My Lords, before the commencement of business I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation to attend a luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister in honour of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia on Wednesday, 23rd March. Accordingly I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Wednesday, 23rd March.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government provide assistance to coal mining areas affected by pit closures through a variety of measures, including the enterprise initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry, the retraining and other programmes of the Manpower Services Commission, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, and the urban programme. There is also British Coal Enterprise Ltd. which has the specific aim of helping to create jobs and job opportunities in coal mining areas.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is failing to provide alternative employment to the extent that, in the coalfields, the operation is regarded with the utmost cynicism and many consider it to be a confidence trick? The Government and BCE are constantly telling us about their huge success in providing alternative jobs. Therefore why are they refusing to provide the number of jobs which have been lost in the coalfields?

My Lords, my information is quite different from that of the noble Lord. There is no evidence to show that the activities of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. have been other than totally honest and sincere in assisting job creation.

My Lords, is it not a fact that, in addition to the number of jobs created, it is extremely important that the right kind of jobs should be created? Is the Minister aware that in the past some of the jobs which have been provided are more suitable for the wives of miners than for the miners themselves? Can he say whether that fact is taken on board by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. because we need jobs in the manufacturing industries in those areas?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is right in that respect and I shall draw her remarks to the attention of the chairman of British Coal.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the northern region, where we have had and continue to have pit closures, in February of last year our regional unemployment rate was 16½ per cent.; while in February this year it was 13½ per cent. and is still falling? Will he continue to encourage those policies which have brought a large number of new much needed industries to the northern region?

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks and I shall pass them on to my right honourable friend.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decline in the number of people employed in the coal industry has been a major problem for successive governments? Is he aware that when I was Secretary of State for Wales the number of people employed in the South Wales coalfields was approximately 50,000, while today it is fewer than 10,000, which demonstrates the size of the problem? Can the noble Viscount indicate how many people have been employed in new industries in the South Wales coalfield area?

My Lords, I do not have the figures in front of me. However, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has already done much to help to create alternative employment opportunities in the coalfield areas, and that shows that the Government are right to respond to the special needs of the coalfields by the formation of this company.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1985 68 pits have closed; that 82,000 men have been declared redundant in Wales, Scotland and Northern England; and that although British Enterprise Ltd. is creating some jobs, it is only scratching the surface? What do Her Majesty's Government and the Department of Trade and Industry intend to do in order to alleviate the mass unemployment in the North of between 17 per cent. and 20 per cent'? I refer especially to the glamorous new department—the Department for Enterprise.

My Lords, the new DTI national schemes of support are available throughout the coalfields. A number of coalfields are located in assisted areas where the DTI's regional financial support schemes operate.

My Lords, has the noble Viscount noted the remarks made by his right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine over redevelopment in the South-East? He has changed his mind since he was Secretary of State. Would it not meet Mr. Heseltine's point if some of the overdevelopment which has taken place in the South-East instead took place in the coalfields?

My Lords, that is a very interesting point but it is rather outside the original Question. I did not know that there had been many pit closures in the South-East.

My Lords, in commenting on the reply given by the Minister I should like to point out that I did not suggest that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is dishonest. Does the Minister not agree that, in the light of £30 million plus having been provided to British Coal Enterprise Ltd., it should not be afraid to reveal the statistics? Does that not show some guilt that it is not providing the jobs in the coalfield areas, as my noble friend says?

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that commercial confidentiality precludes British Coal Enterprise from disclosing publicly details of individual loans.

My Lords, does not the Minister know that two out of three pits are being closed in the South-East of England?

My Lords, I am grateful for that information.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, English Estates' development programme in the assisted areas as a whole has already been substantially increased from £33·5 million in 1986–87 to £47 million in 1987–88. For 1988–89 it has been authorised to spend up to £49 million if it can produce the necessary resources from asset sales. However, the long-term solution to meeting the demand for factory space in the assisted areas is to get the private sector back into a properly functioning property market. English Estates has been asked to consider urgently how it can further this objective.

My Lords, would it not be very unfortunate, when unemployment in the northern regions still stands at 13 per cent., 15 per cent. or more, and when there is an unsatisfied demand for factories in the region, that the Government should do anything to cut the finance available for factory building to this authority, which has always been the chosen henchman for this purpose?

My Lords, I was not aware that an increase from £33.5 million to £47 million represents a cut.

My Lords, does my noble friend remember that unemployment in the Isle of Wight is comparable to that in all those areas which have been mentioned, all of which receive some sort of support while the Isle of Wight receives none? Would he care to comment on that matter?

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, who succeeds in ensuring that I never forget the Isle of Wight.

My Lords, is the Minister prepared to explain the underlying principles of this policy? Will he explain why it is apparently a good policy to build some new factories but a bad policy to build more?

Yes, my Lords. I am very glad to be able to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that there is something called the private sector. In the past 18 months we have seen such a resurgence of demand in the North-East and the North-West and the northern region itself that quite frankly it is impossible for the Government to build all the new factories; nor indeed is it desirable that they should do so. We have seen an expansion of 50 per cent. in the programme itself but an expansion greater than that in actual demand for factories.

It is indeed a product of the way in which English Estates works and its purpose, which is to build factories where the private sector would not normally go, that in doing so it crowds out the private sector because it can do that at rates with which the private sector cannot compete. Therefore, it is part of our policy to retreat gradually from those areas where the private sector would go and to concentrate on those areas where it would not go.

My Lords, was the noble Lord's original Answer entirely accurate? Is it not a fact that English Estates has been told to stop building advance factories except the very smallest ones in the North-East of England in order that private enterprise can build those factories? Is this not inhibiting inward investment to the area?

No, my Lords. English Estates is being asked not to consider building factories in the future where the private sector will do so. However, I draw to the attention of the noble Lord a letter in the Financial Times earlier this month in which a reputable firm of agents states that it has vacant over 50 units in excess of 10,000 square feet—some 1·5 million square feet of space—already available to be let, and perhaps that should be used first.

My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm press reports that a number of companies have not been able to establish themselves in the North-East due to lack of factory space, and that is the complaint? Since we are all so concerned about the persistent level of unemployment in that region, will the Government again consider further expanding its English Estates programme because it is the one single measure that could have an immediate and beneficial effect on the situation?

My Lords, we are looking for ways in which the supply of new factories in the North-East and the North-West can meet the demand. It seems to be unsatisfactory that we should continue to do this only at the expense of the taxpayer when there is a very good and viable private sector in the rest of the country which provides factories. Surely the objective of regional policy should be to turn the regions into replicas of the rest of the country.

My Lords, surely we need both the private and the public sector here. Can we assume that from now on the Government will provide English Industrial Estates with financial resources equal to those provided in the past five years?

Yes, my Lords. The resources we are providing will increase from £33·5 million in 1986–87 to £49 million in 1988–89.

My Lords, will the noble Lord give a straight answer about the position in the North-East of England? Is English Industrial Estates currently building any advance factories in the North-East of England, and if so, where are they?

My Lords, to my knowledge it is. I will happily write to the noble Lord with the details and put a copy in the Library.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I regret that I have been unable to identify the contract to which the noble Lord refers.

My Lords, that is a most astonishing Answer. Is the noble Lord not aware that this contract was made in January 1976 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence? Is it impossible for him and his officials to find out what happened to that contract and whether or not it has been fulfilled? In view of the answers that he has given me on this subject before, and the answers given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that no imports of uranium oxide have been made to this country from Namibia since the end of 1984, is it not worth his while discovering what has happened to that specific contract?

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken. No contract of the kind described by the noble Lord was entered into in 1976.

My Lords, in that case, why do not the Government recognise the validity of the United Nations Council for Namibia Decree No. 1 under which the import of Namibian raw materials is declared illegal? Secondly, is it not odd that if, as was alleged in the Guardian of 31st December 1987, Namibian uranium oxide is being used to make plutonium for Trident warheads, our independent nuclear deterrent is dependent upon the supply of material from a country which has been rightly ostracised from the community of nations and can in no way be regarded as a secure source of supply?

My Lords, we believe that the United Nations Decree No. 1, to which the noble Lord referred, was passed outside the competence of the United Nations General Assembly and is therefore not binding.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there are many countries throughout the world which import uranium for peaceful purposes in generating electricity?

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right, but the Question on the Order Paper relates to uranium being imported for defence purposes.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that behind this Question lies the fact that a terrible war continues, affecting the people of Namibia? They look to the people of this country for support, and one of the most effective means of giving that support is to bring economic pressure to bear on the South African Government.

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, but that is another question. As I indicated in my Answer today and in earlier Answers to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—and as indicated in Answers that the noble Lord has received from other speakers at this Dispatch Box—it is a long time since we imported any uranium or uranium-related products from Namibia.

My Lords, that last answer is at the least economical with the truth. It has already been admitted from the Government Front Bench that uranium has been imported into this country in order to manufacture hex, within which uranium is an important component. That hex has then been exported to other countries. Part of that uranium has come from Namibia.

Order! Question!

My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the Answers given by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on this matter? Is he now saying that there was no agreement in 1976 to import uranium into this country? If so—

Order!

do the Government still stand by Resolution 435 calling for independence for Namibia? Does not the Minister consider—

Order!

—that the import of uranium from Namibia is sabotaging that resolution, which is now 10 years old?

My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether I was aware of the Answers that have been given by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. The answer is, yes, because I helped draft them.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, before ratifying the United Nations convention against torture, we need first to introduce domestic legislation which would deal with the provisions of the convention regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the definition of torture as including the causing of severe mental suffering. We shall introduce this legislation as soon as we can.

My Lords, is it not the case that 26 states have already signed this enormously important convention against torture, which among other things gives the United Nations new powers to deal with such allegations? Is it not the case that the United Nations General Assembly agreed the convention as far back as 1984? Why are the Government dragging their heels? It is outrageous that we should be so backward in a matter where we should be giving forthright support. We must get our priorities right in legislation.

My Lords, we have, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, taken a leading role in the formulation of this convention. We were among the first to sign it although, as the noble and learned Lord will know, signing and ratification are separate steps. We have signed the convention and we are determined to ratify it as soon as possible. We shall do that as soon as we can make the necessary legislative provisions.

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that Great Britain is seriously jeopardising its international reputation on human rights through not ratifying this convention? Can the Minister say why it is not possible to include provisions covering torture within the Criminal Justice Bill which is at present going through the other place?

My Lords, it may be possible to do just as the noble Baroness suggests. I understand that some discussions are going on about that proposal at present. If that proves possible, naturally that will hasten the day when we can ratify the convention.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House a little more about his phrase "as soon as possible"? It would seem to many people that a great deal of legislation which is much less important flows through this House. What is preventing the Government from introducing this legislation, and what does the noble Lord mean by "as soon as possible"?

My Lords, the legislative timetable is very tight, as the noble Lord will know. There are many major Bills going through Parliament at present, so I cannot be specific as to when the Government can introduce the legislation. However, as I said a moment ago, if it proves possible to effect this legislative change by amending the Criminal Justice Bill, the Government will certainly be very pleased about that and it will hasten the day when we can ratify the convention.

My Lords, the legislation timetable is very tight because of the volume of controversial, unpopular legislation which is being driven through by this Government Does not the Minister agree that this is a Bill which would go through both Houses without difficulty and would bring some credit to the Government for a change?

My Lords, I happen to think that all the government-sponsored legislation going through Parliament at present in entirely beneficial. I am certain that your Lordships will agree with that in due course. In the meantime, we will do what we can to find a legislative occasion on which we can enact the necessary provisions for this convention and then we shall hasten to ratify it.

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that this year is the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and therefore is a most appropriate time for this country to become a party to this all-important convention? If I may say so, there was a certain lack of urgency about the Minister's replies. Will he now give this matter his urgent attention and will the Government do so too?

My Lords, nobody doubts that it is a very important convention and one which we ought to ratify just as soon as we can. However, a change in our law is needed before we can effectively do that, and that is as much a matter for Parliament as it is for the Government.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill may be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Enclosed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) (Application to Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988, the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to Non-United Kingdom Ships) Regulations 1988 and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988 will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason for disagreeing to two of the Lords amendments be now considered.

rose to move, That the House do insist on their amendments numbered 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3.

My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lords, Lords Basnett and Carter, tabled amendments on this subject quite different in both wording and effect. On 28th January their principal amendment referred to fulfilling obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. In effect, that meant the requirement of the quota scheme whereby a concern with 20 or more employees must employ at least 3 per cent. from the disabled persons' register.

I pointed out that by the general agreement of all concerned the quota scheme had become impossible to enforce. I shall not go over all the reasons again. Largely it is the case that not enough disabled people have allowed their names to be placed on the related registers. If, in an area, only 1 per cent. of the working population is on the register, one cannot expect all the employers concerned to employ at least 3 per cent. That is a straightforward arithmetical point. It has mainly made impossible the working of the 1944 Act.

At the same time I drew attention to the recommendation in 1981 of the Manpower Services Commission that the quota scheme be abolished and replaced by a general statutory requirement supported by a code of practice. Since then the quota scheme has been treated as providing a target rather than an obligation. The MSC's recommendation concerning a general statutory requirement was not carried out, but the code of practice has been promulgated

Between the Committee and Report stages the two noble Lords tabled a new amendment based not on the 1944 Act but on what I had said in Committee about the Manpower Services Commission and the code of practice. I was impressed that the two noble Lords has been so influenced by our debate. It was only proper that I should make clear that the objections which I had raised relating to the 1944 Act had been removed. I was glad to do so in our Report stage debate on 16th February. I said that I did not know what the Government's view would be or whether they considered the amendments appropriate. The Government have since made clear that they think it wrong that local authorities should take into account subjects on which they do not have a statutory role of enforcement. On that basis, only the subject of race relations is relevant in this Bill.

As regards the employment of disabled people, the amendment at Report stage was a great improvement; and that I made clear. It dealt with the position as it is today rather than invoking a scheme—the quota scheme—which years ago became unenforceable. I feel some responsibility for the present principal amendment which found favour in your Lordships' House at Report stage and which has now been returned from the other place because my comments led to its being drafted. The Manpower Services Commission, soon to be renamed the Training Commission, and the code of practice, on which I spoke at the Committee stage, became the basis of the principal amendment before us today.

The amendment was well intentioned. It sought to carry out the purpose to which I am sure we all subscribe—to do something which might assist in the employment of more disabled people. It is discretionary, as the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, pointed out at Report stage. The noble Lord explained that it imposes no compulsion on local authorities and carries no contract compliance. Subsection (1)(b) of the amendment deals with local authorities referring prospective contractors to relevant agencies. There is nothing to stop local authorities doing that now. They can refer them to the Disablement Advisory Service or to the Manpower Services Commission without that being in the Bill. However, clearly, the Government foresee that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) whereby local authorities can ask questions seeking information could be misused by some local authorities.

This process could be continued for months. Contractors could be employing workforces in various parts of the country, many miles from the local authority in question. The local authority is not the national agency for dealing with the employment of disabled people. Having observed the lengths to which a few local authorities have been prepared to go to frustrate national policy, I share the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that this provision, drafted with the best of intentions, could and probably would be used by certain local authorities to tie up tendering firms with questions and so end up with the solution that they themselves want. I wish that this were not so, but I accept the realities of Britain today. For my part, I shall support the Government in their view on these amendments.

The Government announced in the debate on 9th March a further stage in the situation which I described to your Lordships at the Committee stage. I said on 28th January that I understood that research was being carried out in continuation of the policy proposed by the Manpower Services Commission. My right honourable friend announced on 9th March that a review within the Department of Employment would now examine the study recently completed by the national advisory council, mentioned by me, and the quota arrangements in general. That is welcome; it is the way to proceed on a national basis.

The noble Lords, Lord Basnett and Lord Carter, have been industrious on behalf of disabled people in pursuing this matter in the Bill. They have been laudably flexible in adopting criticism of their first amendments. I am sorry that their concern and industry have not been rewarded by government approval of the amendments. I understand the Government's view and consider their objections to be over-riding. I ask, however, that the two noble Lords should bring some of their colleagues up to date.

In the other place on 9th March the honourable Member Miss Jo Richardson spoke of only 2 per cent. of employers meeting legal obligations in the quota scheme under the 1944 Act. She was clearly unfamiliar with what has been happening in the affairs of disabled people during the past 10 years which the two noble Lords were quick to digest when they were informed in January. Even in this House, some noble Lords have revealed that they are out of date on the subject. I suggest that if necessary the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, could arrange meetings between his colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who has been a sturdy champion of disabled people but who made clear when speaking at Report stage that the 1944 Act was now defunct and that the quotas are unattainable targets. Those are the words he used. I suggest that all of us who are concerned with this subject—the employment of more disabled people—should keep our eyes on what is being done by departments and agencies on a national scale following the Government's announcement earlier this month.

My Lords, we on these Benches see no reason whatsoever for changing the view that we held at Committee stage and subsequently that this amendment should be accepted. I find it very odd that any peculiarities expressed by Miss Richardson in another place should have influenced the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.

We all know that there is discrimination against disabled people. This amendment has been drafted in the most moderate language possible in order to give local authorities awarding important contracts the opportunity to influence contractors in the direction laid down by a government department in the code of practice. It is not as if the local authorities are inventing standards to impose. They are following the lead already given by the Manpower Services Commission's code of practice. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says, there are to be some improvements on that, all well and good. We entirely agree with the noble Lord that the 1944 Act has been dead and gone for a long time in terms of any contribution it can make to the employment of disabled people. However, that is not the case with the code of practice. It is a far more up-to-date approach. In using it, local authorities would be able to advance the cause of the employment of disabled people.

I am not at all impressed by the idea that it should be left to national agencies. These things happen in actual, grass roots contacts between employers and employees, between contractors and local authorities. That is where the jobs are created. The lead can be given at the national level, but the giving out of work and the employment of people by the companies has to be done locally. It cannot be done at national level.

I want to make one other point. We are already running out of skilled labour. As your Lordships will be aware, there is a continuing fall in the number of school leavers. The fact is that among the disabled there are people with considerable potential, but that is not widely understood. There is a general prejudice, understandable but based on a lack of knowledge, as to what disabled people can in fact contribute. During wartime I shall never forget—and some of your Lordships who are as old as I am will also remember—the work that was done by bringing disabled people into the war effort. They did not do second-class jobs but, with training, they were doing absolutely first-class jobs and were often found to be better than non-disabled people because they had such a huge investment in keeping the job.

Therefore it you discourage local authorities in their work of encouraging contractors, you will be denying not only opportunities to disabled people but you will be denying industry the use of potentially valuable people. I very much hope that your Lordships will insist on the amendments which have been sent back to this House.

My Lords, I support the amendment. I should, first, apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, for not being in my place when he rose to move his proposal for insistence. As noble Lords would expect, I am very much in agreement with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because for some time now I have been campaigning for the repeal of the 1944 Act in that arithmetically it is no longer possible to comply with it. For that reason I think that it is a prime example for a statute law repeal and does positive harm to the cause of the disabled. I differ from my colleagues who are interested in the problems of the disabled on that ground, but only on that ground. That is why I did not speak or vote for the amendment in Committee which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett. I did not believe that it was right to bolster up a defunct Act.

However, when the noble Lord tabled this amendment, which is based on government policy (promulgated by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was the director of the MSC) I found that it was irresistible. It was not only irresistible because it enabled, not compelled, local authorities to comply with and indeed "promote"—if I may use that word which we have been discussing recently in another context—government policy and it seemed to me that an unanswerable case was made.

However, we should also consider another amendment to the Bill, which was moved in this House; namely, the amendment concerning dog registration. The Government very kindly, if contemptuously, accepted our amendment but said they had no intention whatever of implementing it. That amendment, like this one, was not mandatory. The Government said that they could not bind their successors or successive governments in regard to implementing that policy. Is that not right?

Permissive.

My Lords, in any event, the amendment, like the dog registration amendment, is not mandatory; it is discretionary. It seems to me that if the Government are to take that view in regard to the dog registration amendment, they may well take the same view on this one and let the local authorities decide whether they will avail themselves of the powers which the amendment provides: that indeed they could comply with the Government's policy and promote that of the MSC.

One of the objections of the Secretary of State in the other place was to Clause 18(1)(b), which is the clause which refers,

"prospective contractors to relevant agencies".

He said that it was unnecessary and we have heard the same argument from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. So be it. If it is unnecessary then it can be taken out in the other place as consequential to the amendment when our insistence goes back. However, that is not an insuperable bar; in fact it is no bar at all to our agreeing to the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett.

Furthermore, I cannot agree with the logic of the Government's Reason—or perhaps I should say the Reason of the other place—for disagreeing to the amendment. It seems that they are saying that the Lords amendment is at variance with a principle; namely:

"that local authorities or other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process",

with one exception:

"except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty".

I found at least two, probably more, arguments against that reasoning. However, I shall only adduce two of them.

First, if this amendment is insisted upon and should the other place, however reluctantly, agree to it, then local authorities will be acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty. They will be complying with the Reason which the Secretary of State has adduced, so that does not seem to be an argument. It seems to be totally unanswerable unless one is to assume that the Secretary of State means by "existing statutory duty" only statutory duties passed before the enactment of the Bill. I am quite sure he cannot mean that.

My second argument against the Reason which has been put forward by the other place against the amendment is that they say it gives local authorities a statutory duty. This is not a statutory duty and I say that the Secretary of State has got it wrong. It is not a duty; it is an enabling provision which enables local authorities to implement it or ignore it. Therefore on those two counts the Reason given by the other place fails to convince and I am therefore a strong supporter of the noble Lord in his insistence on the amendment.

My Lords, I cannot support the amendment because it appears to me to do nothing new for the disabled and to be an extra nuisance to local authorities. In the community today disabled people depend a great deal upon local authorities for help and support. Therefore I do not see any wisdom in trying to make difficulties at the start of this new scheme.

No one is keener than I am to find suitable work opportunities for disabled people. However, to my mind this proposal is an attempt to foist disabled workers in at the hack-door. On occasions I have been in that situation and I have not found it to be the true wish of able-bodied people to give the best opportunities to disabled employees. We want, disabled employees to be most carefully dealt with, possibly through vocational psychologists; that is the type of new care and help which is worthy. I hope my noble friend will take note of that wish. However, in the meantime I oppose the amendment.

My Lords, I was extremely pleased to be able to support my noble friend Lord Basnett in moving this Motion. My name was on the Marshalled List when the amendment was moved on Report and I am glad to see that he has now put down this Motion to insist on the restoration of the clause to the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was kind enough to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, and I had been very impressed by the arguments that he advanced in Committee: indeed, that is why we tabled the amendment on Report. However, it was not only myself and the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, who were impressed; it was also this House, because it did in fact accept the amendment.

I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that I understand what she says about the employment of disabled people, but she must explain why all the organisations of and for disabled people support this clause.

The Government are wrong in their interpretation of the clause. They have misunderstood the purpose of it and they are inconsistent in their approach to codes of practice. In the debate in the other place, as my noble friend Lord Basnett mentioned, there was but one Member who spoke in support of the amendment and that, not surprisingly, was the Secretary of State. There were three Conservative Back-Benchers who spoke against it and then abstained; one of those was the secretary of the All-Party Disablement Group. Considerable unease is and was felt by government supporters about the Government's actions in the other place.

The Secretary of State, Mr. Ridley, referred repeatedly to local authorities as enforcement agencies when he dealt with the clause. That is precisely what they are not. The clause clearly states the process to be adopted and allows local authorities to ask questions about company policy. If the local authorities are not satisfied with those responses, they will be able to refer prospective contractors to the Disablement Advisory Service. That is the limit of local authority involvement. The tendering process will be able to continue, and the local authority will still be prevented from rejecting a contract for non-commercial reasons.

I believe that the Secretary of State knows a thin argument when he delivers it. The reasons he gave were that he was concerned that local authorities would use the clause for other purposes: to enable them to discriminate against contractors they did not like for other reasons; to exercise covert discrimination against contractors of whom they disapproved; for other matters such as sexual discrimination, nuclear-free zones, apartheid, and so on. I find it extraordinary and distasteful that the Secretary of State should use a modest clause, which is intended slightly to improve the job opportunities for disabled people, as the vehicle to peddle a raft of prejudices against local authorities.

Under the Bill, local authorities are not allowed to reject contracts for non-commercial reasons. The Government introduced that clause, and it is now in the Bill. The clause is not strong; it merely allows local authorities to draw contractors' attention to the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people; to consider their employment policies in the light of that code; and to enable local authorities to refer contractors to the Disablement Advisory Service. That is the end of it.

There is no provision in the clause which allows a local authority to refuse a contract if it considers that the contractor is not complying with the code of good practice. The Secretary of State also made a point about the district auditor. He said that if the local authority were to use the clause, its conduct might be actionable. The advice I have received is that that is wrong. I have spoken to a number of local authority chief executives on this matter, and they all agree with me.

I wish to deal with the Government's inconsistent approach to codes of practice. The Minister will remember that on Report I intervened with a rather curious point about the straw-burning code. He may have wondered about its relevance to our debate. The straw-burning code is voluntary. It has been drawn up by the National Farmers' Union. It is non-statutory. It should be compared to the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people which has the support of the Prime Minister, the TUC, the CBI, and which is promulaged by the MSC.

As I said, the straw-burning code is non-statutory. It is a permissive power for local authorities. They have been encouraged by the Government to promulagte by-laws with regard to that non-statutory code with fines up to £2,000 for non-compliance. That is an inconsistency, because the Government are prepared to support an approach to codes of good practice on the subject of straw burning, which although important is not as important as the code on the employment of disabled people. If the Government reject the clause, we are entitled to ask them what their intentions are with regard to the straw-burning code.

I have shown that the Government's interpretation of the clause is wrong. They have wilfully misunderstood the purpose of the clause. Their approach to codes of good practice is inconsistent. I shall conclude with a quotation from a letter I received only this morning from the Greater London Association for Disabled People, which states:

"The amendment as proposed provides a useful, if modest, prompt to local authorities and others on a matter which might otherwise be quietly forgotten. Disabled people are looking for reassurance that they are not to become the unintended victims of legislation".

I support the amendment.

My Lords, I have listened to today's debate and to the debates during the whole of the Bill's passage through the House. There is no doubt about the strength of feeling shown in this House and in the other place. I was encouraged to read in Hansard of 9th March (col. 346) of the other place that the Secretary of State recognised the strength of feeling in both Houses and responded positively to that strength of feeling by saying that the Secretary of State for Employment would be announcing a review of the department's policies and programmes for disabled people which he supports.

We are not arguing about our concern and commitment to disabled people. We are talking about a means to an end. For that reason, we need to concentrate our energies today on deciding whether the amendment is the right way to help disabled people. I strongly believe that it is not. I believe that for some of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and also because, whether we like it or not, it is possible that disabled people will become pawns in an undesirable process. We may argue about whether a few or many local authorities are involved, but where an authority is philosophically opposed to contracting-out its services it will look for any means to thwart, delay and frustrate that process. It hurts me deeply to think that disabled people could be used in such a situation.

We should put all the pressure that we can on that statement made by the Secretary of State, press on with the review, and follow some of the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in both our debates about how we can best improve and increase opportunities for disabled people to be usefully employed. I hope that the House will reject the amendment, not because it is not concerned about the employment of the disabled but because it is the wrong amendment in the wrong Bill. I believe that it will not best serve the interests of the disabled. I hope that we will use our energies, as I said, to press for a proper review and to give disabled people the protection that allows them as individuals to be employed in a way that does not involve their going through an undignified process which I know some local authorities would subject them to.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that the proposed review by the Secretary of State for Employment, mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which I find extremely welcome, is not in any way incompatible with the amendment? They are not mutually exclusive. They are both, as she said, a means to an end. Why not allow them both?

My Lords, I take the point that has just been made. First, I believe that if we include the amendment there will be a tendency to believe that we have done our bit by the disabled. Anything that detracts from the review will be inadvisable. Secondly, there is almost nothing in the amendment that cannot now be done by local authorities. It has been said again and again in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and by the disabled that all the things that we would desire of the amendment can now happen. Local authorities can ask such questions of the private sector. Another worry is that they will ask them of only those companies with whom they have direct dealings. There is a raft of companies outside that will be caught by the review. There should be momentum from national government as opposed to individual local authorities, a very small minority of whom may use the provision for the wrong reasons.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask all noble Lords in all parts of the House not to underestimate for a moment the seriousness of the message which would go out from this House if we failed to insist on this amendment. That message would be precisely the opposite of the message which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just given. We must insist on a very reasonable amendment. I say "reasonable" because it is an enabling measure and not mandatory. It deals with a code of practice which is advisory and not mandatory. It merely enables local government to do things whch all of us think it ought to be doing.

The only opposition, the only argument against this amendment which has been advanced is that put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who appeared to think that subsection (1)(a) of the new clause would be seized upon by some kind of destructive local authority in order to prolong things and stop anything happening. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that local authorities which are disposed to do that can do it perfectly well without subsection (1)(a) of the new clause in this Bill or a provision in any other Bill. They can do it without this measure. This is a red herring. The message which must go out is positive. Many of us in all parts of the House have spent a great deal of time recently going up and down the country, trying to explain to people what the Manpower Services Commission code of practice on the employment of disabled people actually meant. Do you want us all to go back and say that it means nothing?—because that is the message that will go out if we fail to insist on this amendment.

My Lords, I had not intended to speak today. I was very interested to see that the Government have mustered rather greater support here than they managed in another place. Listening to the discussions, I have been increasingly struck by the difficulties I shall have in explaining the reasons for the government decision when I chair the meeting of the national council of MENCAP this coming Saturday.

It is a regrettable fact that many of the disabled believe that this Government have an inadequate understanding of their problems and feelings. There is grave anxiety about the new social security provisions and anxiety about some aspects of the Employment Bill which we were discussing the other day. I think it would have been preferable if today the noble Earl had explained the reasons for the Government's decision. However, I have read the debates in the other place and have listened to the arguments advanced today. There is no need for me to go over the countervailing arguments, which have been very clearly explained by a number of speakers. Suffice it to say that I find the arguments against this Motion totally unpersuasive.

To the disabled I think one simple fact will emerge. This Bill provides for an exemption on race relations grounds. As it left this House it also provided an exemption for the disabled. If the Government now remove the one for the disabled but still leave the other, that will be widely misunderstood. I should very much like to support what has been said about the message which will go from this House.

My Lords, my noble friends on the Opposition Benches will know that I am fanatical in my regard for the supremacy of the elected Chamber. In more than five years in this House I have, until today, only once been persuaded that, having considered a Bill and the Bill having gone through both Houses of Parliament it would be right for noble Lords to object to the considered view of another place on our amendments. That one occasion was on the Films Bill in 1984 when I felt that the Deputy Speaker had not allowed our amendments to be properly considered because of the grouping which had been imposed on those amendments. Today is the second and I hope the last time, because I certainly do not wish to see a non-elected Chamber taking and insisting on views after a full debate on matters which are properly the concern of another place.

There are two reasons why I think today is a different occasion. The first has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It is that the Reason put forward by the Commons for objecting to our amendment seems totally self-contradictory and irrational. The Reason says that the:

"amendments are at variance with the principle that local and other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty.".

We are making law; we are not debating simply for the sake of debating. It is the privilege and the duty of Parliament as a whole to make the best law that can be made. What is being proposed, and what was proposed in these amendments, is an improvement on the existing law. It is imposing not a new statutory duty but an opportunity to right what would otherwise be a manifest injustice. It is proper for your Lordships to say that we can make progress in Parliament as a whole on this matter. It is wrong for another place to insist that the law should stop yesterday, as it were.

The second reason is the nature of the debate which took place in another place. The kind interpretation of what happened would be that the vote took place in a fit of inadvertence, because it certainly did not bear any relationship to the debate on the floor of the Chamber. As has been said on a number of occasions, the Secretary of State was the only person to speak against the Lords amendments. On reading his speech, I wondered whether his advisers had actually read the Lords amendments adequately at all. His remarks were made as if the Lords amendments were imposing a new statutory duty on local authorities, as if they were drawing out the tendering process for a long time—and as my noble friend Lord Carter has made clear, that is not the case—as if this were a loophole for all sorts of other things to which the Secretary of State objects, such as racial discrimination or discrimination in terms of country of origin. However, there is no way in which that interpretation can be drawn from the clause before us.

The debate as a whole in another place strongly contradicted, and I would almost say refuted, the arguments of the Secretary of State when he opposed these amendments. The balance of the argument in another place must be thought to be in favour of our amendments. It is therefore right for us to insist on them. I feel sure that if we do insist on them, a message will go out not just to local authorities, to contractors and the disabled, as my noble friend Lord Basnett has said—that must be the case—but also to another place that independence of mind, independence of spirit, independence of a party Whip, which can sometimes be imposed without due regard to the strong feelings of individuals on the Government Benches, is something to be preserved and valued. I believe that if we insist on these amendments, a very large number, if not a majority, of Members of the House of Commons will feel that we have done a service to Parliament.

My Lords, the difficulties that disabled people face raise strong passions in this House, and rightly so. There should not be any noble Lord who does not want to see them given every opportunity to live useful, productive lives, playing a full part in society. The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, has made a very effective speech appealing once more to our emotions, but we must not let those emotions lead us to accept any legislative change simply because its proponents claim that it will benefit disabled people.

I have to say that I was impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox who explained with clarity her concern for positively helping the disabled. These amendments were disagreed in another place on the grounds that they are at variance with the principle that local and other public authorities should not take account of non-commercial matters in the contractual process except where they are acting in pursuance of an existing statutory duty.

In a persuasive speech prior to the vote on the amendments on Report the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, claimed that by supporting his amendments your Lordships would be doing something for the disabled, whereas failure to support the amendments would be doing them a disservice. I regret to have to say that what has been said will, I believe, raise a false hope in some peoples' expectations.

Furthermore, some of your Lordships may have read a letter from the All Party Disablement Group which claimed that:

"the amendment would not allow local authorities to refuse contracts on the grounds that a prospective contractor does not encourage the employment of disabled people".

However, that is precisely what the new clause does allow and why the Government are opposed to it. Again at our Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, claimed that his amendments involved no contract compliance and no extra-statutory enforcement rights. The noble Lord has claimed the same thing today. But that is precisely what they do involve.

The amendments allow authorities to take account of responses to questions about the code in the contractual process. The result is that local authorities would be allowed to ask questions of contractors about the non-commercial matters defined in Clause 17(5)(a), to take account of the answers, and if reasonably necessary to ensure that contractors have due regard to the Manpower Services Commission's Code of Good Practice on the Employment of Disabled People.

Now we must take the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to its logical conclusion. It is that local authorities would then be able to refuse to do business with any firm whose interpretation of the non-statutory code did not accord with the authority's own view.

Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I am sure that the whole House would not wish to see the disabled being used by local authorities for ulterior motives. The principle that it is wrong for local authorities to influence matters in this way was accepted by your Lordships in all other respects where the local authority has no statutory duty. I have no need to tell your Lordships yet again that some local authorities will go to extreme lengths to seek loopholes to enact their wishes. Suffice it to remind your Lordships that within hours of us discussing this at an earlier stage some local authorities took some very well publicised actions.

Even without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, there is nothing to stop local authorities drawing the code of good practice to the attention of employers. I can assure the House that we should be delighted if they did so. But the code which was published by the Manpower Services Commission in 1984 at this Government's request was designed to promote good practice, as I am sure the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, has been telling people throughout the country.

It is not a document against which the details of the employment practices of individual employers can be tested. It forms but a part of the substantial efforts made by this Government to promote not only equal opportunity policies by employers but also to provide a very wide range of assistance to those disabled people who need special help in getting work.

Last year under the general programmes of the Manpower Services Commission nearly 84,000 disabled people were placed in work and over 17,000 more were given sheltered employment. In the current year the MSC will be spending £133 million on programmes specifically set up to help disabled people. Of that, £87 million will go on sheltered employment, £22 million on employment rehabilitation, £15 million on resettlement services and almost £9 million on training at residential training colleges.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that this more than demonstrates the Government's commitment. But I can assure your Lordships that we are not complacent. That is why, as announced at Commons consideration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is currently reviewing within his department the policies and programmes that he supports for disabled people in employment.

I can tell your Lordships that the Government will respond later in the year to the review recently undertaken by the National Advisory Council for the Employment of Disabled People on the Tomlinson principles and on the conclusions the PAC reaches on the examination undertaken by the National Audit Office of the quota arrangements and other programmes run for the benefit of people with disabilities.

In our earlier discussions I said that I had noted the concern of your Lordships on the workings of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and the quota system. This was so well exemplified by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in his speeches both today and at earlier stages. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has also noted that concern and is acting upon it. Your Lordships' views will be most helpful in our consideration of these issues. I hope that the House will agree that this is a more positive response to the concern for the disabled expressed in this House than simply to amend a local government Bill to allow local authorities to use the contractual process in order to discriminate against certain companies.

My Lords, the Minister surely does not think that it is a case of either/or? One can do both.

My Lords, I think that the right way forward, as I have tried to explain, is the work that my right honourable friend is doing on this issue. This is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Basnett. His sincere belief that all the amendment does is enable local authorities to draw the code to the attention of contractors and point them in the direction of the relevant agencies if necessary becomes a false dawn for the disabled.

My Lords, I thank all your Lordships who have taken part in the debate. I think that it is an important debate. I say to the noble Earl that I have tried not to be emotional. I think that I identified the irrelevance of some of the Government's arguments, the weakness of others and the positive discrimination that will occur if these amendments are now withdrawn. There seem to me to be just a couple of things on which I need comment. I shall do so quickly.

First, there is the suggestion, which I find surprising because of the all-party support for this provision, that local authorities would use it for other political purposes. That is said without the support of any evidence whatever. What is true is that local authorities which have been acting on behalf of the disabled have in many cases produced the quota of 3 per cent. That is important. No evidence has been adduced to suggest that there was any political motive behind that. Indeed let me say that the Select Committee in another place praised the work of those local authorities. I think that that argument was to say the least unfortunate.

The second argument that I find disturbing is the argument that the Government will do something and that a review shall take place consisting—and the noble Earl has said this—of reviews which we already anticipated. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, it is not a case of either/or. One can and should do both because there is a real need for action in this area. This amendment is not, as has been said, just a modest amendment because it allows local authorities to ask questions of contractors about disabled people and then refer them to people who can do something about that. The local authorities will not advise the contractors and they will do nothing about this matter themselves.

However, I accept that your Lordships' concern for the disabled has been shown in debate after debate. I have seen that during the year that I have been in your Lordships' House. But I have also seen in that year the effect of the Social Security Bill on the disabled. I have also seen in that year the effect that could have occurred if an amendment had not been moved on training under the Training Commission in the Employment Bill. If these amendments are removed from this Bill, the wrong message will go out from this House. Let me repeat what I said at the end of my introduction. If we remove these amendments we send exactly the wrong message to contractors in local authorities; we shall send exactly the wrong message to local authorities; and we shall send exactly the wrong message to the disabled.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 13:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

I assume that the compassionate grounds and special circumstances referred to could include family reunions about which many Members of the Committee are concerned and about which the Government are also concerned as they have shown in agreeing to admit 452 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong who already had members of their families in Britain. That process is proceeding rather slowly. But it is proceeding, nevertheless. On those grounds I support the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

As I understand what the noble Lord has said, the purpose of the amendment is that when an appeal fails because the appellant acted against the law and the rules or did not bring himself within the law or the rules, and when there is no case under statute for the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretion, instead of dismissing the appeal the adjudicator may consider,

"evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation".

In spite of not having proved his case, the appellant shall be allowed to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. I hope that that is a fair summary of the argument the noble Lord presents in favour of his amendment. Even if that is so—and I have an open mind on the merits—nevertheless I feel that the amendment does not clearly achieve its object. According to the noble Lord's argument, compassion is to be the operative factor, but there is no mention of compassion in the amendment. Indeed, the wording of the amendment:

"evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation"

could well refer to matters other than compassion. No doubt there could also be a great number of special circumstances. If a recommendation on the ground of compassion is the purpose of this amendment, I think that Parliament should make that clear. The recommendation is not made on other grounds as well or on grounds which simply include compassion.

I have another difficulty about the amendment. I think that I understand the noble Lord's intention when he uses the expression "outside the immigration rules", but the amendment reads:

"be granted leave to enter or remain outside the immigration rules".

I find that a rather strange juxtaposition of words. As I said, I have an open mind about the merits, subject to anything that my noble friend may say, but I certainly do not think that the noble Lord's purpose will be achieved by this amendment.

Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say that he has not only a very open mind, which I am delighted to find, but also a very clear mind. I listened most respectfully to his remarks. The wording of the amendment may be imperfect, although I do not think that it is. However, if it is imperfect, we are still at the Committee stage and, since the noble Lord has correctly sensed my aim in this amendment, if other wording has to be employed then perhaps it can be done at a later stage. The Government may accept the spirit of the amendment; or, on hearing from the Minister (as I hope I shall) that the principle is accepted, I shall try to bring forward another amendment at the Report stage.

Having said that, I should like to make perfectly clear that I am thinking of certain compassionate grounds and I am prepared to say that such is the purpose of the amendment. The juxtaposition of the words may not be as good as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes. One should always listen to him, as we listen to his Committee, about the tidiness of words and the clarity of language in our statutes and I always bow to him in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that my noble friend has an open mind and a clear one. I agree with him on both counts. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that he too has a clear mind; I hope that he also has an open one.

Oh, absolutely!

Perhaps it can be made quite clear exactly what we are discussing, because immigration law is of a highly complex nature. The amendment reads:

"In any case in which an adjudicator is required … to dismiss an appeal he may recommend that the appellant be granted leave to enter or remain outside the immigration rules and for the purposes of this subsection shall receive any evidence of facts or circumstances relevant to the making of a recommendation".

In other words, in all cases the adjudicator is obliged to take into account the evidence of facts and circumstances, compassionate or otherwise, which may be put to him.

As usual the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was very persuasive. He said that he wanted to enable compassion to be taken into account. However, if the Committee were to accept the amendment, it would negate the whole of Clause 4, which refers to the restricted right of appeal and reads:

"A person to whom this subsection applies shall not be entitled to appeal … except on the ground that on the facts of his case there is in law no power to make the deportation order".

Quite distinctly and clearly only the facts of the case should be considered, regardless of whether that person has been an overstayer or broken the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly said that adjudicators can make recommendations. That is perfectly true and they can make recommendations if they wish to do so. They can hear recommendations on other matters if they wish to do so. However, if the Committee were to accept the amendment, it would negate the whole purpose of Clause 4, greatly add to the delays in the final resolution of appeals and increase the workload of both the appellate authorities and the department.

Let me explain the position. It is already open to an adjudicator to recommend, if and when he dismisses an appeal, that leave to enter or to remain should be granted outside the rules. He already has that power. The usual basis on which adjudicators make recommendations is where they consider that there are compelling circumstances of a compassionate nature which in their view warrant a favourable decision being taken, notwithstanding that in law the appeal must be dismissed.

One is talking about people who have broken the law, and the adjudicator can make that recommendation despite the fact that they have broken the law. It is true that the Home Secretary is not bound by such informal recommendations, but they are given very considerable weight and the normal approach is to accept them unless there is something unreasonable or inconsistent in doing so.

The effect of this new clause would be to enable the appellant or his representatives to submit any evidence of facts or circumstances which he feels he should like to put forward, even though they may be wholly irrelevant to the decision under appeal. He may do that in the hope that the adjudicator might make a recommendation. That would apply to almost every single appeal and not just to deportation appeals. It would apply to almost every other type of immigration appeal, and the adjudicator would be obliged to admit any such evidence. I can tell the Committee that there are about 15,000 appeals every year, so it will be realised that this move will add very considerably to the delays about which there has already been criticism.

Appeals would not be limited to the facts and circumstances which are relevant to the decision and the adjudicator's function would be extended from a review of whether a person has the right to stay or enter to a review of all the appellant's circumstances of whatever nature.

The Government want to see a fair but firm system of immigration control. If the Committee were to accept the new clause I must warn it that it would undermine Clause 4 of this Bill. It would create unwarranted and unnecessary delays in the resolution of appeals and it would increase the workload of the appeal bodies and the department, which have already been criticised for delays, and all this would be at the expense of the effectiveness of the immigration control as a whole.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wanted a little help for compassionate-ground cases. I hope that I have been able to tell the Committee—or rather explain as courteously as I could—that in fact his proposed new clause goes very much further indeed than I believe even the noble Lord, with all his legal wisdom, anticipates.

What can one do in the face of such politeness but such hardness as well? I say that for the following reasons, and the Minister knows that I speak with respect. The first thing is that the Committee and the other place have heard that there should be no final appeal, such as was asked for when the very serious matter of deportation was discussed, because after all, it was said, matters of compassion are fully investigated before the final order so there ought not to be an appeal against the final order as it was all considered when the appellate procedure was gone through. That included the adjudicators. In another place the Minister said, with perfect sincerity, that the adjudicators listen to compassionate grounds and that they can and do make recommendations.

When the letter that I read to noble Lords was received by the Minister he ascertained—possibly for the first time—that some adjudicators thought that it was no part of their purpose or power at all and others did. The Minister did not answer that, saying that some adjudicators do and some do not, and is that desirable? Indeed, he gave the impression that it would be quite wrong for adjudicators to admit evidence outside the normal breach of the immigration rules.

Will the Minister now say that that is the Government's pronouncement, that adjudicators should not hear this evidence? When he relies upon the suggestion that adjudicators shall listen to such evidence, I am perfectly prepared to say that adjudicators are entitled to listen to such evidence if they see fit. I am perfectly prepared to have that variation, as long as the principle is admitted that in proper cases they were entitled to listen to any compassionate grounds.

I concede, first, that I am thinking of compassionate grounds and, secondly, that I am prepared to say that it is not a mandatory requirement of the amendment—because that is not what I intend—that adjudicators must listen to any such facts or evidence, but they are entitled to do so in a suitable case. I ask the Minister whether in those circumstances, and having regard to what I have said, the principle is or is not conceded by the Government. If that principle is not conceded, I shall be appealing to the Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts one in considerable difficulty because he puts down an amendment to the Bill and then argues about it on the assumption that the amendment means something different from what it actually means. The noble Lord shakes his head in dissent, but all I can suggest to him is that if he reads his amendment carefully he will find that it puts an obligation on every single adjudicator and every single tribunal to listen to all the facts of the case whatever those facts may be, compassionate or otherwise. There is an obligation.

The amendment uses the word "shall". For one who is held in the highest respect for his legal abilities, what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is saying is that he did not really mean that. What he really meant was to make sure that the adjudicator may listen and may make a recommendation. The adjudicators may listen now to any facts which they consider are important. Adjudicators may make a recommendation as they think fit, but it is a totally different matter to write into legislation an obligation that adjudicators shall, on all occasions, consider any matter of whatever nature.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that what he seeks is already covered. Adjudicators can make recommendations and can hear representations on other matters if they wish.

Having heard my noble friend, I no longer have an open mind on the merits of this matter. I believe that he has made out a very clear case for showing that the amendment is not consistent with Clause 4 and that it is to a great extent unnecessary. I make a further plea to the noble Lord, because we have tried to get things right in the Bill. I hope I am not presuming too much if I say that I think he would be wise (and he is wise) to consider whether his amendment really fulfils his purpose, whether it is intrinsically sound and whether it would fit in to the pattern of the Bill.

I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord for help. What is required is that it is clear that the Government claim that compassionate grounds are already considered before the Home Secretary decides about deportation. The evidence we have is that it is considered by some adjudicators but not by all.

I wonder whether the noble Lord will give us some guidance as to how we in Parliament can give guidance to adjudicators that at the stage when the Government say it ought to be done—that is, when people are asking for an extension of leave—adjudicators should take compassionate grounds into account. Can the noble Lord help us?

I am glad that the noble Lord has put that question to me. He has put it very fairly. However, I still say that the fact that some adjudicators take on board the compassionate grounds and others do not is not an answer to the three difficulties which I mentioned just now and which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will consider.

My only object is to produce the right result. I realised when I put the word "shall" into the amendment—I hope I am always frank with the Committee—that that was mandatory. It was not a slip or a mistake. It was put in intentionally. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said with all frankness that he had an open mind but was worried by the word "shall", I quickly thought while on my feet that, rather than lose the amendment at Committee stage, it would obviously be better in protecting those whom I wanted to protect to say to the Minister, I hope with clarity, that if the mandatory "shall" were removed and the words "shall be entitled to" were put in—that being the matter worrying the noble Lord, Lord Renton—the spirit of my amendment would be accepted.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, absolutely correctly pointed out that I was not limiting myself in the amendment to the word "compassionate" and therefore extraneous matters might be brought in which nobody intended should be allowed through the gateway of the amendment. So again I am seeking a principle, as one does at Committee stage, realising that we have only a few stages at which amendments can be put. I do not want to waste this one and I want to try to achieve something by my amendment. It has no party bearing; it is a matter of decency, compassion and justice, principles which I hope are upheld on all sides of the Committee.

I wanted to make a concession. I agree that it was absolutely right that I was only thinking of compassion. I those circumstances I invited the Minister to agree that, if that be so, the Government are in favour of that pronouncement so that there can be uniformity and a proper adjudication can take place. Having made both those points, I hope in fairness, I still await a declaration from the Minister as to whether on policy, with those two ingredients, the amendment would be favoured. In that event I would withdraw the amendment and either how to a Government amendment at the next stage or if it were preferred, I would bring in an amendment of my own at Report stage, knowing that it would be carried by the Committee on the basis of being accepted by the Government. I now listen with optimism to what the Minister has to say.

I sometimes think that I am rather like a puppet on a string. Before the noble Lord sits down he always says, "I now listen to what happens" and pulls the rope. He expects me to stand up and answer to him in a way which he feels would be satisfactory to him.

I accept entirely that there is no party matter here—absolutely not. I accept entirely that the noble Lord's concern is one of compassion. There is no difference between us there.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has asked how we can give guidance to the adjudicators in the Bill. Quite honestly, I do not think one can give guidance to adjudicators or to anyone else in a Bill. A Bill simply states what is law and what is not law.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that some adjudicators listen to compassionate cases and others do not. I hesitate to say this when there are so many Members well versed in the law here, but, when you go in front of a judge, some judges are renowned as being more gentle than others and others as being more harsh. However, they still interpret the law. I think we have to try to allow the adjudicators to interpret the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to put in words which, even if we changed them, would enable people such as lawyers and those who are well versed in the law as of right to bring forward matters of any kind outside the purview that we believe Clause 4 should have. The amendment will give them the obligation to do that, if we write it into the law.

The whole purpose of Clause 4 is to restrict the appeal at this stage to the facts. Are you an overstayer or are you not? Have you broken the law or have you not broken the law? If it is decided that you have broken the law, but the adjudicator may have taken into account all the compassionate circumstances of the case, he may make a recommendation to the Home Secretary. He frequently makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary which says that a man has broken the law but that his compassionate circumstances are such that they ought to be considered. Therefore, even when a man has broken the law, the Home Secretary may still take into account those compassionate circumstances.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to do. I would hesitate to say that that ought to be written into the Bill because I think it is a practice which is followed at present.

May I say to the Minister that I probably used the wrong word when I said "guidance", but Parliament can give directions?

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will recognise a distinct difference between directions and guidance.

I have listened with the greatest of care to this. Am I wrong in saying that the conclusion of the debate is that the Government are perfectly happy that in certain circumstances compassionate considerations should not be taken into account? That is the impression that I have, and it seems to me to be a most dreadful conclusion. Perhaps I have misunderstood the whole thing.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has completely misunderstood the position, because we are talking about people who have broken the law. It has been considered that they have broken the law. They appeal. The adjudicator says that they have broken the law. They then go to a tribunal and the tribunal says that they have broken the law. At all these stages the compassionate circumstances will be known. At the last moment when the question of whether a person should or should not be deported is considered, it is a question of fact: has the person broken the law or not? In all these cases running up to this the compassionate nature of the circumstances will be known and the adjudicator may take into account those compassionate circumstances. It would be wrong to write in at this stage of a Bill the fact that compassionate circumstances should be given merit equal to the fact that they have broken the law. The compassionate circumstances will be known. The point of Clause 4 is that the decision should be taken on the simple fact of whether or not a person has broken the law.

My noble friend Lord Mishcon has said nothing which suggests that they should be given equal merit. That has been brought in now. It has never been said. I am afraid that I am not satisfied.

At all stages the Government say that these compassionate grounds are, and have already been, taken into account. However, there is evidence that adjudicators do not take them into account. Some adjudicators take them into account and some do not. It must be possible for Parliament to give some directions to adjudicators to ensure that they should take compassionate grounds into account at some stage. The Government seem not to mind that they are not taken into account.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was right. If we are going to say that it is perfectly all right for some adjudicators to take compassionate grounds into account which others do not, then we are saying that it is perfectly all right that a person should go right through the process and actually be deported without compassionate grounds being taken into account. Therefore one is asking, accepting that it may be the wrong stage to put it into the Bill: at what stage does one put it into the Bill? At what stage does one make sure that compassionate grounds are considered by an adjudicator so that he can make recommendations to the Secretary of State?

I think that others apart from myself were seeking some further response from the Minister. I am sorry that he regards himself in any way as being brought to his feet, as it were, at my command. I do not think that I hold that position in your Lordships' House. I merely rely, as others do, upon the courtesy of Ministers to reply to questions and to relevant remarks. One can never find fault with the noble Earl in that connection. I therefore think that he gets up quite voluntarily and automatically and not at my behest. Indeed, I imagine that the same position will obtain when I have finished what I have to say now.

I had hoped that the Minister would have bent just one inch from that stern stance that he took. I should have hoped that he could at least have said that though there will not be a direction in the Bill there will be a guideline, and that he would have undertaken that there will be a guideline issued to adjudicators to say that in appropriate cases it is perfectly proper for them to listen to compassionate grounds and, where they see fit, to make recommendations. The Minister has not said that. The Minister has not responded to my quotation from Mr. Patey, the chief adjudicator. Mr. Patey said, "I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to make any recommendations." He thought that it was wrong for an adjudicator to make recommendations. The Minister has not answered that point.

The Committee may have formed the impression that, as the Minister said, there are some judges who are known to be merciful and others who are not, and some will listen with sympathy to a plea in mitigation and others will not. Any judge knows that he can listen to a plea in mitigation. Some adjudicators, including the chief adjudicator, appear to believe that they cannot hear any plea in mitigation. Even at this late hour I ask the Minister to say that he will issue at least a guideline saying that they are entitled to listen and they should do so in appropriate cases. If he cannot go that far I must take the opinion of the Committee. If it is then necessary to come back at another stage with wording which may be more appealing to the Committee I shall do so. Unless the Minister can help me in the way in which I have indicated I ask for the spirit of this amendment to be voted on now.

I am not sure whether I rise at my behest or that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In fact, it will be at my behest. I wish to be as sympathetic as possible to the noble Lord. He asks me to ensure that the Government will give a guideline to the adjudicators. I believe that it is right that the adjudicators should interpret the law as it is. I have suggested to the Committee that the adjudicator has the right to consider such circumstances as he wishes and that he can make recommendations should he wish to do so. That is the position and I hope that the Committee will agree that it is reasonable.

With respect to the Chair, should we not have Clause stand part first?

I understand that Clause 4 was stood part at the last sitting of the Committee.

I always find that the noble Lord is very helpful in regard to all merciful causes, and, in mercy to the Committee, we dealt with the clause yesterday and the decision was that it should stand part of the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 3, line 37, at end insert—

("Provided that a prosecution for this offence may only be brought once for any one period commencing with the expiry of leave to enter or remain.").

Is this point not covered by the long-established rules of criminal practice that a person who has been convicted or acquitted can merely point to the record and say, "Autrefois acquit" or "Autrefois convict"?

As usual, the learning of my noble friend Lord Renton, if I may call him that, is accurate. That was the very point that I raised. Peculiarly enough, one could defeat the plea of autrefois acquit in this particular case by choosing a different day in the same period. Therefore the prosecution could argue perfectly correctly that a person was acquitted in respect of the day or charge mentioned in the previous indictment but could then choose another day when it is said that he knowingly overstayed, although it is in the same period. I am reliably advised by those who look after the interests of immigrants that they have taken legal advice and are satisfied that without this amendment autrefois acquit would not be a bar to any further prosecution.

All I can say is that that surprises me greatly.

Nothing ceases to surprise me about this Bill and the ramifications of immigration law. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, need worry because under the provisions of Clause 5 overstaying is considered to be one offence. The offence is committed when a person first knows that he has overstayed and it continues to be committed throughout any period during which he is in the United Kingdom thereafter. There is only one offence although it will continue to be committed and, therefore, there can only be one prosecution. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.

I wish it did because I should love there to be agreement between the noble Earl and myself at long last. I do not think that is the answer because I repeat—and this is the advice presumably given to the immigration bodies which I mentioned—that the advice is that one could have a prosecution for having knowingly overstayed the leave on Monday (I repeat it is to be a continuing offence under this Bill) and the court is not satisfied that on Monday the defendant knew he had overstayed his leave, and in those circumstances he would be acquitted. The prosecution could then come back, even though that was a period before the charge was heard, and say, "Oh yes, I am now alleging he knew on Tuesday".

That is either right or wrong. Perhaps the noble Earl would say that he has listened to what has been said and will try to clarify the position between now and Report. If what I have said is a nonsense perhaps he will kindly tell me, and if it is not we can consider the matter on Report, I hope with the Government saying that they agree with this proposal. I have no intention of carrying the matter beyond that at this stage, but no doubt the noble Earl at his own behest will now rise and address the Committee.

Would not the noble Earl agree, with reference to this fascinating discussion, that if he is right the addition of the words in the amendment do him no harm at all and simply confirm that he is right? Therefore, he might as well include those words and then we can please all sides of the Committee.

Surely we should avoid putting into a statute unnecessary words which may again proclaim what the law is.

If that was so, I wonder why it was thought necessary in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill to say:

"Clause 5 makes the offence of overstaying leave to be in the United Kingdom a continuing one".

It is remarkable that it should be identified. It suggests that considerations different from the normal application of the principles mentioned by the noble Lord should be applied. That is because of the continuing nature of the offence.

The clause changes the law, which is explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is not a question of declaring the law.

That happy intervention from the noble Lord, Lord McNair, prevented the puppet from rising quite as quickly as he normally does when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pulls the strings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for clarifying the position because I realise the point with which the noble Lord is concerned. I was a trifle confused when we started talking about autrefois.I find it difficult enough to carry on a discussion about the legal position in English, and when we start talking about it in French as well it further complicates the issue for a simpleton like myself.

The point with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned is that if a person was considered to have overstayed on the Monday and was taken to the court on the Monday and the court decided that that man had not overstayed, the prosecution could come back and say, "Well, you knew you were overstaying on Tuesday and so we have got you now". The noble Lord was concerned that the person should not be acquitted on one day and retried on the second day. The point is that Clause 5 makes it a continuing offence. Once a person has overstayed on one day, he is therefore considered to have continued to overstay.

To take an absurd example—in fact, not all that absurd because it is a real one—an individual might have his time of leave here until 1st January. And it could be that on that day he went to Scotland and got blind drunk. When accused of overstaying, he could say, "Ah, but on 1st January I did not know that I was overstaying." Of course he did not know, because he was not in a state to know. Therefore, as the law now stands, if he did not know on that one day that he was committing an offence, he could thereby be permitted to stay.

What we have tried to do in Clause 5 is to say that if a person overstays and committed the offence on that one day, he is therefore committing the offence on the subsequent days as well. Therefore, the doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is clarified, even if I have not clarified it too well. If the person is found to be committing the offence on the one day, that offence continues thereafter.