our communities the difference is narrowing. That narrowing should end. If the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Government can help to stop the narrowing by ensuring a greater sense of responsibility in our communities Britain will have cause for deep gratitude to them.
6 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure as well as a privilege to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, on his maiden speech. Seeing him makes me feel quite young again. My mind goes back 23 years to the time when we overlapped in another place, I was about to leave and he had just come there. Another point that makes me feel young again is to be speaking for the first time for a good many years from this side of the Chamber. I am inclined to try to face the other way.
I congratulate the noble Lord on his speech and its content. I was glad to hear what he said towards the end of it about the importance of voluntary associations. Inevitably, when we talk about crime, law and order, we talk a great deal about imprisonment and punishment. We need to, but we must never forget the importance of constructive work in the field. For some years I had the privilege of being president of the Rainer Foundation and I know some of the work they were doing. Here I criticise past governments of all parties, but I hope not to have to do so so much in the future. We should have taken note of the successes which some of the voluntary bodies achieved in reducing rates of recidivism and avoiding young people going into custody in the first place, gaining local successes. If we had made it a major target to spread the experience gained in those examples on a nationwide scale, I believe that we would have a much happier situation on criminality in this country than we have at the moment. I shall return to that in my closing remarks. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord often and that we shall continue to be in reasonable agreement with each other.
We owe this debate to my noble friend Lord Hacking, and I thank him for raising it. I very much share his hope that we can find our way back on this and other subjects to seeking a consensus on matters of national importance. When I first became a Member of Parliament in 1950, it was not uncommon that there should be great argument and differences but there were always subjects and areas where both sides in the other place sought a consensus when it was possible. I do not wish to apportion any blame, but I feel as an observer over recent years that our politics have become far too adversarial, far more so than necessary to air the proper differences of approach which men and women have towards the problems of our society and economy. So I share what my noble friend Lord Hacking said about seeking more common understanding in the field.
The short debate today is hung on the Statement made by the Home Secretary in another place at the end of July. I liked some of it, I did not like all of it. But one point that struck me was how similar it was in many ways to what had been said and put into operation by

861
the previous Home Secretary. In a rather peculiar and uncontroversial way, no doubt, the two sides of the House have come closer together on many aspects of penal policy.
I suppose I am and always have been labelled a progressive. I do not complain about it, I am proud of the reputation, if it is one that I possess. But I believe and always have believed in the need for punishment. I feel that some progressives and progressive campaigners have sometimes, perhaps unintentionally and not according to their wishes, created the opinion among the public that do-gooding means being soft on criminals who do great harm to their fellow citizens. I agree with the implications of some noble Lords' remarks about the need for punishment and for the punishment to be seen and felt. I shall come back to that later on.
In the Statement on which we hung our debate, I welcome the efforts being made to speed up the process. There is no doubt that it must be accelerated in the interests both of justice and of safety for the public. I hope that that will go forward in continuation of something started by the previous Government.
I also welcome another announcement in the Statement that the judges in the Court of Appeal should give explanations about the levels of sentence for all major crimes. That too has been a growing practice and I am glad to see it further emphasised. There is no doubt that some of the problems with public opinion is a lack of understanding of what sentences really mean, what their purpose is and how they are carried out. We receive false impressions because sentences are not what they seem to be. So that is a good move.
I welcome the proposal that the courts should explain the sentences and make clear how much of the sentence is to be served in prison and for how long after custody an ex-prisoner should be under supervision and liable to recall. That is one of the most urgent needs. We see it in certain obvious areas like paedophilia, where it is absolutely wrong for prisoners to walk out of gaol and not be subject to supervision and recall. We are advancing along the right lines there.
On the other hand, reviving old controversies, I have to say that I still dislike as much as I ever did the idea of fixed minimum sentences. I believe that they are wrong in principle and will not work in practice. They will not promote good justice and they ought to be deplored. I wish they had never been introduced and I hope one day to see them removed. I am sorry that on this there is a similarity between the views of the last government and the present Government. I must not forecast what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will say, but perhaps he will deal with that subject as well.
So here we are, with another criminal justice Bill ahead of us. I hope that we can make good sense of it and do so in as constructive a way as possible on all sides of the House.
In more general terms, I still feel a great sense of disappointment that governments—and I use the word in the plural—are still not producing a strategy with
862
which to attack what I previously called in your Lordships' House the disease of criminality which afflicts our society. That does need a careful, well thought-out strategy and, although the criminal justice system has to be a very important part of that strategy, it is not enough on its own.
Here, the progressive label which I perhaps wear comes to the fore. We still think too much in terms of punishment and particularly in terms of punishment by imprisonment. Prison must be there, prison is a vital method of punishment. But what do we expect from treatment? We expect punishment, we expect reform and we expect deterrence. I have learnt from experience and by reading and talking to people, and I repeat what I have said several times in your Lordships' House, that imprisonment is the most expensive and the least effective way of achieving either reform or deterrence. I do not believe that longer sentences produce greater deterrence or greater reform.
Reform is clearly not easily achieved by imprisonment. If it were, we should have much more respectable recidivism rates. The number of people, young or old, who leave custody and go back to crime, is appallingly high, so we simply cannot look to custody as a means of turning people away from crime. What can we look towards in the way of prison as a deterrent? I think very little, for the simple reason that over 90 per cent. of all crimes remain undetected, or at least no one is ever accused of committing them or tried for doing so. If we are to deter people by punishment, or threat of punishment, we have to make them feel that at least 50 per cent. of them rather than 5 per cent. of them will be caught. This brings us back to the matter of the police and other expenditure.
Prison can produce reform, and sometimes does, but only if a substantial part of that imprisonment contains a large element of training and education for the future and proper preparation for a prisoner's release. That cannot be achieved in overcrowded prisons. Therefore, although it may seem a contradiction in terms and perverse in the public eye, I am sure that a major reduction in the population of our prisons is one of the first needs in tackling criminality in our society, and that cannot be done suddenly.
I am becoming more and more disturbed—and this was one of the main causes of my disagreement with the Home Secretary of the previous Government—by the fact that the more concerned we are with taking actions which lead to more people being imprisoned the further away we are from taking actions that will be needed to reduce the degree of criminality in our society. We must look at the resources. I go back to what I said earlier: prison is the most expensive and least effective way of achieving reform and deterrence. If we are to increase our rate of detection and arrest of criminals, we need to increase our resources. But there is a limit to resources.
Both sides of politics at the moment agree on the need for this uncomfortable but firm control of the total public expenditure. So if we are going to do new things we need to find more money. We have not only to

863
perform each service more efficiently but I believe we must look at major areas of expenditure and consider the transfer of expenditure from one to the other.
In the field of treating criminality, one of the most urgent needs is to transfer some of the huge and ever-growing expenditure on prisons to other forms of treating criminals and preventing crime. I believe that whatever party may be in power, that ought to be one of the most urgent needs to be addressed. It is not only progressive, it is a highly practical step in increasing the protection which the public demand. This will not be achieved if we continue to spend on imprisonment alone such a high proportion of the very large amount of money devoted to the whole subject of crime. I beg the Government to look hard in that direction.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to Lord Hardy to those already spoken with elegance by Lord Carr. It seems only a matter of minutes ago that we witnessed his introduction and here we are enjoying this added wisdom which I hope will continue repeatedly hereafter.
On 30th July the Home Secretary informed the other place:
"My overriding priority is to secure the safety of the public"[Official Report, Commons: 30/7/97, col. 341.]
That, of course, is the overriding priority of any sensible government. However, the deeply depressing and worrying fact is that the Government, by their policy and their actions in pursuit of that policy, so far from securing the safety of the public, are seriously prejudicing it.
In the next column (342) the Home Secretary uttered the following platitude:
"Prison is necessary for those whose crimes and behaviour require it".
He then went on to say:
"before the end of this year, I will implement Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 providing automatic life sentences for second time serious sexual and violent offenders".
The Home Secretary mistakenly believes that that will assist in securing the safety of the public. Let me explain how it will have the very opposite effect.
In a White Paper already referred to, issued by the previous government in 1990 and entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, whose proposals, principles and policies were embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the following statement is to be found:
"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. It could also result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result."
If "more acquittals by juries and more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result" could be a consequence of mandatory life sentences as proposed by this Government, then of course it follows as night follows day that such legislation would not add but would detract from securing the safety of the public. Is the statement in that White Paper valid'? I believe it is and for the following reasons.
864
First, there will be occasions when, if the jury are aware, as they could well be, that the defendant faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted, they will for that very reason not convict. Secondly, there will be refusals by defendants to enter, as they should and would have, pleas of guilty. That will add enormously to the congestion of trial lists. It will be a source of great distress to victims who will be required to give evidence, particularly in sexual cases, and there will, of course, be cases where because of the heavy onus of proof, the guilty person will unjustly go free.
Thirdly, it is not difficult to imagine cases where witnesses, particularly those in close relationship with the defendant and knowing the consequences of a conviction, will either refuse to give evidence or will prove unreliable. Fourthly, there is the danger, which was referred to by both judges and politicians in the course of the debates on this legislation, of the victim being killed by the offender in order to avoid the risk of detection and subsequent life imprisonment. Fifthly, in order to be sure of obtaining a conviction, there will be cases in which the prosecution will find itself obliged to accept an unrealistic plea bargain. That is well known to be the case in America. Thus, the discretion in sentencing will be largely transferred from the judiciary, where it should be, to the prosecution.
I readily concede that there is a tiny minority of dangerous criminals with a history of serious offending who may, under existing procedures, be released when they still represent an unacceptable risk to the public. But that very problem was considered over 20 years ago by a committee set up and presided over by Lord Butler, to deal with mentally abnormal offenders. It proposed that there should be a "reviewable sentence"—a new form of indeterminate sentence which would be subject to statutory review at regular two-year intervals, release being dependent on the issue of dangerousness. On release, the offender would be on licence, the duration of which would be unlimited, again subject to statutory review. Why has that proposal or something akin to it not been adopted? Comparable provisions exist in Canada and Australia.
When, on 9th July, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, informed the House that the Home Secretary would implement Section 2 of the Act, I put to him that the reviewable sentence had the following advantages over the Section 2 mandatory life sentence provisions: first, it is not limited to repeat offenders. Secondly, it is not restricted to the narrow range of offences in the section, all of which, as the law now stands can be punished by prison for life. Indeed, it would settle many of the problems relative to paedophiles. Thirdly, it requires medical evidence before it can be imposed. Fourthly, it does not run the risk of the criminal deciding to "do in" his victim, so as to avoid a life sentence. Fifthly and lastly, it does not carry the false label of imprisonment for life which, in 99 per cent. of the cases, is not intended to be effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was generous enough to accept that there was "certainly virtue" in some of the advantages which I detailed, but he failed to answer my question as to why the reviewable sentence proposal had not been followed up. As he was answering a Starred

865
Question, I did not have the opportunity of reminding him of what he said on 27th January—not many months ago—on Second Reading of the Bill with regard to that very sentence. The government then, and no doubt this Government today, say: "There is considerable discretion and injustice will not be done because the judge sets the tariff'—that is the period which the defendant has to serve by way, essentially, of punishment.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said:
"The sentencing regime for which we contend should, as many noble Lords have said, be open and transparent; but it is nonsensical to invite a High Court judge to say, 'I am sentencing you to life imprisonment. By the way, you can expect to serve 18 months'. That is a perversion of the system. It will bring the whole system into disrepute. If it brings it into disrepute on that basis, it will have brought it rightly into dispute on that basis".—[Official Report, 27/1/97: col. 1063.]
He was speaking as a Shadow Minister and, with the shadow removed, we shall, of course, hear a different story.
But the mandatory life sentence has a very serious knock-on effect. Taken together with the minimum sentence provisions, it reinforces the current harshness of the present approach to sentencing and results, as we have seen, in sharp and unexpected rises in the prison population. Mr. Richard Tilt, the director-general of prison services, in a "Panorama" interview in January 1997, said:
"The numbers [of prisoners] have been increasing dramatically. During 1996 they had gone up by about five or six thousand during the course of the year. We have never seen anything like that before and indeed at some parts of the year we have been going up at about a thousand a month…and what we have to do unfortunately to make sure that we accommodate everyone is to move very large numbers of prisoners around the country and take up available vacancies as they occur…there will be hundreds moving on some days each week. It has a very damaging effect because you are taking away staff who should be supervising the normal activity of the prison and sending them up and down the country escorting prisoners".
At the same time as the prison population has been sharply rising, the Prison Service has been required to make substantial budget cuts. A combination of a rapidly rising prison population and budget cuts is damaging prison regimes and seriously reducing education and other constructive activities which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, so wisely emphasised as being one of the bases upon which one could hope for reformation.
In the conclusions of the very recent report, The Prison System—Some Current Trends, produced by the Penal Affairs Consortium, it is stated:
"there is a risk that the combination of increased over-crowding, lower staffing ratios, a lower proportion of experienced staff, more restricted regimes and more time spent in cells, will increase tension in prisons and threaten control. The reduction of education courses, other constructive activities and probation departments will reduce prisoners' ability to rehabilitate offenders and increase the risk of offending on release".
With the greatest respect, I believe that the current policy on crime and punishment is in a mess. That is why I tabled a Motion to call attention to the case for the resuscitation of the Advisory Council on the Penal
866
System, so that a penal policy which will ensure public confidence in the administration of criminal justice may be recommended. I have twice urged such a proposal on this Parliament. That urging has had the support on two occasions, in two lectures, of the Lord Chief Justice. His last comment was made when giving the annual lecture of the Prison Reform Trust in June this year. He said this:
"No one can be confident that we have all the answers, or even most of them, to the important and intractable problems which exist in this area of our national life. The beginning of a new Parliament is the ideal moment for such an initiative, [Royal Commission] which need not lead to inactivity pending its conclusions. Alternatively…the Advisory Council on the Penal System, set up in 1966 and later disbanded, might be revived. If such a Royal Commission or a revived Advisory Council were able, with the benefit of intensive world-wide research and consultation, to reach authoritative conclusions which commanded the respect of public and professional opinion, and if those conclusions were given legislative effect, this Parliament would earn an assured place in the history of this country".
We must seek to try to get the Home Secretary off the unpleasant and uncomfortable hook on which he impaled himself, perhaps in order to obtain some electoral advantage. We must get him to realise the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Can, which I have heard expressed in a similar way in these terms; that is, that prison is a most expensive way of making bad people worse.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, on his maiden speech. I do so with some diffidence because it is not quite a year since I made my own. Perhaps more than others, I can still remember what an ordeal it can be, though an ordeal tempered by the friendship in your Lordships' House.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for giving us the opportunity to consider this matter. It may be remembered that my noble friend and I expressed differing views on occasions in the past during the consideration of the Crime (Sentences) Act. But I believe that our objectives have always been the same—to secure the safety of the public and reduce offending without causing undue interference in people's private lives.
As my noble friend pointed out, it is all too easy in political debates on the criminal justice system to engage in a slanging match over who is tougher on crime. I do not propose to do that. Crime is a real and all-pervasive problem for any society, and society has the right to expect that we, as responsible politicians, take a level-headed and practical approach to the resolution of that problem.
When the Home Secretary delivered his Statement in another place on 30th July he ranged over a wide number of issues. I shall refer briefly to just four of them: delay, technology, sentencing and youth crime. To attempt to do more than that would only be appropriate if we had a full-length debate.
One of the imperatives addressed by the Home Secretary was that of reducing delay in the legal system. He mentioned in particular that he would set new

867
statutory time limits for the preparation of both adult and young offender cases. He said that he wants to strengthen the ability of magistrates' courts to manage cases more effectively. Those are laudable objectives indeed. However, as a workaday magistrate I want to know how they will be achieved. I am not going to throw up obstacles tonight in an attempt to defeat government policy. If the Government wish to reduce the incidence of crime, good; so do I. But I question, as always, as I did when my own party was in power, how it is to be done. Will it be effective? How much will it cost in time, money and emotional stress to the victims? After all, there is always a tension created in trying to speed up the hearing of criminal cases without at the same time making the process so quick that it ceases to be fair.
It seems only right that cases should be disposed of as quickly as possible after the arrest of the accused. If innocent, that person should not be kept waiting; if guilty, quick punishment has more impact. For the victim and the witnesses waiting, that waiting can be agony. It can also kill the accuracy of memory for details which may be vital at the trial to secure a conviction of those who are indeed guilty.
But some forms of delay may be a vital part of obtaining the just result; in making sure that the evidence we obtain is as accurate as possible; that the witnesses can be present and that interpreters can be available where needed. In my own experience, magistrates want to prevent somebody pleading guilty simply to get the case out of the way. I am afraid that it happens more often than we would like that people try to plead guilty because they do not want to wait for a trial; even a short wait is too much. Sometimes, therefore, speedy guilty pleas may lead to a miscarriage of justice, though they look good in the crime statistics.
The Home Secretary will discover that those involved in the criminal justice system—at least most of them (I hold no special brief as a magistrate, but perhaps I should have declared an interest on that basis)—are already trying their best to reduce delay. I see the efforts made by magistrates and court clerks to manage the court list effectively. We are all familiar with formal appraisal of our performance. Indeed, next week I shall go through my own chairmanship appraisal.
Another topic covered by the Home Secretary was the use of technological advances in the fight against crime—advances which have been developed over the past few years. Can the Minister tell us today whether the Government have started the pilot project which the Home Secretary mentioned of tagging those on bail? What budget has been set for that and in which department is that budget located? What timescale has been set to run the pilot and at what level will the success rate be set?
Also, will the Government take advantage of the other main technological advances which have been made; for example, the use of CCTV? That has proved to be an excellent tool in both deterring and solving crime. Over the past three years £37 million was provided to pay for more than 6,000 closed circuit cameras across the country. Can the Minister say what further plans
868
the Government have to develop the use of CCTV? What financial contribution will they make to its development and use?
I turn to the third matter to which I referred; that is, sentencing. It has been discussed at length in today's debate. I welcome the Government's decision to implement the mandatory minimum sentencing contained within the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 for second time serious sexual and violent criminals and third time criminals convicted of drug trafficking. The Home Secretary said that he would consider implementing the three-year minimum sentence for third time domestic burglars in the light of resources and the Prison Service's capacity—conditions that we laid down when we were in government.
Can the Minister tell us today what steps the Government have taken so far to allocate the necessary resources to implement that provision and at what stage in the future it is likely to be implemented? After all, burglary is a serious crime, certainly for the victims. For them it is often a crime of violence—violence upon their right to live private untroubled lives in their own homes. It is true that some victims of burglary take the intrusion remarkably well, but they are in the minority. For most it is a shattering experience which can undermine their self-confidence and even cause them to move home.
Effective deterrents are the knowledge that one will be caught and, when caught, kept out of circulation for a while. The public perceives imprisonment as an effective and serious punishment. My noble friend Lord Can of Hadley referred to the limitation of the usefulness of imprisonment as a punishment. I hear what he says; indeed, I respect his experience in his ministerial life and shall reflect upon his remarks. I hope also that the Government will reflect upon them.
The Home Secretary also made commitments with regard to changes in the youth justice system. So far we have had rather a drip-feed of leaks about possible policy changes on this. Not all have been helpful. I say that not in a party political sense, but leaks to the press are not helpful to the criminal justice system. I have been approached by lawyers and probation officers who are puzzled by the Government's apparent eagerness, as reported in the press, to lock up 12 year-old youths on remand awaiting trial for offences for which, if found guilty, they cannot serve a period of custody.
Like others in your Lordships' House, I am looking forward to reading the youth justice proposals which we are promised will be issued soon. When one has sat as a magistrate in a youth court and looked into the dead, unresponsive eyes of young people—so very young people—who already seem to have given up on their families and society, one is determined to look for answers to the problem of youth crime. But they must be answers which work and are equitable.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for making this debate possible, short though it is. I look forward to future instalments on the same topic.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this has been a short debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord,

869
Lord Hacking, for introducing it. It has had the agreeable hallmarks of a civilised conversation rather than a party political partisan debate. On every occasion when I have stood at the Dispatch Box on these topics I have wanted to put that forward as the Government's approach.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on his maiden speech. I underline his observations, which were echoed by other noble Lords, about the importance of voluntary organisations. We both have a connection as trustees of the NSPCC. That organisation does enormously valuable social work, including work to do with the prevention of crime and the protection of children in the criminal justice system in particular.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is unable to be with us because a family problem arose almost as the debate started. I convey his apologies for his absence.
It is good to see two former Home Secretaries here, one who has spoken and one who has not. Everyone present has an enormous regard for the quality of the work which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, did as Home Secretary, when partisan advantage—which is always short term and largely illusory—was not the motive spring of Home Office policy. In particular, we welcome his acceptance of the presidency of the Prison Reform Trust.
The first duty of a government is to provide the opportunity for a calm life for their citizens. We have to be firm on crime and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said, we must have a strategic approach. That is what the Government hope to be working on. There is not a single area of social policy or legislation which is an island unto itself. Our strategic approach is developing because we have been in government now only since May. Let me outline some aspects of the strategic approach which the Home Secretary and the Government are following.
First, we must ensure that the courts have the powers they need to sentence offenders properly. That does not simply mean long prison sentences. It means a flexibility of legislative approach which offers the sentencing courts what they need. I pay tribute to the magistrates' courts, which carry out 97 per cent. of the criminal work in this country. But flexible sentences need to be available. So often courts are abused—very often on a sketchy understanding of the facts, the offence, the offender, the victim or the witnesses—because they do not have the opportunity to sentence in a way they think appropriate and, in a deeper way, consistent with their judicial oath, whether as magistrates or judges.
A number of your Lordships have made the point. which I wholeheartedly endorse, about parental responsibility. Parents do have responsibilities. When the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, spoke in moving terms about the dead eyes of young offenders, we are all familiar with that. They will be the long-term criminals of the foreseeable future—burdensome to the state, living and, ruined lives, without the opportunity
870
for what most people want—a calm, ordered life, with the prospect that their children will be better off in all ways than they were.
The youth crime problem is horrendously expensive. We cannot simply look at it in terms of criminal justice, the criminal justice system or penal policy. Education has a fundamental role to play. As Mr. Blunkett has said time and again—and rightly so—we are presently failing children in our schools. Since the Butler Education Act, 50 or more years have gone by and still too many children are leaving school at the age of 16 without the basic skills of numeracy and literacy and therefore they do not have the opportunity to develop self-regard and self-respect; and a person without self-regard and self-respect is well on the way to crime.
We have to look carefully at the public perception of imprisonment. There are appropriate alternatives to prison but they will never work unless they have public support and confidence. The public need to understand and be sure and certain that a non-custodial sentence is not the usual "I got off'—which we are all familiar with—but "You did not get off. You are obliged to make reparation to society, to the victim. You must do constructive work. You must be directed. It will not be the soft option". For a large number of people that would be a good deal more disagreeable than sitting in prison for a short-term prison sentence—idle, vacant days, coming and going, with no incentive, no training in skills, education or prospects for when the offender comes out. It will take a good deal of work to convince the public—who, after all, are the injured and the assaulted—that alternatives to prison can work fruitfully and productively.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said, it is important that we deal with the problem of young children. It is easy to deride the Home Secretary on the basis that he wants to stop young children running loose and wild late at night, but that is a blemish on any civilised society—that parents think so little of their children that they are free to roam and wander at that time of night. We make no apologies for the focus that we shall put in part in this grand developing strategy on the fact that parents must be encouraged—they can rarely be made—to fulfil and be helped to fulfil their parental responsibilities.
I return to education. It is strange that a child can leave school without any real education in parenting. As soon as one uses the word "parenting" one is accused of social work jargon. It is not. It is a perfectly sensible idea that being a parent involves responsibilities which need to be taught, which need to be inculcated—they do not come with a cup of tea that you drink at lunchtime. We have a strategy, and I make no apologies for the proposition that it is bound to be a developing one.
Your Lordships have put so many questions to me that I cannot conceivably answer them all in the brief time available. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a short time to cover such an enormous span of issues which concern us all.
The noble Baroness raised the question of CCTV. I entirely agree with her. It is a very useful tool. I had the great pleasure of going down to Carmarthen a few

871
weeks ago to see what an effective and cheap tool it is for controlling public disorder, which is mindless violence in public late at night—the vice of our time. It is useful in terms of preventing those activities and it is extremely useful as evidence in court. As long as it is properly managed—that is to say, those who are surveyed know that surveillance cameras are there—I detect quite strong public support for it. I am happy to be able to say that there will shortly be an announcement in another place about the Government's continuing plans for CCTV.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, asked me about driving disqualifications. We think it is a useful tool within the discretion of the sentencing court even where the offence itself is not related to the use of a motor car. It is the deprivation of liberty. It is a taking away of choice from a convicted defendant. But many other choices are taken away from him as well; for instance, if he goes to prison or he is fined on a substantial basis. It is not an automatic requirement but it is a useful tool that can be used in some cases. We are piloting the scheme which we think to be appropriate. We shall publish the reports of the pilots when they are to hand. If taking a man's driving licence away is a true alternative to sending him to prison, there is much to be said for it. The noble Lord also asked me about parole. The Government have no plans to change existing policy or the role of the Parole Board.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two matters in a more general way. We fully recognise the independence of the judiciary. We believe that sentencing guidelines will enhance judges' professionalism and will increase public support for the judiciary, which is a useful goal in itself. They will be building on the work over the years of the Judicial Studies Board, which I believe has been an extremely useful and economically funded tool for the improvement of judicial performance. I had the pleasure of going to Cheltenham recently to address the seminar which was chaired by Lord Justice Judge. The work that body does is remarkable; for instance, in racial awareness and increasing judges' knowledge of different communities.
I am happy to say that we regard good relationships with the judiciary as paramount. We have already begun much closer liaison. We listen with care to the senior judges. We value their contribution. I do not put this in a partisan way, but it was a source of great disquiet and concern that, by the end of the previous Government's term, the senior judges were not able to feel that their voice was listened to with the decent regard to which they were entitled. It took the notable contributions of, among others, the late Lord Chief Justice to try to remedy that. No one who heard his contribution could fail to have been affected by it.
We also need to bear in mind when we talk about the criminal justice system the part that the substantive law plays. Unless the courts are able to have a body of substantive law which is operable, their task is almost impossible. We pay high regard to the work of the Law Commission in clarifying areas of law and providing solutions to particular difficulties. There is much work to be done in our substantive law in clarifying and codifying criminal law. It is sometimes very difficult
872
indeed for the courts, juries and magistrates to come to sensible conclusions when so much of our law is out of date.
Specific questions were asked about the piloting of various schemes. Curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring will be expanded. We want to pilot the use of community service and tagging for fine defaulters. Noble Lords have constantly said that the appropriateness of a prison sentence for someone who has not paid a fine is distinctly questionable. We want to make use of effective community punishment. At the risk of being pompous, there is a moral component to punishment if we live in the society that we do. Society is entitled to require punishment because it is a reflection of the deeper values of the society we inhabit—not harsh punishment for the sake of it, not unfeeling or unthinking punishment simply for revenge, but as part of how society feels it should protect victims.
We recognise that there are two significant factors which infect our present society. The first, as all noble Lords who have spoken have indicated, is the problem of youth crime. The second is, hand in hand with that, the problem of drug related crime. We have to be firmer on drugs in the sense that offenders who commit drug related offences will have to be subject to mandatory drug testing. That may, again, in some circumstances be a true alternative to imprisonment, because imprisonment for someone seriously addicted to hard drugs in prisons where, notoriously, sometimes hard drugs are available, with no obligatory therapy and with no check as to whether drugs have been given up, is no recipe for dealing with this problem.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked about the Penal Advisory Council. We are certainly consulting regularly with the senior judiciary about the way ahead in terms of sentencing guidance, Court of Appeal guidelines and the general armoury of remedies that should be available. We are doing away with the repeat and inconsistent cautioning of youth offenders, which had almost become a cottage industry. People know how to play the game. If you caution, caution and caution again, the young offender is badly served, and what victims think I shudder to imagine.
One of the voluntary organisations of great worth—I have mentioned one already—is Victim Support. For too long we have not paid attention to the victims even on the simple short basis that a case where they are the complainant is their case. Adjournments given without warning and charges dropped with explanation or consultation: all of those things are literally—I use the word carefully—intolerable. That all forms part of the wider strategy to which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, referred.
Unless we get the confidence of the public, which means all sections of it, including the media and victims, we shall get nowhere. What the Home Secretary is trying to do and what he will do in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will be, we hope, commencing its legislative path by the end of the year, is quite a significant journey—to change the way that we deal with youth justice. The question is put: why should young offenders of 12 be locked up even if the ultimate

873
sentence would not be incarceration? I turn the question around. What do you say to the elderly widow who lives in a street where all her elderly companions have their houses vandalised, their properties burgled and their possessions, scanty enough often, stolen when the child of 12 does it again, again and again, because there is no way of securely making sure that the child will not continue to do it time and again?
A child of 12 is a child, but some children of that age are deeply sophisticated in the ways of crime. It is a sad commentary, but it is true. If the Home Secretary's view is, as it is, that we must stop that, he must, and we shall, take the brickbats for appearing too severe. We are not.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I certainly was not in any way trying to criticise the Home Secretary for taking a stern attitude towards youth crime. The point raised with me by lawyers and probation officers was, strictly speaking, confined to those cases where young people had been arrested for offences which of themselves could not carry a custodial sentence. They were concerned that, pending trial, a person would be held in custody and that it would appear contradictory that, after trial, that person could not receive that kind of punishment. I do not put forward
874
that example in any way as something that I approve or disapprove of; merely that it appears to be something of a contradiction at the moment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely accept that the noble Baroness is not being critical, and neither was I being critical of her observation. It is a perfectly legitimate question properly raised. I believe that my answer was a proper one to give. Sometimes there are circumstances when apparently draconian consequences are justified in the reasonable and legitimate public interest and are actually of benefit to young children who are otherwise drifting very fast indeed into drug-induced, drug-related crime and who will be prison fodder in years to come.
I have overrun my time by four minutes, for which I respectfully beg your Lordships' pardon. I shall review Hansard carefully in the morning. There will be specific matters which I readily recognise I have not dealt with because the questions came on me thick and fast and 19 minutes was simply not enough. I repeat again my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for raising this matter. It is one that we shall return to time and time again in the currency of this Parliament. I reiterate that the subject is too important for political knockabout.
House adjourned at one minute past seven o'clock.

  Family Planning Agencies: Funding Criteria
  Family Planning Agencies: Funding Criteria
  Mental Incapacity: Law Commission Report
  Mental Incapacity: Law Commission Report
  Scotland: Right of Appeal to House of Lords
  Scotland: Right of Appeal to House of Lords
  Human Rights Legislation
  Human Rights Legislation
  Highpoint Prison
  Highpoint Prison
  Belmarsh Prison
  Belmarsh Prison
  Prisoners: Closed Visits
  Prisoners: Closed Visits
  Prison Officers: Inquest Verdicts
  Prison Officers: Inquest Verdicts
  Special Secure Units: Prisoners
  Special Secure Units: Prisoners
  Prisoners' Deaths: Independent Investigation
  Prisoners' Deaths: Independent Investigation
  Campsfield House
  Campsfield House
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications
  Single Vehicle Approval
  Single Vehicle Approval
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes