asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the performance of Network Rail is satisfactory.

My Lords, following the problems created by years of under-investment and a flawed privatisation, Britain's railway infrastructure is now under the new ownership and strengthened management of Network Rail. Working with the industry as a whole within the strategic direction of the Strategic Rail Authority, the company is concentrating on its core priorities of operating, maintaining and renewing the railway to demanding performance targets—for the benefit of passengers and stakeholders, not shareholders.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, although I could not work out whether he responded with a "yes" or a "no"; that is, whether or not he believes that Network Rail's performance is satisfactory. Perhaps he could tell the House.

Does the noble Lord agree with the view of his own rail regulator that the explosion of costs at Network Rail is a direct function of the fact that no longer is there any shareholder equity in the company? Further, do the Government now agree that the governance structure, which was forcefully argued for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he was at the Dispatch Box, is in fact fatally flawed? As the rail regulator has himself pointed out, it is far more difficult to regulate a company with no shareholders.

My Lords, the answer to the first question put by the noble Viscount is that Network Rail has been fully in existence only since October of last year. It is, therefore, somewhat premature to ask how well it is doing set against such a limited perspective and against the Government's 10-year strategic plan for transport. Let me assure the noble Viscount and the House that the Government do not intend to throw money at Network Rail. However, over the 10-year period the Government will carry out the necessary investment to ensure that we have a modernised and effective railway system. I think that all noble Lords will recognise that there is much to be done.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the contractual structure that has been wished upon the railway system is fatally flawed in that one cannot force a contractor to deliver at the very highest levels of quality? What is Network Rail doing to ensure that we do not have a railway which is maintained in bits and pieces and whose quality does not give us the type of service that we want?

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. It is necessary to have a coherent structure in the development of the railway system, and that is what Network Rail is charged with providing. The contracting system requires Network Rail to establish a sophisticated system of monitoring. As we all know—recent events have emphasised the fact—that monitoring needs to be carried out with the greatest care. I do not believe that anything in the structure of the signing and development of contracts militates against Network Rail being able to succeed in its overall objectives.

My Lords—

My Lords—

This side!

My Lords, this side.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the railway system obviously still faces the most appalling difficulties, we can at least welcome the fact that the various elements in it are at last talking to each other in a constructive way, unlike the days of Railtrack when they were simply at each others' throats? Will he specifically welcome this morning's announcement by the Strategic Rail Authority of the route utilisation strategy for Midland Main Line? That demonstrates how the parties to the industry can work together for the benefit of all the people who work on it and use it.

My Lords, I appreciate very much what my noble friend indicated. In fact, there have already been some signal successes to which we can pay due regard and in which we can take pride. But we recognise that the problems of the past have been ones of coherence, particularly, as I mentioned earlier, in relation to the flawed privatisation. We now have a structure where, as my noble friend said, all the crucial players in the industry are talking and working together effectively.

My Lords, is the Minister really proud of the fact that the Byers bungle over the unnecessary administration of Railtrack has cost the taxpayer £70 million in fees and costs? Further, we are now told that by 2006 Network Rail's costs are to rise by £12 billion over budget to £27 billion. This year alone, services have been cut, delays have increased, fares have gone up and the passengers have suffered again. Is the noble Lord really proud of that record?

My Lords, I believe that some noble Lords will also recollect the costs of the botched privatisation process. Frankly, although a not insubstantial sum, the amount of £70 million must be set against the colossal costs to the nation, particularly in terms of transporting passengers and goods, of an ineffective railway. It is still early days as we attempt to recover from many years of substantial under-investment. Surely the noble Viscount recognises that what was handed over to the incoming administration in 1997 was a railway replete with problems, which will not be solved overnight.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of Railtrack's problems was that, in its seven years of existence, it did not manage to create an asset register and thus did not know what it owned or the condition of what it owned? Does not that problem still face Network Rail? Therefore, does my noble friend welcome the fact that maintenance of the Swindon to Paddington section of the line has been taken in-house, together with knowledge of the assets, so that at least control is held over that? Whatever contractors do, if they are not managed correctly, nothing right will happen.

My Lords, characteristically, my noble friend, with his great knowledge of the railway system, has hit upon a crucially important point. The failed structure of Railtrack led to a situation where the organisation was unaware of its assets. Network Rail is making significant progress on that point. It is a crucial building block in running the railway system effectively.

My Lords, is it an inherent part of the logic of a not-for-profit company that it is not entitled to make a profit but is entitled to make a loss?

My Lords, it is certainly the case that a considerable amount of the investment in Network Rail will repay only over a substantial period. I believe that the noble Lord will recognise that investment which is designed to produce the outcome of the main points of a 10-year strategy cannot be judged at present. But Network Rail is fully accountable to the Strategic Rail Authority and, therefore, the monitoring of its activities will be kept under the strictest review.

My Lords, with regard to the necessity, or otherwise, of having shareholders to be accountable to, is it not a fact that we shall spend £54 billion of public money over the next 10 years? I calculate that to be roughly £1,000 per person. Therefore, is it not correct that the rail shareholders are the general public—those who pay their taxes? I, and the country, need to be assured that that money is used properly to build a first-class railway system in this country.

My Lords, my noble friend is right. Members of the public represent the most substantial group of shareholders in the railway. Particularly significant is their role as taxpayers, given the considerable amount of government money invested in this area. But my noble friend will recognise that Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority have structures of accountability and they will be held to account. He will also recognise that nothing will serve the general public and taxpayers worse than for us to tolerate a railway that is well below modern standards.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why the safety regulations on the railway have been amended to preclude the use of the opposite line for trains in instances where track has been signalled for that purpose.

My Lords, we have consulted the Health and Safety Executive, the Rail Safety and Standards Board and Network Rail. None is aware of any recent amendments to standards or regulations that preclude the use of bi-directional signalling operations. However. I understand that the Railway Group Standard for the provision of lineside signals was changed in February 2002 when the installation of simplified bi-directional signalling was withdrawn for new signalling schemes.

My Lords. I thank the Minister for that reply, although I must say that it was rather opaque. The fact is that governments have sanctioned large sums of money for the provision of bi-directional signalling on most of our main lines and it is not being used, causing huge delays to people. It also prevents the safety regulations being enforced because it is difficult to inspect track if the single line is not used. Will the Minister therefore take back that Answer and press officials as to how much use is being made of bi-directional signalling where vast sums—tens of millions of pounds—have been spent in providing it and it is not being used?

My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord thought the Answer was opaque. He has much greater experience of the rail industry than I have and I thought the reply was perfectly clear. The simple fact is that the overall position with regard to bi-directional signalling has not been changed. I believe that the noble Lord is commenting on a limited area concerned with simplified bi-directional signalling for temporary or emergency situations which has been withdrawn. I hear what the noble Lord says about the potential costs in the through-flow of traffic, but it has been withdrawn because it was not felt that it was giving the necessary level of protection for trackside workers and that it caused some confusion with regard to the automatic warning system when trains went against the signals on the single tracks. Those are the two reasons for a limited reduction.

As regards the noble Lord's more general question about the whole system being suspended, that just is not so.

My Lords, perhaps I may give my noble friend an example and ask him a question. Is he aware that the Strategic Rail Authority has announced that the franchise for the Great Eastern Ipswich to London service will be based on a total closure of the line every three weeks until 2012 so that the track can be renewed? That is a closure of 54 hours every third weekend for the next 10 years because the company will not be able to operate some trains on the single track remaining. Does my noble friend agree that that will seriously disadvantage passengers and freight? Perhaps he will encourage the industry and its contractors to come up with schemes that enable single-line working to be operated safely.

My Lords, my noble friend is right; the priority is safe operation of single directional working on the railway. I do not have particular knowledge of the problems with regard to the service on the line he mentions but I shall look into the matter. Some unfortunate costs are attached to the massive investment being put into renewing track since Hatfield in order to guarantee that it is safe. That causes some disruption to the railways.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who spent some time at Didcot station at seven o'clock this morning would have welcomed a train arriving at any platform on any line and from any direction? Is it not somewhat depressing that the Strategic Rail Authority has lowered the punctuality thresholds for Network Rail and the services?

My Lords, the second point is an important one. There are signs of a slow improvement in punctuality. The noble Viscount is right. We are starting from a base that is scarcely tolerable. We therefore want to see a more rapid improvement and that is why demands on Network Rail are an increasing tendency. However, I notice that the Opposition spokesperson does not care in which direction he travels so long as he travels.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Midland Main Line services were suspended for the whole of Friday because apparently a Thameslink train brought down a mile and a half of the overhead line? Such incidents do not seem to occur in other countries. Will the Minister inquire why it happened?

My Lords, that was an unfortunate occurrence. It is the case that now and again some accident occurs on the railway producing massive disruption to passengers. Rightly, passengers feel poorly done by when that happens. For example, huge anxieties were expressed and there were great swathes of public complaints some weeks ago after a railside fire put the Paddington line out of action. Such events occur. I hear what the noble Lord says about accidents not happening elsewhere, but I believe that in some systems they do.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while everyone has a right to expect the railway to operate as safely as possible, we are in danger of adopting double standards when we treat railways so differently from highways? Is there a proposal, for example, for the rules on bi-directional working on our railways to be applied to contra-flows on motorways?

My Lords, that is perhaps a little adrift of the Question. I believe that the only view to which we would all subscribe in this House is that we expect vastly higher standards on the railways than those we have been able to achieve on the roads, and we intend to keep it that way.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What prospect there is of achieving their objective of 10 gigawatts of combined heat and power (CHP) by 2010 as set out in the energy White Paper (Cm 5761).

My Lords, the measures to support combined heat and power announced in the energy White Paper, when taken together with the support measures previously introduced by the Government, can significantly help CHP. Although challenging, the target to which the noble Lord referred is achievable with sustained effort on the part of both the private and public sectors.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and declare an interest in the promotion of small-scale generation of electricity. Does he agree that combined heat and power achieves efficiencies of up to 90 per cent compared with 40 to 50 per cent for a conventional power station, and that CHP has so far saved 4 million tonnes of carbon emissions in the atmosphere compared with conventional generation? However, does the Minister also agree that market conditions have meant a substantial slowdown in the creation of new CHP capacity? For example, in 2001, only 38 megawatts of new capacity were brought into effect compared with 800 megawatts in the previous year. In those circumstances, is not some major new initiative required in order to achieve the Government's objectives?

My Lords, the Government are well aware of and committed to the energy efficiency advantages of CHP. The noble Lord is right; the market conditions reflected in the relative prices of gas and electricity have reduced the market signals for the choice of CHP in a number of installations. However, the changes which the Government have brought about, both in the CHP draft strategy which we shall finalise later this year and in the energy White Paper, will help to turn that position, as will the changes in the new electricity trading arrangements (N ETA) regulations, which in part previously hindered the adoption of CHP in certain circumstances. A number of support measures are now in place to get us back on trend to achieve the target.

My Lords, the reality is that the new trading arrangements have successfully reduced the price of electricity by 40 per cent at the wholesale level and have been very beneficial for consumers. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, they have had a dramatic effect on investment. What positive steps will be taken by the Government to change things? Unless something is done now, the electricity generating industry will be frozen in its old-time, inefficient and environmentally unfriendly framework. The opportunity will no longer exist for new investment to be made because it is uncompetitive and uneconomic.

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in referring again to the changes in prices which have reduced the incentive for CHP. However, he is wrong to say that the Government are not already engaged in substantial support for that sector to offset those market signals. We have changed the climate change levy exemption and introduced enhanced capital allowances and a community heating programme of £50 million. As a result of the energy White Paper, power station consent applications will need to give full consideration to the CHP option. We have set a target for the Government estate for CHP. As I said, we have altered the NETA arrangements, which in some cases inhibited CHP adoption, and there are a number of other support measures.

I agree that hitherto we have not seen the market turn around. The success of these measures should come about over the next two or three years. As I said in my Answer, the target is challenging but we believe that we have the support measures in place to deliver it.

My Lords, are the Government building on the achievement of certain local authorities which have exploited CHP in combination with alternative energy sources significantly to reduce their overall energy consumption? Are the Government ensuring that the National Grid is more competitive in integrating those initiatives into the national electricity system?

Yes, my Lords; a number of local authorities on both a medium and small scale have positively considered and begun to introduce CHP schemes, some of which are based on renewable energy sources. I commend them for doing that and recommend other local authorities so to do. As regards the National Grid, this relates back to the initial position under the NETA arrangements of Ofgem, which have now been substantially modified, partly in order to be less detrimental to the adoption of CHP. That will change the balance and the cost of CHP feeding into the National Grid.

My Lords, what are the Government doing to implement the recommendations of the Carbon Trust, which is one of the Government's instruments, to try to achieve a low-carbon economy by encouraging the next generation of CHP technology, which, as the Carbon Trust states, offers potential for even better performance, lower costs and lower carbon emissions? What are the Government doing to encourage that?

My Lords, there are two dimensions to that. The first is to support the adoption of medium and relatively large-scale CHP through the various measures to which I referred. The second relates to micro-CHP and its potential contribution to the domestic and small commercial sector. The Government are at present much engaged in getting type approval adopted and in encouraging the sector to develop substantially in a way that can be incorporated into the next stage of building regulations, to encourage micro-CHP contribution to reducing what is still a burgeoning level of energy use within the domestic sector. So both parts of the next generation of technology are covered by government support.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many municipal and privately-owned waste incinerators incorporate combined heat and power technology and how many are operational in the United Kingdom?

My Lords, I regret that off the top of my head I cannot provide an answer for the noble Countess. I suspect that relatively few such facilities are municipally owned. In view of international comparisons, this is certainly an area in which we need to do substantially better.

My Lords, has there been greater investment in CHP as a consequence of this extension of the CCL exemption to that sector in April? Can the Minister tell the House what is meant by "good quality CHP" in that connection?

My Lords, there is a very complex definition of good quality CHP, which I am happy to provide to the noble Lord. The change has only just been brought about, since April. Therefore, I cannot say what effect that change in tax treatment has yet achieved. Clearly, at present there is a low level of take-up of new CHP, but all these measures are designed to encourage future planning decisions and commissioning in favour of CHP over the next two to three years.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Which Minister is now responsible for implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and what progress has been made in preparing for its implementation.

My Lords, I am responsible for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, working to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and Ministers in other departments.

We are making good progress in implementing the Act. Publication schemes approved by the Information Commissioner were adopted and published by all government departments, Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales on 30th November 2002. Schemes for all but a few local authorities and NDPBs came into effect in February this year. Publication schemes come into force today for police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Armed Forces.

My Lords, does the Minister remember those heady days of 1997 when the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, was in charge of a radical White Paper on freedom of information; a paper so radical that it cost him his job? Since then freedom of information has gone from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department and now to the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Is not part of the problem that rather than wanting to destroy the culture of secrecy in Whitehall, the Government are now a fully paid-up member of that culture? Would it not be a good idea to ask the First Civil Service Commissioner to run her eve over these preparations to see whether they are as radical as those introduced by countries such as Ireland, Canada and Australia, which have really tried to bring about change, to see whether that will happen here?

My Lords, the noble Lord is unduly pessimistic about both the strength of the legislation and our commitment to implement it in ways that deliver real benefits to the public in improvements to public services and a strengthening relationship between government and the public. This summer I shall review the preparedness of government and other public bodies for implementation. As part of that process of review, I shall be meeting the Information Commissioner and discussing with the advisory committee, which has on it some of our strongest advisers and challengers, its views on the legislation. We shall put before Parliament in November, as we have done in previous years, a report on our preparedness. We are committed to making this Act work effectively and it will be done.

My Lords, are government departments also ready, when full implementation of the Act is carried out, to continue to protect secret information, such as the particulars of MI5 and MI6, which are important to the national security of our country?

My Lords, those are absolutely proper questions. In both cases we wish civil servants to be well organised and prepared to comply positively and effectively with the responsibilities that the Act gives them, while also ensuring that the exemptions that Parliament has given in the legislation, including of course the importance of protecting secrecy, are adequately protected. Those will be some of the questions that I shall be addressing during the summer with my officials and with other government departments in the run-up to the publication of the report in November.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify this issue. When the Act is fully operational, if one public servant—say, a director of communications—made a complaint to another public body so that there was, in his own words, "A dossier that thick of complaints", would those complaints and the replies to them enter the public domain? If so, would it not be a lot healthier if that happened now?

My Lords, it is difficult without a fertile imagination to understand exactly to which hypothetical example the noble Lord might be referring. Nevertheless, I shall apply my brain to that hypothesis and see whether I can add anything further on subsequent reflections.

My Lords, who will bear the costs of obtaining the information? For example, when hospitals are obliged to release records, they are allowed to charge the person who asks for the information. What will be the position if one asks for information?

My Lords, there are two kinds of information. In my previous answer I referred to the information that public bodies themselves are meant proactively to publish on their websites. It is important that they are vigorous in doing so, which is what the Information Commissioner is reviewing. Clearly, accessing that information will be free.

With regard to specific requests—provisions for which commence in January 2005, 11 months early—there will be some charges for those, but the amount will be no more than 10 per cent, with a capped figure to that. So those requesting the information will not bear the full cost, nor should they.

My Lords, will the Minister repeat the last part of his answer? Did he say the provisions would come in 11 months early?

My Lords, indeed so. I said, January 2005—11 months early.

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.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 10, after "property)" insert "insofar as they are offences under that section of a type that is specified for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State in an order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"

I declare my interest. I shall play a part in the Bill as a former chair of a police authority and also as a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities.

The clause is supported strongly by the police. They feel that the lack of such a power in the past has prevented their stopping such anti-social behaviour. Neighbourhoods can be blighted by such a visible and often highly offensive mess. So long as the police use those powers appropriately and proportionately—where they reasonably suspect someone of carrying an article to commit criminal damage—we on these Benches can support the amendment.

In the past 50 years, crime seems to have become even more sophisticated than it used to be. Besides using fast motor cars, criminals now use various other modern inventions to assist them in the pursuit of crime. It is essential that the power of the police to arrest be restricted as little as possible. If the amendment had gone even further, I would have supported it gladly. My noble friend Lady Anelay has made a case that the Government should take very seriously.

I wish to speak on the amendment, as I am the independent chairman of the chief officer group concerned with race issues in the criminal and civil justice system in West Mercia. Without precise directions, the opportunities for perceptions and realities of discrimination to occur become much greater. Much effort has had to be expended in the post-Stephen Lawrence inquiry environment to check that such abuses do not occur. Therefore, this probing amendment asking the precise directions gives us the possibility of taking precautionary action against very damaging allegations that stop and search, in particular, are prone to bring about.

I am delighted by the comments made by the right reverend Prelate on stop and search. We support the amendment. The clause extends stop-and-search powers and amends the PACE Act 1984 to include the offences under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

We agree that the powers are reasonable in that there should be reasonable suspicion—there is no difficulty with that—but we are concerned about how they are used. Stop and search, and how those powers are used, is an area that creates very adversarial relationships between people from ethnic minorities and the police. Only a few years ago, 40 per cent of people stopped and searched in London were from an ethnic minority, predominantly black. At one time, 25 per cent of those stopped and searched nationally were from minorities. That is a very high proportion.

Since then we have seen changes in policing methods, but we have still not seen intelligence-based stop and search. One must sometimes wake up to some areas of black settlement in this country to see how young people feel harassed in how they are stopped and searched.

Putting those arguments to one side, the point remains that if powers of this nature are extended, we wish to ensure that such a statutory instrument order is subject to the resolution of both Houses of Parliament. For that reason, we would certainly support the amendment.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling the amendment. I am struck, in particular, by the fact that all noble Lords who supported the amendment—which, as the noble Baroness said, is restrictive—also support the clause, which generally widens stop-and-search powers. But I can understand the nervousness. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the right reverend Prelate, who referred to "suspicions" that exist about stop and search. We know that there is a long history, particularly as regards the ethnic dimension, and that for a long time there has been a view that there is over-representation of black and ethnic minorities among those who have become subject to stop-and-search powers. I understand the nervousness, so I can see the value of using the opportunity in Committee to probe the intent behind the clause.

We seek to ensure that we have flexibility in how this important legislation and set of powers operate. It is universally agreed that property damage, graffiti on premises and walls, damage to motor cars and all such incidents are extraordinarily irritating, costly, and debasing and degrading to an environment. For that reason, there has been widespread support for the extension of stop-and-search powers to this area of criminal damage. We see no good reason to create or support a route to limit or restrict that extended power. The noble Baroness said that that was not the real intent behind her amendment but that it was to seek further reflection from the Government on how we see the power working.

If a police officer has a reasonable ground to suspect that he will find an article made, adapted or intended for use in causing any form of criminal damage, it seems entirely reasonable to allow him the power to stop and search the relevant person. As I said, a key focus of our proposal is to attack the growing and very serious problem of graffiti. However, we must bear in mind that there are many other kinds of wilful damage to property where police would benefit from stronger powers to deal with the perpetrators.

Careful safeguards have been put in place for the use of stop-and-search powers—the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to them. They are contained in PACE and the relevant code of practice, Code A, which is issued under the legislation. We are trying to ensure that it is not just spray paint cans about which the police can be concerned. Property can be defaced and damaged by marker pens, etching implements and other items that scratch and deface. Like many other Members of the Committee, when I travel to work by train I find it difficult to see through carriage windows because they have been scratched and damaged so that only a blurred image is visible. Sometimes, early in the morning or late at night, I look through the window rather bleary-eyed, but a lot of damage is done to trains and other public property in the way that I have described. There are other forms of criminal damage: spraying or scratching windows, damaging cars, etching on bus timetables and such activities. We want to be able to capture such activity with this offence.

The noble Baroness asked whether guidance would be issued. Guidance will be issued to the police. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, probably knows, the issue is already being discussed with the police authorities, police representatives and the Association of Police Authorities. There is recognition of the value of introducing the new and wider power, but guidance will be very carefully framed so the police use it appropriately. I hope that that has given sufficient comfort to those who supported the amendment.

I can well understand noble Lords' nervousness about any widening of stop-and-search powers. I have campaigned against such changes in the past. But, with this particular offence and the need to do more about graffiti in its many manifestations, the extension of stop-and-search powers is more than justified. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Although I agree in principle with the proposal, which is necessary, I wish to utter a word of caution. Stop and search is an area of extraordinary sensitivity, particularly in areas of mixed ethnic population. Extending the quarry of the search virtually to cover such items as felt-tip pens means that an officer can justify almost any stop and search by having found an article that in the possession of most people would be perfectly innocent. I hope, therefore, that the guidelines will be updated to take account of that, and that chief constables will be particularly aware of the sensitivities and be closely attentive to the conduct of their constables in such areas. This is exactly the sort of thing that could spark considerable civil unrest. One reason why PACE was introduced was in response to that danger, and, as I was the Minister who took the legislation through, I say that with feeling.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate and I mark well the words of my noble friend Lord Elton, who, as he said, took through the PACE provisions in the first instance. This is, indeed, a sensitive matter. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was right to direct attention to the importance of having precise directions in areas of particular sensitivity.

I am encouraged by the Minister's response saying that there will be guidance and that it will be carefully framed. It will have to be to make the provision work flexibly and to gain the respect of people who will be stopped and searched ever more increasingly under these provisions.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 1, leave out "company" and insert "presence"

In sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, I would like the same issue clarified. Will the Minister clarify beyond doubt that a constable would have to be on the premises with the authorised person when the search was being conducted? If that is the case, we on these Benches are content to support the clause. It seems sensible to allow the authorised person, who is probably a specialist or expert, to search for suspected records or whatever it is they are looking for. They will know best. With that proviso, I support the amendments.

I support the amendment. Speaking as a completely lay person, the arrival of a police officer in one's house accompanied by someone else is more unnerving than the arrival of a police officer on his own. The behaviour of the person who accompanies the police officer must be impeccable. Such people have the same powers as a police officer and must therefore know precisely what can and cannot he done when a house is being searched. Flow will such people be briefed? Will they know exactly what their powers are on paper? Will they have a description of what they can do?

When people become absorbed in searching a computer, it is important to know how far they can go. It would be very frightening if one's computer was suspected of holding pornographic pictures, especially if it did not. I am imagining such a scene. Will the Minister tell us how such a person will know exactly what he or she can do?

This clause is literally an extension of Clause 1. It raises some important issues identified by my noble friend Lady Harris and by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was absolutely right to pinpoint the need to be sensitive about the powers that we invest, not only in the police, but in the people who accompany them. One simply has to look back in history to see what happened in Brixton and at Broadwater in relation to stop and search. Situations such as those must never be repeated.

I seek clarification about matters relating to the individuals accompanying the police when entering and searching. If such powers are given to the police, will they be subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the discipline identified in that Act? Will the person accompanying the police be subject to the same disciplinary code under PACE as the police officer? Would such a person be subject to the same independent police complaints authority machinery as the police officer involved? If not, we must be very careful not to grant these powers because there must be some accountability whether or not such people are with a police officer.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have each made an important point. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said that the arrival of one or more such persons would have an unnerving effect. It is proper that we look at the matter through the eyes of someone who is the unsuspecting and unwilling recipient of a visit. Of course, it is proper for the Government to develop a law to take account of technological advances. We all understand that, and the objectives are shared throughout this House. Equally, however, we must take care not to create what one might call 1984 powers. Under the clause as drafted, such people could enter a house with the powers of a constable, which, after all, are enormous, without even having to say who they are or to carry evidence of identity.

I wish to support, in particular, Amendment No. 5. which requires that such a person,

"shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier".

It is noteworthy that the clause does not confer the office of constable on such people, only the powers. Somebody who holds the office of a constable—the root and foundation of all a policeman's powers—must say who he is and show his identity, if required. I hope, therefore, that the Government will, at the least, accept Amendment No. 5. Without it, we would not keep a proper balance.

I support the amendments. It is worrying to have people entering houses, albeit with the authority of the police. I remember the number of complaints we had at the Broadcasting Standards Commission when people arrived with cameras, no doubt with the co-operation or permission of the police. It is a serious matter. We need to be reassured as to whether the powers in the Bill will extend to that category of person.

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for the way she moved the amendment. Helpfully, she focused on practical examples. It is by considering practical examples that we will perhaps understand better how we intend the new power in the clause to operate. Some helpful and constructive comments were also made during our discussion. I shall go through each amendment in turn. I shall also make some additional points at the close. I think that I can satisfy Members of the Committee on the points they raised in this important short debate.

Amendment No. 2 would achieve an interesting change by using the term "presence" rather than "company". That gets us off to a good start in considering the collective impact of the amendments. The amendment would make little difference. Essentially, the two words amount to the same thing. I think that the noble Baroness understands that. It was a peg on which to hang the debate. That is understandable.

The words simply imply that the constable is on the relevant premises with the authorised civilian. The noble Baroness gave a useful example and asked whether it would be right for the constable to be in the hallway while the civilian was in the study. The answer is "Yes". It is OK under the clause. The constable does not have to be looking over the civilian's shoulder but must be on the premises.

In a sense, that brings us to Amendment No. 3. We take the view that it is right that civilians accompanying a constable to assist in exercising search and seizure powers under a warrant should be supervised by that constable in doing so. There will be supervision. The Bill also makes it clear that a civilian can exercise the relevant powers only in the company—the "presence", if you like—of the constable. Beyond that, there is no need of a further requirement for direct supervision. To be effective, the civilian will need some freedom of action, but he will always act under the general direction of the constable.

I accept that there is a balance to be struck. The example of the computer and the technical expertise that the civilian might have is useful. I am sure that we could extend the range of examples. The civilian will have that technical expertise. The constable may not, but he will appreciate and understand the importance of gaining access to data that the computer might hold, including, in particular, pornographic images and so on. That was a helpful way of looking at the situation.

I repeat that the civilian will always be under the general direction of the constable. The constable retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the warrant is properly executed. In part, that addresses the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The constable is subject to the PACE codes and to police disciplinary requirements and will have to ensure that the civilian conducts himself properly at all times. In general, the power would not work effectively if the constable had constantly to be looking over the shoulder of the civilian when, actually, he wanted the civilian to use his initiative and exercise his imagination in conducting what might be a very forensic search, particularly if computer records were being examined.

Amendment No. 4 would create a requirement for further written authority from a senior officer before somebody accompanying a constable in executing a warrant could exercise relevant search and seizure powers. That is not necessary. Such a person's participation would, in any event, have already been authorised by a judge or magistrate. That authority would have been given in the knowledge that it implied access to specific powers. Obtaining additional written authority from a chief inspector or other senior officer would add a further level of bureaucracy and might even contribute to delay. In many instances, speed will be of the essence. I am sure that Members of the Committee who have knowledge of the importance of speed in some police operations will understand why we make that observation.

The suggestion in Amendment No. 5 has already been accommodated in amendments to PACE code of practice B, made in response to a similar amendment tabled in Committee in another place. They cover the searching of premises and the seizure of property. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was right to remind us of the importance of getting it right and not appearing draconian or 1984-ish.

Amendments to that code came into effect on 1st April. They require that any person accompanying a constable on a search of premises should carry proper identification for production on request. In addition, there is a requirement that the officer in charge of the operation or, specifically, in charge of the search will be required by the code to identify and introduce any such persons and briefly describe their role in the process. That goes a long way towards what I might want if I were feeling vulnerable and threatened by the presence of officers and civilian support staff in my home or my property. The fact that there is a requirement to explain why the person is there and is assisting in the search operation is reassuring. It means that people will get a clear explanation and will be able to understand why the search is being conducted in a particular way.

I think that I have covered all the points raised in the debate save one: would the support staff—the civilians—be fully briefed? They would have to be fully briefed on the nature of the operation. A warrant sets clear limits on what can be searched for and seized, and police officers will always provide thorough briefing. One further thought occurs to me. There will have to be a degree of training for support staff who are to exercise powers under the Bill. They will need to understand fully the import of what they are doing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, raised the issue of complaints, as, I think, did the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The officer whom the civilian is accompanying is ultimately responsible and would, initially, face any disciplinary or complaints action as a consequence. Ultimately, the line of responsibility runs to the chief constable, and there is no change from the current position with regard to liability for civilians attending at the execution of a warrant. That liability is there, as it is. The Bill gives further powers to allow civilians to take action in assisting the search. There is that ultimate line of responsibility, and we believe that the current arrangements work satisfactorily. There will be that liability for civilians attending at the execution of a warrant.

Will the individual assisting the police be subject to any discipline, and will the matter of discipline be the responsibility of the police accompanying the individual? If that is the case—the Minister said that from time to time the police are unable to keep an eye on what is going on—what will happen to the individual if he crosses the boundary of his particular responsibility, because there could be heated circumstances? Who will be responsible for the individual and what will be his or her accountability?

When the noble Lord first spoke. he raised an important issue. As I said, we shall require civilians to have the flexibility to work without a constable constantly looking over their shoulder. They will need to use their initiative in helping and supporting the activity of searching premises for particular things. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, but it must be remembered that the conditions of employment of civilians are very important in this regard. They must conform to proper procedures. They must conform to what is set out in their contract about what they can and cannot do. Subsequently, if they are found to be in breach of it, that is a serious disciplinary offence in itself. As I carefully explained, the line of accountability and responsibility is such that there remains that civil liability right up to the level of chief constable.

If the noble Lord is still unclear about how that will work, we shall ensure that by the time we reach Report it will be set out more clearly in writing how we see those disciplinary responsibilities working. It is an area of concern which we want to ensure we get right. Obviously, I shall share the correspondence with all Members of the Committee.

I am glad that I shall be copied in, because I, too, have the same anxiety that the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, expressed. In his reply, when the Minister brought before us the possibility of a civilian assistant crossing the grounds of propriety, he said that that would be a very serious disciplinary offence, but as the civilian is not within the disciplinary system, that does not seem to be more than a matter of interest. What we want to know is what would be the effect.

That was not actually the point which I wished to raise, but it is tangential to it. The picture in our minds is the searching of a small premises where the constable may be in the hall and the assistant may be in the study. But what if it is a factory on several floors? Surely, in that situation, the matter of carrying personal identification is important. Equally important for the assistant is the willingness and readiness to exhibit it, rather than throwing one's weight around and generally causing anxiety. It really is necessary for these people to be caught within a proper code of conduct which bites on them, as opposed to merely meeting with reproval if it does not succeed.

My final question is rather bigger. I understand new subsection (2A)(a), which reads,

"the execution of the warrant".

But why is it necessary for these people to have the power of seizure? Surely the constable can do the seizure. That would considerably limit the extension of power asked for under the Bill. Of course, the limitation of the extension of power is something on which we should be keen.

Before the Minister replies, I noticed that he said that the present arrangements worked satisfactorily. Will the Government consider what has happened and is liable to happen in deportation cases—whether involving convicted criminals, overstayers or illegal immigrants? There seems to be plenty of scope for official parties to go to the wrong address or person, perhaps mistaking or confusing their name. Out of this, not only can aggravation occur to individuals, but there can also be considerable repercussions for race relations in the area in question.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I understand his nervousness—in particular, given his comments when we discussed the earlier amendment. The noble Lord has practical experience of introducing legislation which for many people was very controversial. Back in 1984, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of which the codes were part, was introduced, there was great concern. There had been an earlier reliance on judges' orders and so forth, but the PACE code was considered to be a very big leap of faith. Those of us— including myself—who argued against PACE and the way in which it was going to work were wrong. It has done a great deal to protect the liberties of the individual. It set clear lines for the police for the operation of legislation. It has worked in the interests of the police and the policed.

We want to ensure that that important tradition continues. For that reason, any changes must be very carefully thought through—a view obviously supported and well appreciated. So, yes, this is an important extension. The noble Lord said that he could see an important way in which it could be constrained by taking away from civilians the power of seizure. However, we take the view that seizure powers exercised by civilians will be important because they give necessary operational flexibility. It may—it probably will—be exercised only in the following 'way. From time to time, a civilian individual will see something which he or she knows to be of relevance and significance to the investigation which is in hand, acquires—seizes—it and passes it to the constable saying, "Look, this is germane to our inquiry. It clearly is part of what we are after. Here it is. This is the documentation or disk that you will require for the furtherance of this investigation". Seizure will probably be in those terms in most instances. I hope that that gives a reasonable example of how we see this working.

I have nothing further I can usefully add to the debate, which has been helpful. The reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, were helpful in that regard too.

I am grateful for the contributions of all Members of the Committee, which have drawn out some of the remaining concerns which we will need to resolve between now and Report. I am also grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write in detail to Members of the Committee with regard to the important matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia; that is, the disciplinary system to which civilians should be subject. It is important that that is considered before the next stage.

I was also struck that after the Minister spoke about civilians needing some freedom of action, he said that they would be under general direction; that they would want to use their initiative; and that it would be important for them to exercise their imagination. All of that made me think more carefully about the points made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy about the importance of guidance and training. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will give further thought to the issue of training. I hope that he will consider that between now and Report. He might include something on the matter in his letter and consult the police as to how that might be approached.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Yes, that is something which should be spelt out more clearly. We want to get this right. We are grateful for the support for how the clause will be exercised. I am particularly appreciative of the understanding of the noble Baroness of what we are trying to achieve and what it will add to the way in which police investigations are carried out. I am more than happy to give a commitment to cover issues relating not just to civilian discipline but to training.

I welcome that commitment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 7:

Line 12, leave out "a class C drug (within the meaning of that Act)" and insert "cannabis or cannabis resin"

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 would amend the proposed new clause, which the Minister has clearly and helpfully explained. As she pointed out, as a result of Amendment No. 6, the Bill will be restructured—again— by the addition of a new clause extending the list of arrestable offences in PACE. As the Minister hinted in her opening remarks, we have some concerns about this, particularly in regard to subsection (3) and the relatively casual way in which the possession of any and all class C drugs is now to become an arrestable offence. We are not convinced that the Government have fully thought through the effects of this policy change.

Our amendment would limit the arrestable offences to possession of cannabis or cannabis resin and leave the legal position of all other class C drugs unchanged. For the sake of good order, in moving it I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42, which would be relevant only if the Bill were to proceed in its unamended form. They are amendments to Clause 11—

"Power of arrest for possession of Class C drugs"—

and have exactly the same objectives as Amendment No. 7; that is, to restrict the power of arrest for possession of class C drugs to cannabis or cannabis resin.

As the Minister pointed out, in July 2002 the Government announced their intention to implement a long-stated policy objective of downgrading cannabis to a class C drug. This will bring cannabis into a category containing 117 other drugs. For the most part they are fairly obscure pharmaceuticals but, nevertheless, have vital medical properties for sufferers of certain diseases such as epilepsy, as the Minister explained.

The Government's thinking on the issue of cannabis appears, outwardly at least, to be rather muddled. No doubt the Minister will enlighten the Committee when she responds. The proposal to downgrade cannabis to a class C drug has, rightly or wrongly, been widely interpreted as an acceptance by the Government of the use of cannabis for social and recreational purposes. It is fair to say that that interpretation has been underlined by various government statements suggesting that the police should not waste their time targeting cannabis and their endorsement of cannabis acceptance policies by the police.

However, under the Bill, the Government appear to be turning 180 degrees. Having at first proposed an apparent relaxation by moving cannabis to class C, they are now using the Bill not only to retain possession of cannabis as an arrestable offence but, for good measure, to add 117 other drugs to the arrestable list at the same time.

Further, when read in conjunction with Schedule 24(2), which increases the maximum sentence for dealing in cannabis from five years to 14 years, the policy appears still further confused. The drug's seriousness is apparently to be downgraded, but punishments for dealers are becoming harsher—a mixed and confused message if ever there was one. Demand is more than likely to increase as users become aware of cannabis having been reclassified as a less pernicious drug. Accordingly, supply will increase, and if the Government think that their provisions in Schedule 24(2) will hold back this tide, I can only refer them to the well known example of King Canute.

If the Bill proceeds unamended, it will not be only on the general issue that people are confused. Many of us have had a very helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, in his capacity as chief executive of Turning Point. He says:

"The most disheartening aspect of these contradictory proposals in the law is that changes in patterns of supply and use of cannabis cannot now be easily analysed. No one will be able to say whether changes have come about because of the reclassification or because of the increase in penalties for possession".

One aspect of the drugs issue on which we can all surely agree is that it is bedevilled on every side by often unfounded assertions. We need hard information on this difficult topic, and these proposed changes by the Government will not help us achieve that. A further problem relates to the fact that in retaining the power of arrest for possession of cannabis, the Government have swept up possession of all class C drugs into an arrestable offence. In consequence, 117 other drugs are to be treated on an equal par with cannabis.

As observed in Committee in the other place by Simon Hughes on 7th January:

"there were no complaints in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s about law enforcement as a result of the fact that possession of class C drugs was not an arrestable offence".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 128.]

So if there has been no cause for concern over it not being an arrestable offence for the past 30 years, why should there be such a concern now? Why, potentially, take up police time by extending their powers in an area where there appears to have been no problem over the past 30 years?

These 100 or so other drugs include many medicinal drugs. The Minister referred to benzodiazepines, taken by epileptics. While it is understood that possession of drugs with a prescription is not an arrestable offence, is this legally true, as opposed to being practically true? If it is true, does that mean that epileptics will in future have to carry their prescriptions around with them and, if they do not, might they be arrested? That seems strange. A distinction should be made and if cannabis is soon to be included in the class C category, the importance of our amendments is underlined.

In the Committee stage in the other place, the Minister, Hilary Benn, stated that if a class C drug was in someone's possession because it had been obtained on a doctor's prescription, that would not be contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The police would not be able to arrest for possession unless the drug had not been prescribed. The Minister said in Committee on 7th January that the drugs which are legal with prescription are,

"put in a separate category from cannabis in what will now be the class C category of drugs".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 139.]

The problem is that at the moment, I can see no provision in the Bill that separates existing class C drugs from cannabis—hence, the further need for our amendments.

I fear that the Government are in a muddle over their attitudes and policy towards cannabis. Unamended, the Bill will make the muddle worse because it will sweep 117 other class C drugs into the muddle. It is no good the Minister saying that the police will not arrest for possession non-cannabis class C drugs. If they do not need to arrest, why change the law to give them these new powers?

If the Government are determined to pursue their mixed cannabis message, while it is regrettable, then so be it, but let their message be mixed over cannabis alone and not over all class C drugs. I beg to move.

Since we have this amendment before us, part of which is the replacement for Clause 11, I hope I will be permitted to put the point of view of these Benches on the way in which the Bill addresses possession of class C drugs, particularly cannabis. In the light of this, I have, along with the Minister, given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill.

The main reason for our objection to Clause 11 and Amendment No. 6 is not the measures about passports and road traffic offences, which we of course support. No, it is subsection (3) relating to cannabis and other class C drugs. The Government's approach in the Bill to cannabis departs substantially from that recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place and the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs.

In his helpful letter, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred, the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who regrets he cannot be in his place this afternoon, gives Turning Point's point of view. He reminds us that the rationale behind the Home Affairs Select Committee's recommendation for reclassification of cannabis was that cannabis needed to be separated from the markets of drugs that cause the most harm. He goes on to say:

"But I fear that the separation of markets will be undermined by the mixed approach the Government has decided on. The separation needs to be at the point of supply, not at the point of consumption".

The Government pride themselves on taking the advice of scientists and experts. Indeed, their whole approach to controversial issues such as how to tackle foot and mouth disease, CJD and SARS, and how to deal with the stem cell and GM crop issues, is based on their claim that they devise policy in the light of the facts as interpreted by experts. In this case, they are ignoring the experts.

Following the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C, the Government are now in danger of diluting the benefits of that through this legislation. Neither of the two eminent committees that recommended reclassification seriously considered that the Government might retain the power of arrest and greatly increase the penalties for possession of cannabis. While I am aware that the Government have claimed that these powers will be used only when there is a so-called aggravating factor, the powers themselves are wide open to abuse.

The Minister said that arrest is likely to be the exception rather than the rule. This seems a very strange way in which to legislate. If the reason why the Government are proposing changes to arrestability and sentencing for cannabis possession is because they believe cannabis to be more harmful than other class C drugs, I wonder why they are reclassifying at all. If not, why the sudden need to toughen the law? There was never any suggestion before the reclassification that existing penalties for possession of class C drugs were too lenient.

On these Benches, we believe that although the use of cannabis is not without harm, the Government were right to reclassify it, to emphasise the difference between cannabis and other more harmful class B drugs. In addition, there is no evidence that such a move will lead to significant increased use. Given those facts, it is logical for us to oppose the introduction of new powers of arrest and increased maximum sentences.

A major incidental advantage of reclassification is that it frees up police time to deal with the hard-drug dealers, who should be the target of our efforts. A major study on the policing of cannabis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2002 estimated the cost of enforcing the law on cannabis at £500 per case, or £38 million per year—half a per cent of the total police budget. Introducing the measures in this Bill with regard to arrest and sentencing could remove the advantage of all those savings which could be deployed to consolidate or regain public confidence in the police.

I should like to say a word about aggravating factors. Neither the Bill nor the accompanying notes spell out what the aggravating factors are. As the noble Baroness said, that will come in guidance for the police later in the year. In the light of that, I believe the Bill to be very short-sighted in the way in which it deals with cannabis. Arrest is probably never an appropriate response to the personal use of cannabis, regardless of the circumstances. DrugScope, which has looked at what is probably meant by aggravating factors, is concerned that the discretionary use of the power of arrest will create problems which will serve further to undermine the confidence of some sectors of the community in the police force and the criminal justice system.

Again, the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, says in his letter:

"There is no compelling evidence that the arrest of people in possession of cannabis leads at all frequently to arrests for more serious offences. Indeed, an analysis of 30,000 custody records found that only 1 per cent of those charged with cannabis possession was later charged with more serious offences".

Therefore, possession of cannabis is not going to lead to other more serious offences.

I hope that the three-strike approach to cannabis possession will not be included in the guidelines. As for the possibility of a public-order aggravating factor, it is highly unlikely that it will be a major problem. Cannabis users rarely offend public order as alcohol abusers do—quite the opposite. In my small experience of cannabis users, they are normally so laid back that they are almost horizontal. Anyway, the police already have extensive powers to deal with breaches of public order, so I am puzzled as to why the provision is needed. There are very real dangers of alienating young people by arresting them for something that they know to be less harmful than tobacco and alcohol.

I am also concerned about the effects of the powers on those who obtain great relief from cannabis, many of whom are MS sufferers, who grow their own and may supply other sufferers. They have waited a long time for a licensed cannabis medicine, and may have to wait several months more. Their relief at the reclassification will have faded when they read the Bill. The possession of a large number of cannabis plants may be regarded as an aggravating factor by some police officers. Police discretion in the matter is dangerous. Many recreational cannabis users are young people who do not engage in any other criminal behaviour and who do not go on to use any other drugs. In the light of that fact, I am sure that we do not want to see them given a criminal record with which to start out in life.

A survey of police officers conducted by Tiggey, May et al found that three quarters of police officers felt that the present cannabis laws criminalised individuals who would not otherwise come to the attention of the police. Nearly half believe that the current arrangements damaged their relations with local communities. It seems absurd to destroy completely the potential benefits of reclassification by including the power of arrest and increased penalties in the Bill. The Runcimann report of 2000 concluded that,

"the present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of the time and resources of the criminal justice system and especially of the police. It inevitably bears more heavily on young people on the streets of inner cities, who are also more likely to be from minority ethnic communities, and as such is inimical to good police-community relations. It criminalises large numbers of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young people to the detriment of their futures".

Three years on from the Runcimann report, I see no reason to revise that verdict. If powers of arrest are introduced for possession of class C drugs, many of those harms will persist.

I support the amendment, but for my own part I would go further. The reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug was regarded by many as a move in the right direction. Why, therefore, are the Government changing tack so soon? The Minister says, by way of explanation, that the exercise of the new power will be subject to guidelines and, in any event, will be exercised only very occasionally. I do not, for my part, like that. If the power of arrest is to be there at all—although I am against that power for class C drugs—it ought to be spelt out in the Bill in which circumstances it can he used, and not left to guidance.

I hope that this is an appropriate moment at which to say that the whole new clause, and in particular the issues around class C drugs, is for me the focus of a major concern that will appear at a number of points throughout the Bill. I support many of the points made by previous speakers.

The clause, and its earlier subsections, activates a kind of post-September 11th anxiety level in the whole of society and builds upon it. It takes us into an arena where the most creative ways of dealing with criminal offences and offending behaviour generally are submerged under a rhetoric of toughness. The Chamber needs to consider carefully whether that rhetoric of toughness actually contributes to a rise in the level of crime.

If we add to the number of arrestable offences, we add to the number of the people arrested. It may be possible to justify this arrest, that arrest or the next arrest. It may be possible to justify, as the Minister did, particular additions to the list of arrestable offences on the grounds of experience. But at what point will we consider the incremental effect on the culture of arrestability in our society?

If we increase the number of offences, we increase the number of people arrested—otherwise, there is no point in doing it. If we increase the number of people arrested, we statistically increase the number of people wrongly arrested. If we increase the number of people wrongly arrested, we increase the number of people who are inducted into a criminal culture. I do not know at which specific point and in response to which specific clause the Chamber will rebel against that incremental culture. However, I hope that at some point it does. If it does not, under the guise of a rhetoric driven by articles in the popular press and so forth, we shall believe that we are reducing criminal activity and actually be sowing the seeds by which it is increased.

It is no coincidence that the nub of the debate on the clause relates to cannabis. As other Members of the Committee have said, that is an area in which we can be sure that we shall increase the number of people whom we bring into touch with a criminal culture, and whom we label, arresting them sometimes correctly under the law and sometimes wrongfully. In that process, we shall not be reducing criminal activity—we shall be laying the grounds for its future increase. I beg noble Lords to consider very carefully in relation to each and every clause whether we should not have a presumption of not adding to the number of arrestable people and incarcerated people, all of which inhibits the possibility of rehabilitation and reducing criminal activity.

The new policy on cannabis was unveiled some months ago. My noble friend Lord Carlisle made a most spirited speech, pointing out the contradictions in the new policy and the absurdity of saying that possession of cannabis was really pretty unimportant and that the police should not waste their time on it, yet increasing the penalties for dealing in cannabis. Now we have confusion worse confounded. The Bill adds to the confusion by saying that cannabis is not all that dangerous, but that in spite of that fact, and despite the fact that we are downgrading it to class C, its possession should be an offence warranting arrest. That is pretty absurd.

I should have liked things to be left well alone. I do not subscribe to the view that cannabis is unimportant and not really all that dangerous. I have plenty of evidence of the fact that it is extremely dangerous. It is well acknowledged, for instance, that it could precipitate very serious mental illness. I do not subscribe to the nonsense of it being unimportant—but that is a different matter. The fact remains that there is no consistency whatever left in the Government's policy.

The absurdity of the position is best illustrated by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. There are a number of substances in class C, and the Government themselves acknowledge that cannabis is really rather different from the rest of them. Yet in the interests of consistency they are saying, "Because we, for our very strange reasons, think that cannabis possession should be an arrestable offence, we feel that it is now necessary to make anabolic steroid possession an arrestable offence". There is no sense whatever in that.

If the Government really think that there is a case for cannabis possession being an arrestable offence even though it has been downgraded to class C, then it should be dealt with on its own. On that I agree with what has been said. We certainly should not go along with the view that it really does not matter if a whole lot of other offences are created or a whole lot of other circumstances are recognised where arrest would be proper.

I confess that I am not as knowledgeable of drugs of an illegal kind as those who have already spoken; so I shall not burden the Committee by commenting on them. On arrestable offences, however, I think that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester puts forward a view that should not be ignored. We do not want too many people arrested on a purely prima facie piece of evidence when they may not be deliberately guilty.

Subsection (2) deals with an,

"untrue statement for procuring a passport".

We do not want people to obtain passports by deliberate deceit. However, I should think that many people have been inaccurate, although not deliberately untruthful, in making their passport application. I therefore believe that the provision should refer to "a deliberately untrue statement" rather than simply "an untrue statement". That might enable justice to be done in those circumstances.

I do not think that the Minister mentioned the next issue when she put forward subsection (4). If she did I did not take it in. It is to be an offence under Section 174 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to make false statements and to withhold material information. Broadly speaking, it is upon the prosecution to establish a case against anyone. Although there are circumstances in which the burden of proof changes, my recollection is that it does not do so here under Section 174. It can be a matter of opinion whether particular information which could even be described as material should give rise to an offence that is punishable and arrestable. I ask the Government to reconsider the exact wording of the subsection. I think that we could be abandoning what has been the usual practice of not arresting people unless they have been deliberately misleading.

I wish to add to the argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. We have heard several times in this House in the past few months the argument that even if something may be an offence on which it would be undesirable to charge many people, it should remain an offence and we should rely on the discretion of the prosecution not to bring such a charge. That was argued a number of times in relation to the Sexual Offences Act. I heard it put forward in the moving debate on the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The argument was that a humane discretion would be exercised on when to prosecute.

I feel increasingly uneasy when I hear that argument. I believe that the law should be clear. I believe that that is immensely important when the underlying philosophy of our law is that there is a liberty to do that which is not prohibited. We should regard the law and that underlying principle as a rock on which people can set their feet. It is not good enough for the Government to seek to justify the creation of a criminal offence by saying, "This will be used only in certain limited circumstances. For the most part those who live in anxiety may take consolation in the fact that the discretion will not be used to prosecute". I suspect that that is not much consolation to those who live in anxiety.

Even more importantly, I think that underlying this debate is a very important principle of the philosophy of the criminal law. We should not lightly expose people to prosecution by the seductive argument that the prosecuting authorities are humane, sensitive people who will always exercise their judgment wherever possible in favour of mercy.

If the debate is reverting to the more general topic of the government new clause, I should like to add one point on false documentation. The Minister is dealing with passports and driving licences, which are of course the key that opens the door to many things in this country. However, has she thought of national insurance numbers? I remember a remarkable burglary in which the target turned out to be blank birth certificates. We had little doubt that the improper use for which those were taken was to get national insurance numbers and thereby to he able falsely to claim benefits.

I do not think that that matter falls into any category of which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, disapproves; nor, I think, does it fall into anything of which the right reverend Prelate would disapprove. It is not at the moment covered. As far as I can see, it is a pretty serious matter. It is causing an enormous drain on national resources. Will the noble Baroness look into it? I have given her no notice of it, but I should be very grateful sometime for an answer.

I thank the noble Viscount for that intervention. I think that he makes a very good point on national insurance numbers. We know that a huge amount of fraud results from the use of passports and other identification which could include national insurance numbers, resulting in more than £1 billion of waste.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was the only Member of the Committee to refer specifically to other issues of fraud. I understand his hesitation about the way in which those offences have historically been viewed. He is right that offences of fraudulently obtaining a passport or driving licence were previously, rather innocently, seen as the result of someone making a mistake or deliberately doing something for their own use. Consequently, those matters were previously not regarded as arrestable. Very unfortunately, times have changed significantly. We now know that passports and other forms of identification can be used for a very serious purpose as the major instrument of those who want to spread terror and anxiety among our community. We have to deal with those matters much more seriously.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. If someone does not make a deliberately untrue statement but innocently does so, should that really be arrestable?

Within the meaning of the section if a person made an innocent misstatement, he or she would not be caught. We seek to catch those who seek to use the documents fraudulently. There are many examples of documents that have been obtained improperly. Others have obtained documents to demonstrate the ease with which they can he obtained. One remembers well the journalist who made a fraudulent application for a driving licence on behalf of Mr Blunkett. We know that such documents can be obtained. We need to ensure that people understand that they should not be obtained fraudulently and that we bring an end to that practice. Of course, I shall consider the drafting as the noble Lord suggests to see whether it needs to be perfected in any way. We believe that it suffices at the moment but I undertake to reconsider it.

I turn to the main import of all that has been said in relation to the amendments we are discussing. The theme that ran through the address of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was very much that the measure constituted muddled thinking on the part of the Government. That point was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who said that it was short-sighted arresting someone or increasing the penalty for possession. I believe that the noble Baroness made that point on a number of occasions. However, as regards possession, the Government have not increased but reduced the punishment. The noble Baroness will know that previously the sentence was up to five years' imprisonment. We have now reduced it to a maximum sentence of two years. Were the Government's amendment not to be accepted, it would no longer be an arrestable offence. I believe that the noble Baroness said on three occasions that the Government were increasing the penalty. I say very clearly that we are not; we are reducing it.

I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in raising the issue of class C drugs and of moving in the right direction, tried to suggest that we were withdrawing from that very positive stance. I hope that shortly I shall be able to persuade the noble and learned Lord that that is not what we seek to do.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester made a valid point as regards the major concern about rhetoric on toughness. I make it absolutely clear that the Government have no truck with rhetoric. We wish to change things on the ground. I speak for the Government today and I say that, I hope, with clarity. I believe that noble Lords are exercised about the way in which we deal with very difficult social issues on the ground. We wish to deal with them productively and carefully so that we maximise the opportunities to make sure that the rehabilitation of those who offend is, if not assured, at least provided with the best opportunity for advancement so that we do not have the current level of recidivism. I say to the right reverend Prelate that we do not seek to increase the number of arrestable offences. At the moment possession of cannabis is an arrestable offence.

It is right when looking at the level of offences to bear in mind that possession of class C drugs is at the moment capable of being an offence for which people are dealt with. The number of persons found guilty or cautioned for offences involving unlawful possession of class C drugs in England and Wales in 2000 was only 331, but I am sure that those were the more serious cases which had to be dealt with and were dealt with, whereas 70,306 people were dealt with for possession of cannabis. In terms of reducing the number of arrestable offences, I suggest, I hope, mildly and with the greatest respect, that the moves that we are taking will reduce that number and not increase it, although I entirely take on board what Members of the Committee said in relation to the way in which the measures will bite.

As regards possession, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether people in receipt of prescriptions would be at risk. The Committee will know that Regulation 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 governs that matter. A person may have in his possession controlled drugs under the terms of Schedule 2, 3 and Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the regulations. That allows a person to have those controlled drugs in their possession for administration for medical, dental or veterinary purposes in accordance with the directions of a practitioner. That is the position. We are not changing it. It will remain the same. It has not caused anxiety in the past and it is highly unlikely to cause real difficulty in the future. However, we have to deal with class C drugs generically. They all come within the same classification.

The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was right to say that cannabis is not viewed as benign by everyone. The Government are not being inconsistent in their view. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned the psychotic effect that cannabis can have on those who suffer from mental illness. Cannabis has been identified as an accelerant in terms of the disintegration of the mental health of some vulnerable adults who have a propensity to that particular vulnerability. We say that cannabis can be a very serious drug. We are not suggesting that its use should be considered lawful. We seek to discourage the use to which it is currently put, particularly by young people. However, we take into account that circumstances need to be addressed in terms of how they are treated.

We need to view the way in which we approach cannabis, and the arrestability of cannabis, within the context of the new structure we seek to put in place in relation to how offenders will be dealt with. As regards the framework—we think that this has coherence—it is important that the guidance that will be produced by ACPO will set a standard which will be applied by all police officers across the country. Of course I hear and understand what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said in relation to the need for clarity and consistency of the law. Like him I believe that it is important that that clarity exists if we are to retain our common law, as that which is not denied is inherently permitted within the way in which our law has always been structured. We do not propose to change that.

In the situation in which we now find ourselves there are two pull factors. First, the use of cannabis is deemed to be unlawful because of its aberrant effect on a large number of the population. Secondly, if we wish to reduce its use, we have to be much more sensible and flexible in the way in which we respond to those who may be capable of being persuaded to give up its use entirely. That is where one has to look at the structure which we shall put in place. We are sending out a very clear message to young people that cannabis misuse, or, indeed, any other drug misuse, constitutes criminal activity which will not be tolerated. Police enforcement will, therefore, be consistent with the more structured framework for early juvenile offending established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 where a young offender can receive a reprimand, a final warning or charge depending on the seriousness of the offence. Following one reprimand any further offence will lead to a final warning or charge. Any further offence following a warning will normally result in a charge being brought. After a final warning, the young offender must be referred to the youth offending team, to arrange a rehabilitation programme to prevent re-offending.

Let us put that in the context of the way in which we hope that all those dealing with young offenders will approach their treatment and rehabilitation. The officer will have an opportunity to caution the young offender and to remove the cannabis. There will also be an opportunity to track the behaviour of that offender and, hopefully, to make a helpful intervention to stop repeat behaviour before it becomes deleterious to that young offender's health and leads to further activity.

I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, when she says that only 1 per cent of the people who use cannabis go on to use more serious drugs. However, I must say to her that that 1 per cent is still very important. We know that those who go on to use them can be destroyed by that experience. I speak for not only myself, but our Government: we do not wish one such person to be lost. We wish to put in place a system that can do justice to the vulnerable and to those who need assistance and support.

The framework is consistent. One difficulty that we have found in dealing with the approach that many have had is that it has not been holistic and has not looked to see how the various parts of the Bill fit together. If one puts the Bill together, the Government's case in relation to the matter is consistent and clear. It is not muddled. However, it tries to be sensitive in its response to the general concerns throughout, because on both sides of the Committee there are those who hold the views of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, those who might hold views more akin to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and all those who fit between the two.

The way in which we have structured the Bill—using the guidelines, setting it out as we have—gives us the flexibility to respond in a way that might be capable of meeting the needs of those who will be subject to it. That is not only young people, but the community subjected to the bad behaviour that comes with the problem, and the families who are destroyed by the abuse that comes with it. We will have a system that we hope to he prouder of than we have been of the system in the past. There is a lot of work for us to do, but the Government think that we have got matters about right.

Will the Minister assure the Committee that she could justify, were she asked to, the bringing into arrestability of each of the 117 offences besides cannabis? I am not asking her to do it now—it would take too long—but is she sure that she could justify that, in the same way in which she did the bringing in of cannabis? It strikes one as quite a large class of drugs suddenly to be brought into arrestability simply because cannabis has just been downgraded.

I have already said that, generically, the class C drugs will be treated together. I pray in aid the relatively small number of users—abusers, rather—of class C drugs who have found themselves before the courts. Certainly, we would not anticipate that that number should be greatly increased by anything in the Bill. Consider the sensitivity and appropriateness with which the matter has already been approached by those law enforcement agencies that have had the duty imposed on them to deal with it. They have already demonstrated over many years that they are able to deal appropriately with such matters, and we do not expect them to change tack now.

In relation to the discomfort on certainty spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, I can say that we have the historical basis to know how the police have dealt with the matter until now. We are not changing the nature of the offence in relation to class C drugs, merely making it arrestable. We can be assured on this occasion that the police and prosecuting authorities will respond appropriately, because they always have. There is nothing to indicate that there has been a material change.

Is the Minister then saying that cannabis will in future be treated in the same way as all the other drugs, which have very rarely come before the courts? If not, what is the point of changing the classification?

We believe that there will be a material reduction in the number of people who will be arrested and dealt with in the way we have described in relation to cannabis. That is because we are seeking to address—I gave the criteria earlier—the specific aggravated cases of use or abuse of cannabis. I have also tried to make it clear that we are trying to address on the ground an opportunity for police officers to interact more creatively with the young people with whom they have to deal, by giving them the flexibility to caution or remove and dispose of the drugs. They will still be able to say that the offence is wrong and to dissuade, but hopefully their being able to warn and caution will have a beneficial effect.

With great respect to the noble Baroness, she said something in reply to the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I found immensely revealing. She said that we knew how the police had historically acted. The people about whom we are talking do not know that. They know the opposite. We need to take that terribly seriously.

We take that seriously. I was talking about those who currently use class C drugs. We are really talking about those who have been in receipt of prescriptions and other prescribed drugs. When I say that we know, we know from the empirical data that improper cases have not been brought against such people. That is what I mean by "we know". The empirical data suggest that that is the position, not that we are somehow, by osmosis, assuming some special knowledge. The data demonstrate that there is no need for anxiety on those grounds. If there were, I can promise that we would be appropriately anxious.

I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of Amendment No. 7, in whole or in part. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, brought her great experience to the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, wanted to go further than the amendment, but underlined the concerns about guidelines and there being nothing in statute. My noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Alexander of Weedon spoke on the dangers of ever-wider discretionary powers and the impact that they will have on public confidence in the judicial system and on police-public relationships, a point picked up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. As ever, my noble friend Lady Carnegy put her finger on the reality of what will happen to the 117 drugs.

The Minister—I mean this most sincerely—gave her usual polished and informative reply. I look forward to reading much of what she said. We will want to come back to the matter on Report, when I would like her to answer three points. First, she did not give any examples—perhaps her officials could help—of problems with class C drugs that have occurred in the past 30 years when they have not been arrestable offences. Secondly, she made a handsome effort to clarify the Government's attitude towards cannabis.

The reality is that, although it may be clear in the Home Office, outside the Home Office it is not as clear as it thinks, if indeed it thinks that it is.

Finally, the Minister said that it was not right to have special laws for cannabis, but we are doing so. We are downgrading it to class C, and upgrading penalties for class C because cannabis is in it. We are changing the treatment of class C drugs for cannabis. A special law is exactly what we now have. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 26, after "delaying" insert "(for such time, which shall not exceed such maximum as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in an order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament)"

Some of us were present at the meeting held by the Children's Society. Various concerns were expressed about the matter, particularly about the potential erosion of current safeguards in the PACE code of practice, which would be involved. Currently, when a child is arrested, the police have a duty to ensure that the parent, carer or appropriate adult is informed and present during any interview or charging procedures. We are aware that the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers welcome the provision that bail be granted elsewhere than in a police station. That would save them from inconvenience and reduce the burden on police time. It would also keep operational officers on the street and people who do not need to be detained out of police stations.

The issue identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, requires some answers. It is important to bear in mind the comments of a number of legal bodies in this country. I draw particular attention to the comments of Justice in this regard. First, it said that while it supports the approach, it is particularly keen to ensure that there should be a time limit of four weeks from arrest to attendance at a police station to avoid people being subject to bail; such cases should be followed up efficiently. Secondly, it raised the important point that the police station to which the person is bailed must be reasonably proximate to his or her place of residence. Thirdly, it said that the arrested person must be entitled to free legal advice, in the nature of police station representation, on answering their bail to ensure that they are in no worse a position than someone who is subject to normal arrest. The most important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is about the need to give reasons why that is happening. Much of the conflict between young people and the police would be alleviated if they knew clearly the grounds on which the matter was taken up by the police.

I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. As I understood it—perhaps I have misunderstood; if so, I apologise—the amendment of my noble friend Lady Anelay related to the delay between the person originally being bailed and eventually being taken to the police station. If so, my understanding is that the present position is that we have a welcome power—I certainly welcome it—for a constable, on arresting someone, to bail him at somewhere other than in a police station. That provides flexibility and saves much potential wasted police time and it means that people do not have to be unnecessarily taken to a police station, which may be a considerable distance away, and that they do not have to be detained while the various documents are gone through. That is all sensible, desirable and welcome.

On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned, there should be some time limit on the time in which a person is required to attend at a police station. New Section 30A(3) states:

"A person released on bail under subsection (1)"—

which I understand to be a person released on bail other than at a police station—

"must be required to attend a police station".

However, no time limit is put on the time during which that should take place. I believe that Justice and the Law Society are right to say that there should be some limitation on the period during which that bail should last. Presumably by its very nature, bail for someone on the point of arrest in relation to street bail is likely to involve an offence of a lesser degree of seriousness than that involved if he had been formally taken to a police station. If the person is merely told that he can go home on bail but not told anything about when he must appear at a police station, he may well go home to another part of the country, stay there for some weeks and suddenly find, out of the blue—when he has pretty well forgotten about the whole issue—that he has been summoned to go to a police station.

I say that because new Section 30B makes it clear that the notice that the person is given at the time must,

"inform him that he is required to attend a police station".

However, it is purely discretionary in that he merely "may" specify the police station and the time when he is required to attend. He may well he told to go home on bail without any indication at that stage—other than being told that he must attend a police station—of when that will be. I should have thought that it was sensible that there should be a final time limit of four weeks, as the Law Society and Justice suggest, before the end of which he should be required to attend at a police station.

I say to my noble friend Lady Anelay that the only matter that makes me hesitate is that if I am right that her amendment could have that effect, it is rather a long-winded way of saying what I should have thought could have been met if one merely added the words "within four weeks" at the bottom of the second line on page 3 of the Bill.

We have had a valuable discussion on this matter. The amendments relate to the new capacity that we want to introduce to enable the police to bail arrested persons from the point of arrest, which has become known as street bail. We recognise that we are breaking significant new ground here and I appreciate the fact that considerable support has been expressed for it. In particular the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, recognised the value of the flexibility that this will introduce into the system. However, the new flexibility must be balanced against the need to ensure that, first, it works well and, secondly, it is not abused. We accept that striking that balance is creating some difficulty for us all.

The question of time limits concerning the period of time between arrest, street bail and appearing at a police station is dealt with in the next grouping, which contains Amendment No. 12. It would probably be better if I deal with that issue when we reach the grouping. Amendment No. 8 is directed towards imposing limits on the delay allowed in taking an arrested person to a police station or street bailing them when their presence elsewhere is required to carry out urgent investigations. The capacity for such a delay in relation to removal to a police station is long established, and the clause extends similar provisions to street bail. I think that I can say with some confidence that any delay in such circumstances will not generally be very long, although in certain situations it may be for longer than two hours.

Such a delay might be absolutely essential; indeed, it could be completely counter-productive for it to be anything other than that. I cite, for example, the circumstance where an arrested person is needed to attend a complicated search of premises. However, the police must be able to justify the delay and they will be required specifically to record the reasons for that delay. Imposing what might be described as a somewhat arbitrary time limit does not seem justified in those circumstances. In effect it would restrict a measure of flexibility that has been in place and available to the police for many years. Further, it should be placed on the record that the procedure has apparently operated without any great difficulties and has not noticeably infringed the rights of arrested persons.

So, although it is possible that the delay between the time of arrest and street bail being granted could be significant, searches of premises can take some time. While it is obvious that such investigations must be undertaken quickly, I am sure that we can all think of cases or examples in which they may need to take longer and in which having the apprehended person present at the time would be of immense value to the quality and conduct of the investigation.

Amendment No. 9 refers to the written record of any delays occurring when the arrested person first arrives at the police station or is released on street bail. It would require the arrested person to be given a copy of that record forthwith. In practice, the reasons for any delay will normally be apparent to the person arrested and often will be explained to them by the officer concerned. A record of those reasons will always he available in the detained person's custody record, the police officer's pocket book or the documentation that the arrested person receives when they are street bailed. With that in mind, the absolute requirement that the amendment would impose to provide an immediate copy of the written record in every case seems an unnecessary burden.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, discussed the requirement for the arrested person to attend the police station. That is a very right and proper matter to raise. The noble Lord suggested that the police station ought to be reasonably proximate to the arrested person's home. That is not unreasonable on the face of it, but let us consider the different circumstances under which someone might be arrested. For example, if a suspect is arrested in Newcastle, but lives in Truro, why make the police travel to Truro? What would be the justification for doing that? I do not think that we could reasonably—either operationally or in terms of the effective use of police time—impose a strict stipulation that the police station that an arrested person should attend must be reasonably proximate to their home. That could create great difficulties for the police themselves. However, it may be that sensible arrangements could be made for the arrested person to attend a police station.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of free legal advice. The current situation will pertain. Suspects will be given free legal advice, as they are under the arrangements as they currently operate. We see no difficulty in that. Indeed, I believe that there is wide agreement that the present arrangements work very well. If the noble Lord has a further point which he thinks we should consider, then of course we shall listen to what he has to say.

I hope that, with those comments, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister said that it would he better to deal with the question of whether there should be a final date in a later grouping; that is, when we come to the amendment which, at page 3, line 18, specifies after the word "subsequently" a period of two weeks. Surely the present position is that there is no time limit from the date of the granting of bail until the person is required to turn up at the police station either in Clause 3 or in the later clause. Thus the effect of the amendment on the later clause would be merely to state that if an arrested person is not given notice of the time when he has to attend the police station, then within two months he should be given notice of that time. I sought to make that point that a limit should be put on the time from the date of bail until the requirement to appear at a police station. With respect, the noble Lord has not dealt with that point.

I have not dealt with it because I thought that we might address those issues when we look at Amendment No. 12. If I am reading my notes correctly, the aim of that amendment—which would insert,

"within the period of two weeks from the date on which bail was granted"

after "subsequently"—would be more usefully included in the discussion we shall have when we reach the next grouping, of which Amendment No. 12 forms a part.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow for pointing out that there are two types of time limit involved here. That is why I asked for Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to be degrouped from the following set. I anticipated that there could be just this kind of difficulty in dealing with these matters.

In practice, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has outlined so sufficiently the arguments that I would have put in support of Amendment No. 12 that it would not be right for me to seek to repeat them. When we reach the next grouping, I shall simply drop those remarks from my speech and rely on the arguments already put forward by the noble Lord.

I am grateful to the Minister for advancing the argument further than was possible in another place and I shall read carefully what he has said about the time limits addressed in this group of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 3, leave out lines 3 and 4.

I rise briefly to speak to Amendment No. 11. It is absolutely essential that the person who is arrested in the street understands the process, and particularly the consequences, of failure to surrender to bail. That would have been explained to him fully if he had been taken to a police station, and he should have no lesser explanation in the street.

The briefing that we were given from the Law Society states that it is important that persons fully understand the significance of arrest and bail, particularly if English is not their first language. I want to stress the point: particularly if English is not their first language. In the Commons, the Minister said that it was intended to print that information on the back of the notice. However, that will be inconsequential if the information is printed only in English and the person bailed cannot read English. I respectfully suggest that potentially that could cause great problems in large cities such as London, Birmingham, Liverpool and so on.

I want to speak briefly to Amendment No. 12 in order to remind the Minister that he will, I hope, deal not only with the question of whether there should be a time limit between a person being arrested and his being given notice of the requirement to attend, as the amendment suggests, but also with the question of whether there should be a time limit between the time of his arrest and the time at which he must attend a police station.

Again, I am grateful for the way that noble Lords have spoken to these amendments. It has been very helpful because it has focused on the practical aspect of the issue, and I believe that that is the right approach in dealing with this piece of legislation and the innovations contained within it. I shall work through each in turn and try to answer all the points raised.

As explained, Amendment No. 10 would remove the proposed restriction on imposing conditions on street bail, other than a requirement to attend a specified police station at a specified time. I believe it is fair to say that arresting officers who consider street hail will often have limited information about both the arrested person and the circumstances of the offence. With that in mind, we take the view that it would be very difficult to impose realistic and helpful conditions, and the clause, as drafted, would not allow them to do so. Indeed, the clause is designed to offer officers greater flexibility—we make no apology for that—in dealing with what will often be more mundane offences and offenders where bail conditions are unlikely to be required. In some senses, it is for that reason, which is more helpful to the person arrested, that we have had the clause drafted as it is.

Amendment No. 11 attracted support not only from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the Official Opposition but also from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. That amendment seeks to require that street bail notices refer to the consequences of failing to answer to bail. Again, I can understand why there is a desire to spell out in more detail the notification given.

There is no need to include that point in legislation, and I can give a firm commitment that the standard form that we are devising will set out the consequences clearly. In particular, it will set out the effect of the police power to arrest someone who fails to surrender to street bail. The guidance that we shall issue to the police will stress that, in addition to providing the notice, the arresting officer should explain fully to the persons concerned the consequences of breaking bail.

I also picked up the point concerning the importance of language. Again, that is something on which we need to be clear in addressing this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said, understanding is critical here. Although it is a useful innovation and has flexibility, which is desirable, there is not much point in having that if someone fails to understand exactly what is happening to him. We recognise and sympathise with that point.

Amendment No. 12 deals with the issue of time limits. It seeks to specify the time and location for answering to street bail, and the proposal is that it should be within two weeks of such bail being granted. That would apply where the information could not be given at the time of arrest and where the police sought to use the flexibility within the clause to give the details at a later date.

It would clearly be good practice for the police to clarify as soon as possible the position for persons released on street bail. However, it will often be important to ensure that all the necessary facilities and personnel are available to deal with such a person when he answers his bail. With that in mind, fixing the precise location and date at the earlier time may, in itself, be a very time- consuming process. I believe it is accepted, as it was in earlier debates, that the flexibility provided by this new approach to working is important. We are seeking to retain that. So imposing a strict time limit would reduce that flexibility and might force the police to hurry into arrangements that were unsatisfactory and unworkable from the arrested person's point of view and could be counterproductive to their aim. Taking a little more time might be to the benefit of everyone involved.

Having said that, it is important to put on the record our expectation that, in practice, the vast majority of people will be dealt with within four weeks of arrest. That is our expectation and it is right that we clarify the issue at this stage. However, for the reasons I have explained, we believe it important to retain that flexibility in the interests of both the police and the arrested person, who must be properly respected and responded to.

Amendment No. 13 would limit the police to issuing no more than one written notice of amendment to the arrangements for answering to street bail. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a reasonable point, asking why there should be a repeated succession of changes. I understand the point she is making and our expectation is that that would not be the case. However, people go on holiday; their arrangements continually change; the unexpected arises, as we expect in our lives. Therefore, there may be a need to change arrangements. A rigid limit to just one set of changes could cause unnecessary problems and undermine the effectiveness of street bail in individual cases. Again, for the record, it is our intention that any changes will be kept to a minimum, but there may be odd occasions when it would be better for a further notice, and then an additional one, to be sent.

Amendment No. 15 seeks to make explicit that a person who has notified that he no longer needs to answer to street bail previously granted should be regarded as having been released without bail from the point when he received the notice. It is self-explanatory that he will not be required to attend the police station and that the matter will not be pursued. For that reason, I cannot see that the amendment takes us further. We believe that what appears in the clause is explicit in the drafting.

Amendment No. 16 would restrict the police's power to arrest a person who fails to answer the street bail to circumstances where he had no reasonable excuse for failing to do so. We believe that this is an unnecessary restriction on the police in relation to what is clearly a discretionary power. If they were satisfied in a particular case that circumstances did not justify them arresting someone who had missed his bail appointment, they would be perfectly able to decide not to do so. The police have plenty of experience in dealing with people who fail to answer for bail for a whole range of reasons. We take the view there is no real reason to expect that they will fail to use this power flexibly where people have good excuse and reason to offer when confronted with what has taken place.

Finally, Amendment No. 17 is intended to simplify the wording relating to the police's station to which a person arrested for failing to answer to police bail can be taken. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the concision of her wording. There is no question that it seeks to achieve what we do with fewer words. I suppose I should be grateful and that I ought to accept the wording. But we feel that the existing wording spells out the position more fully—so it is a fulsome explanation in the wordage count. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment to the clause.

However, a number of points have been valuably made in the discussion and Members of the Committee have raised issues of which we need to take account between now and Report. While I am not giving a cast-iron commitment to consider them all, they will focus our minds on practicalities. They have been valuably raised in the debate and therefore I am most grateful not only to the noble Baroness for tabling her amendments but to all Members who have contributed. We need to be certain that we have the provisions right and I give a commitment that we will further interrogate the wording.

I hear the Minister's commitment and I welcome the provision that the police should be able to grant bail otherwise than at a police station. I want to raise an issue and hope that I have the peg on which to raise it; that is, the difficulties of the time provision, the four weeks and the flexibility. That indicates that there will be difficulties for defendants and I want to raise a point for which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was a protagonist in her previous incarnation; that is, ensuring that people have proper representation. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell us his views on whether those who are released on bail in this way will be entitled to free legal advice in the nature of police station representation in regard to answering their bail. It would be a great pity if this beneficent provision in the Bill created an unintended disadvantage for defendants.

I understand that free legal advice will continue to be available in a similar way to the present provision. In such circumstances, it will be helpful if it is because it will enable the person who has been arrested and is perhaps the subject of allegations to be represented. It means that he will be able to present himself better in dealing with the police and it is in everyone's interest that that continues to be the case. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord's point.

I wanted to make a further point in response to an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I wanted further to clarify what might happen when a police officer is considering giving street bail to someone and it becomes apparent that the person's understanding is not as full as perhaps would be desirable in that circumstance. If the officer cannot speak the language, and it is clear that he is not achieving a level of understanding, it is unlikely that he will go the extra step further and use street bail. It would, or could, be misunderstood by the person he was arresting or seeking to arrest. In that circumstance, it would probably make good operational sense to take him to a police station where interpretation can be properly arranged and where he can be fully appraised of his rights and responsibilities. Police training will need to tease out those issues so that they are properly clarified for all concerned.

I thank the Minister for his full and careful response, in particular for his statement that the Government will consider some of these issues during the Summer Recess. The amendments examine the practical end of how to achieve street bail in the best way because, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said, we support it.

I welcome the Minister's comment that in regard to Amendment No. 11 there will be a standard form clearly setting out the consequences of failure to surrender. I was grateful for his further words addressing the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.

The disappointment is that he could not see fit to accept my Amendment No. 17. My noble friend Lord Renton is in his place and he is always assiduous in trying to reduce the number of words in a Bill. I was trying to do my little bit but I was delighted to hear the reason prayed in aid by the Minister for saying, "No, you can't chop those words out". He said that there should be a fulsome explanation and he welcomed it. Those words will come to haunt him in the future when I press other amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14:

I support the amendment, which is tabled in my name also. I shall not speak at length because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, put the argument in a convincing, unassailable form.

As currently drafted, the Bill means that we would throw overboard a whole series of safeguards for children. I believe that that would be done at our peril and should occur only after careful thought. I look forward to the Minister's response as to why the Government feel that these safeguards properly can be jettisoned. At the moment I am not persuaded.

I do not want to speak on the question of bail for children. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister replying to the amendment would confirm that information about the arrest of a child at any age up to 18 is always given to the parent or guardian or, failing that, to the next of kin. I raise the point because it is one which for many years caused great worry and anxiety in Northern Ireland. I hope that the position is satisfactory in England and Wales.

I, too, shall be brief. The case has been effectively put by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Clearly, arrest on bail is a good, additional power and should save time. However, I believe that in that respect the Bill has not been childproofed as there is no indication in the Bill of any different treatment of children.

As a past juvenile court magistrate, one aspect which would worry me is the reaction of the child. I am afraid that in many cases the child would not just not tell but would be frightened of telling the parent or guardian. That again, as we have heard, could result in an offence for the individual of not reporting but also could be problematical for the parent. No fewer than eight children's societies are concerned about this matter. I very much hope that the Minister will bear in mind what has been said and accept the amendment.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the eight children's groups which have raised concerns. I also speak from my own experience.

I am sure that the Minister will see how inappropriate it would be to issue bail to young people on the streets without the presence of a responsible adult. As has been said, it would leave young people with the responsibility of telling their parents and of accepting guilt in circumstances where we know that many young people do not have the level of understanding to recognise exactly what they are accepting and agreeing to. They desperately need their own rights considered in those circumstances.

They will also find themselves carrying an undue burden of personal anxiety. Some might say that such young people probably deserve that if they have got themselves into trouble. My experience is that these are some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, who are experiencing considerable difficulties. Their families are not supportive. I have spoken to many children who, had they gone home and told of what had happened, would have put themselves in danger of a very severe beating. That would not have been reported because they would have been fearful of further beatings. There is something to be said for the right time and place and having the right authorities and a police officer with you rather than going home and telling about this yourself.

It is crucial that the PACE regulations are kept in place. I shall not go through them again because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, did so. Such regulations are in place to protect children in these kind of circumstances. It would be a very retrograde step in our child care were we to lose such regulations.

I also believe that there is great anxiety about granting bail to people with learning difficulties, particularly young people but also vulnerable adults on the street. They will have the same problem about not necessarily understanding what they are agreeing to in terms of an offence that might or might not have been committed. If I was on the street and someone was to say I had done something, it would be easier to accept it and pay the fine than to battle. I have only three points for speeding and that is because I was in a 50 miles per hour limit when I thought I was in a 70 miles per hour limit. It is very easy just to say, "I accept" because the reality is before you. With people who are more vulnerable it is significantly more difficult.

I believe that that would be a real step backwards. I hope very much that Ministers will see fit to protect children and vulnerable adults in these circumstances.

I rise briefly to support one of the most effective three minute speeches I have heard from any Front Bench delivered by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I should like to leave two thoughts in your Lordships' minds. The first is that we must not assume that the police always arrest the right person. The protection we provide is not merely for the guilty who should be anxious but also for the innocent who should be relieved. This is one of those embarrassing moments when I have to say that I shall speak later on the second point when it comes back to me.

I support the noble Baroness's amendment. I would welcome some advice from the Minister on a point of concern. I am concerned about children in care but particularly about care leavers. They often lose touch with those people from their local authority with whom they should be keeping in touch. I am concerned that they might be particularly vulnerable to, perhaps, a misapplication of this measure. I would appreciate it if the Minister could write to me or offer some assurance in her reply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised an important point. She thought the Bill had not been child-proofed. We now have a Minister for Children. Has she had a chance to look over the Bill and will she in future look through all legislation that affects children? This is a serious question and one that needs to be pressed.

This has been a very useful 10 minutes. We had a three-minute introduction that was stunning in getting to the point. I think the discussion has been very helpful. This Chamber is at its best when it focuses on the practical and this has been a very practical discussion.

The amendment would prevent street bail being granted to a child except where an appropriate adult was present. Broadly speaking, appropriate adults are responsible persons whose normal role is to attend police stations to support detainees who are either juveniles or mentally vulnerable in some way.

We recognise that this is a difficult area. We are dealing with a group with an age range of 11 to 18. I recognize—as a parent more than anything else—that what one sees with those aged 11 and those aged 18 is very different. Obviously, there will have to be a very age-responsive response by the officers on the street conducting particular operations and exercise.

So we expect that the police will have to exercise great care when deciding whether to street bail a juvenile. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made the point that the police do not always get it right. Anyone in public life who has ever had to deal with any kind of casework involving the police knows that. It is obvious that the police do not always get the issue right.

However, the very nature of street bail means that an appropriate adult will probably not normally in any event be available on the spot to participate in the process. Therefore, in the guidance that we are developing for the police we intend to emphasise that an officer considering such action in relation to a juvenile must be satisfied that the juvenile fully understands the implications of street bail and the obligations which flow from it. In a way, that takes us hack to an earlier debate and the point made about language by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. This concerns more than language; it concerns an understanding of what is happening to them—the processes involved, the consequences of their actions and, perhaps, their failure to act and think responsibly, which will confront juveniles in this situation.

Additionally, we are likely to specify that street bail should be given only to a juvenile who is able to provide a satisfactory name and address of a parent, guardian or some other person responsible for his welfare. That will make a qualitative difference. In those circumstances, the police will be able to post a copy of the street bail notice to that parent or guardian, with an indication that it would be helpful if that person could attend the police station with the juvenile when he answers his bail. That is an important point to remember, not least because we want this measure to work. The guidance will have to be carefully constructed to meet the juvenile welfare concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth, Lady Walmsley and Lady Howe. All their concerns about relationships with young people in the street are important.

In particular, I take the point about a police officer considering street bail for those who might be mentally vulnerable. Guidance must state clearly that street hail should not be given to anyone they suspect of being mentally vulnerable. So street bail will be inappropriate in those circumstances.

We are very grateful to the children's charities which have contributed to the discussion behind the scenes on this particular aspect of the Bill. I am more than happy to make a commitment from the Dispatch Box today that not only have we found their representations to be very useful, but that we would like to continue to consult with them in drafting and framing the guidance because we need to draw on their valuable experience and ensure that we get it right.

Although I appreciate that not everyone will be happy with that commitment or what lies behind it, we think that it is important that this power and facility is there. Obviously, if a young person, perhaps aged 11 or 12, is confronted by a police officer, it is likely that the police officer will be less inclined to use street bail. But I think we also have to recognise that 17 and 18 year-olds are sometimes very streetwise indeed. Having the facility to use street bail will be extremely useful in those circumstances. Not only will it mean that they can be apprehended and begin to understand the full implications of their own actions, but also it will usefully mean that the police can make an intervention that bears on their future conduct.

In those circumstances it would be sensible operationally for the police to have the opportunity to use street bail. Of course, there will be a requirement that ensures that when the juvenile attends a police station he does so in the company of an adult, is properly represented and has the opportunity of full legal advice.

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. I hope I have picked up the various points that were of particular concern. Obviously, we shall have the opportunity further to reflect on the issue. As I said, I have made what I think is a valuable commitment to further consultation with the children's charities, which I think can help us hone and perfect the operation of street bail with regard to juveniles.

Perhaps I may act as sweep following the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord. What is Margaret Hodge's role? Will she now be child-proofing all legislation of this nature affecting children?

Our expectation is—this is obviously a developing and emerging role so far as Margaret Hodge is concerned—that the process will involve a degree of "child-proofing" of legislation. But she has a very wide-ranging remit. It would be wrong for me today to try to itemise from the Dispatch Box exactly how it will work in all circumstances. Clearly, there needs to be consultation across Whitehall. One reason for having such an important post is so that the consideration given in legislation to the position of the child is foremost in government thinking, not just our government, but those in future.

I go back to the noble Lord's reply to the discussion in general. He said he hoped he had picked up the points; I think he picked up very few of them. The noble Baroness put the case clearly. Other noble Lords made points; the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made an important point. It is totally unsuitable for only guidance to protect a child of 11, 12, 13, 14 from being put on bail and having to go home to tell his parents about it. That is simply not right. The noble Lord should ensure that this issue is dealt with in the Bill.

The noble Baroness's use of the term "a child" may be wrong. I agree that 17 or 18 year-olds may be in a different position. That was obviously a most unsatisfactory answer and I hope that when the noble Lord reads the record of the discussion, he will see that the amendment is nearer the mark and that this is not a suitable matter for guidance.

Further to the question on the Minister for Children, the noble Lord indicated that there would be a role for a Minister to child-proof legislation. Has the new Minister for Children childproofed the Bill, or would the noble Lord invite her to do so at this stage?

I cannot be explicit about whether the Minister has child-proofed the legislation and all its many ramifications. It would be wrong of me to say otherwise. I recognise the importance of the issue, so after the debate I shall certainly draw to the attention of my honourable friend Margaret Hodge the implications of this part of the legislation in particular.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am sorry if I have missed something. I was very careful in my response. I made the point that the age range was very wide, and that common sense says that the application of street bail may be more appropriate at the upper band of the age group than at the lower band. It is important across the age range. But it is how the power is used and the sensitivity exercised that will be key. I have made the point several times from the Dispatch Box today that training in the application of the new facility will be essential.

I respectfully ask the Minister how much training the ordinary police officer has in child development? Social workers, after many years of training, sometimes find it quite difficult to assess the level of a child's understanding and certainly their capacity to defend themselves in relation to this kind of accusation or occurrence. What concerns me most is that police officers on the street will be making assessments sometimes of quite emotionally young children. I accept that there may be a difference with 17 and 18 year-olds, but I am very concerned about young children. Police officers are there to do a different job.

I respect what the noble Baroness says. She is much more experienced in these matters than I am and obviously understands and appreciates the value of police training. She is absolutely right to say that the role of police officers is very different. But that relationship must exist. The police deal with young people on the streets. It is right that training is put in place, but we will have to ensure that it is appropriate for the powers proposed in the legislation. I am firmly of the view that the training will have to be informed by links with the wider professional group that comes into contact with young people. It is many years since I was a social worker, and I was not a terribly successful one, but the one thing that I drew from the experience was that I was part of an important network with considerable responsibility. That responsibility was not taken lightly by any of the professionals involved.

We understand the importance of child-proofing and ensuring that proper relations are drawn across Whitehall in understanding how the legislation will operate. All Members of the Committee who contributed to the debate made that important point. We will try to take it on board.

The Minister can answer this question after sitting down because we are in Committee. I remain anxious about what I am hearing. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has made a very important point. A policeman will not know a child's exact calendar age, mental age and emotional age. Given that there is bound to be error, it is important that the system for all children should protect those who need protection, even if it means doing so where perhaps it is not thought necessary. Therefore, it seems important that the protection already provided in statutes should not be lost to these people because of the very attractive idea otherwise of letting them go before they get to the police station.

I presume that the job description of the Minister for Children was worked out before the honourable Member was appointed. Where can we see a description of the Minister's duties and functions?

I thank the Minister for offering extensive consultation, as I understand it, with the children's charities as the Bill proceeds; it is very welcome. I wish to draw attention to care-leavers. There has been much concern about care-leavers' involvement with the criminal justice system in the past. Often they can appear older than they are, as they have had to look after themselves from a young age. I am sure that we will discuss care-leavers in some detail in the future, but I wish to mark up my concern.

I appreciate all the concerns raised. This has been a very valuable discussion. The police deal with juveniles on the street every day of their working lives, so they have an immense body of experience to draw on. There has been agreement today that sometimes they make mistakes, but the considerations that they have at present are important.

There will be a cautious approach, certainly at the outset, in how the measure is applied. The police will be very mindful that, if it is clear that someone is vulnerable, it would be much better for them to apprehend the individual—of whatever age—to ensure that they are taken properly to a police station and the usual processes are followed through. My guess is that there will be very cautious use of the measure, particularly with younger people and those who we might consider vulnerable. Nevertheless, the legislation gives effect to a very powerful and, in some ways, liberalising measure.

I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment. The Minister will note that support came from all sides of the Committee. He may be interested to know that many on his own Benches, although they have not spoken today, are very supportive of this and similar amendments.

I, too, am as interested as the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Campbell-Savours, in the remit of the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge. All members of the All-Party Children Group would be very pleased if her remit were based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and our obligations under it. We would regard that as a step very much in the right direction.

A one-size-fits-all approach is totally inappropriate for children. Anyone who has ever seen their three-year-old daughter shuffling around the house in one's high-heel shoes, or their four-year-old son tramping around in one's husband's football boots, will realise that. This is adult legislation being made to fit children—it just does not fit.

The Minister said that the police would operate the clauses with great care. Great care will not really do in that respect. He said that a police officer would bring in street bail only if he could be satisfied that the child understands the implications, that he will tell his parents, and that a name and address has been supplied. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, how can he know whether the child has understood, that he will tell his parents, and that the name and address supplied is not completely fictitious? He simply cannot.

Although I am very grateful to the Minister for his commitment to consulting the children's charities about the guidance to be written, it seems almost unbelievable that appropriate guidance can possibly be written. However, I am sure that the children's charities will be delighted to consult to see if such guidelines could be produced to protect children in respect of street bail. To be frank, that is highly unlikely. However, given the strength of feeling that has been demonstrated in the Chamber today, it is likely that we will return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 4, line 14, after "out" insert "with the authority of an officer with the rank of superintendent or above"

The clause amends Section 40A of PACE, but the section is not in force, as was cited at the second sitting of the Commons Standing Committee on 17th December at column 73. We on these Benches are generally in favour of telephone reviews, but we would like to hear a number of issues addressed. The new section, Section 40A, does not specify that an inspector should carry out the discussion on the review of the detention. Will the Minister confirm that it is indeed the intention that an inspector should deal with that? If that is so, will that assurance be given in the Bill?

We have considered this point before, during the proceedings of the police Bills with which I have been involved. I have witnessed a steady downgrading of the ranks who are now carrying out increasingly more responsible roles. We will soon be asked to let constables undertake this sensitive task, no doubt, and probably without recourse to parliamentary scrutiny.

Why are we amending legislation that we passed only last year that has not even been used yet? It would have been preferable to experience its workings before attempting to amend it.

How will the consideration be made that will need to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to carry out a review by telephone?

The clause is about extending someone's detention and is a serious and sensitive matter. It touches on questions of civil liberty and the right of the police to detain someone. It should never, ever, be treated lightly or indiscriminately. There should be reviews of its effects and a clear undertaking that a senior officer of a rank not below that of inspector should conduct those reviews. Although we are generally in favour of reviews by telephone, we do not think that it is necessary to tamper with something that is not presently in force.

How do we judge whether it is necessary to have the greater flexibility that the changes will introduce? It could become routine practice for matters to be dealt with over the telephone by an unknown police officer who has little grasp of the issues or the background involved in the case. Also, the proposal could facilitate people being detained for too long and without good reason. The person taking the decision should be able to form an independent judgment, and it is vastly preferable that that person should be the inspector at the police station rather than on the telephone. When an inspector is not available, the facility provided for under Section 40A as it is currently drafted is satisfactory. For all those reasons, we oppose the question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

I do not go as far as my noble friend Lady Anelay, even with her great experience of police matters. The mobile telephone has enabled a great deal to be achieved in the prevention of crime and the arrest of criminals. The clause, especially should the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Anelay be accepted, creates a realistic application of what legitimately needs to be done. However, we must specify the authority of the officer involved, as in Amendment No.18, which states, "a superintendent or above", or Amendment No. 19, which states:

"an officer of at least the rank of inspector".

Also, although it has scarcely been mentioned, it is important to bear in mind what is proposed in Amendment No. 20. If there is a legal representative—and there will be very soon—that representative should be brought into the matter, so Amendment No. 20 is also very important. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments, although I fundamentally agree with the clause.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. As I see it, it is something of a reserved power for situations in which video conferencing facilities are not permissible. The three amendments to which my noble friend drew attention are sensible and would limit the potential for dispute about the standards of the process. Also, having the telephone facility may sometimes assist the defendant to reach a decision favourable to him or her that might not otherwise be reached as speedily.

I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate and for the temper in which the discussion took place. It was most helpful. I shall work through the amendments.

Amendment No. 18 would limit telephone reviews of the need for continuing detention without charge to circumstances in which an officer of at least the rank of superintendent had given authority. Our view is that telephone reviews are generally a satisfactory alternative to reviews conducted in person. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, made the point that there was a positive side for many potential defendants. Such reviews may allow them to be released sooner than they had expected. The facility has a positive effect and is not there only for the convenience of the police officers involved in the particular arrest and detention.

The considerations to be taken into account when deciding whether to carry out a review by telephone will need to be covered in further guidance to the police. However, we do not think that such reviews should be considered so exceptional as to require a very senior officer's authority, as the amendment would require. If the amendment were made and such authority were required, the police would lose much of the flexibility that the new arrangements are intended to create. We should consider the responsibilities that a superintendent or chief superintendent might have. Calling on such an officer to conduct a review by telephone would be to draw on an important police operational resource. Generally, it would represent an onerous and unnecessary administrative and bureaucratic burden, and we do not see any need for such a stringent level of control.

PACE provides for the detained person or any solicitor representing him who is available at the time to have an opportunity to make representations to the reviewing officer before any decision about the continued need for detention without charge is taken. That applies to telephone reviews as much as to reviews in person. Creating an absolute right for a solicitor to be present during a telephone review, as the amendment suggests, could create long delays while people wait for the solicitor to attend at the police station. That would tend to defeat the key purpose for which telephone reviews are being introduced.

The criteria for extending detention are clear. The reviewing officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that continued detention without charge is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or obtain evidence by questioning. Coupled with other protections, such as the clear right to make representations, that should be sufficient to protect against unjustified periods in police custody. A requirement to allow a solicitor to be present, such as Amendment No. 20 would create, is impracticable and unnecessary.

Amendment No. 19 is unnecessary in any event. All reviews of detention without charge, including telephone reviews, must be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. That point is already covered.

It is not our intention that reviews by telephone will become the norm. I welcome the support given to the clause in general by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I know that she understands, from a practical perspective, the problems that can exist for a police force in a large, sprawling rural area. We see the benefit of telephone reviews in circumstances in which it would be impractical for police officers who might be available to conduct a review in person to travel large distances to do so, with all the difficulties of moving around that that could create. I think, in particular, of North Yorkshire police area and of Devon and Cornwall area, which is long and narrow. In such areas, it would take many hours for an officer to travel from one end of the area to another. To restrict the operation of telephone reviews in the way in which the amendment suggests could have serious consequences.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, raised an important point with regard to Section 40A of PACE. It was introduced after Committee in another place and brought into force as of 1st April this year. We see it as having value. I take the point that the noble Baroness made, and I appreciate the fact that she coupled it with the stand part debate.

PACE, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, makes provision for reviews of detention to be conducted by telephone, if it is not reasonably practicable for the reviewing officer to be present at the police station. I have already said that we do not expect that to be the norm. We expect the major benefit to be to large rural police areas. We want to broaden the capacity for review, so that telephone reviews can also be used where they are considered the most practical and efficient approach. We seek to focus on practicality and efficiency.

All discussions about the review will be held over the telephone, including any representations made by or on behalf of the detained person. A review in person could still be carried out, in any event, if the reviewing officer considered it necessary to the decision-making process. If the reviewing officer comes to the conclusion that it is important to be there in person while the review is carried out, he will decide to do so. Such officers will have to make the decision first-off, before proceeding to determine the next step.

The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, raised a point about the value of telephone reviews. He referred to video conferencing. It is important to put it on record that we would not expect a telephone review to take place if there were a facility for video conferencing, which is a superior facility of tremendous value. We would expect that approach to be adopted first-off.

The provision will help the police to overcome the resource and logistical problems of arranging reviews, especially at night. It would also be of tremendous value in saving inspectors' valuable time, particularly time spent covering vast distances in larger rural police areas. It is for those reasons and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service that we believe that the approach is right and seek to amend, at this early stage, what is, I accept, a relatively new provision that has not yet been widely used.

My final point is that guidance will be important, and we intend to review and monitor carefully the way in which the clause is introduced, not just because of its value but because we see it having long-term importance and significance in improving police effectiveness.

Before the noble Lord sits down, does he realise that unless these amendments are accepted a detained person, who may be innocent, can continue to be detained by an inexperienced young police constable? Is he content with that and is it right? Surely we need some safeguard of the kind these amendments propose.

I should like to add to what the noble Lord said. I understand that when the matter was discussed in the other place, the government body, the Youth Justice Board, expressed serious concerns, particularly in relation to the detention of young people. The Minister is reported to have said that the Government would certainly consider safeguards. I see no mention of that whatever. Can the Minister indicate the concerns expressed by the Youth Justice Board and have those concerns been met in relation to young people?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for raising that last issue. We are still considering the points made. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that observation. But it is an important contribution. Yes, it is right that safeguards are in place. To pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that is why it will take a senior police officer—an inspector, a very senior rank—with considerable experience to make the decision as to whether a review needs to be undertaken in person or via the telephone. I consider an inspector to be of very senior and important rank and an integral part of middle management within the police service. It is a pivotal position. This power needs to be properly exercised by someone with the experience that an inspector carries.

Will the Minister confirm that an arrested person has the right, in relation to these telephone methods of dealing with the case, to be represented at the interview if he so requests? If the Minister can confirm that, I do not follow why there is any resistance to the suggestion that the arrested person should be so informed of that right to ensure that he exercises it if he wants it.

The position is that a person who is so detained is advised on arrest that he or she can have legal representatives there when interviewed. That is standard practice. A person who is providing legal advice will be advised of the review and will be able to make representations on behalf of the person who it is considered should be further detained. The provision, significance and involvement of the person able to give legal advice is there at all stages, as it always has been.

In those circumstances, why is Amendment No. 20 being resisted?

Because—

I am generally in favour of any means of saving costs and expediting decisions involving the liberty of the subject that are reasonable. I invite the Minister, in his further considerations, to bear in mind what I am about to relate. When we telephone our bank to complain about its bad service we endure the savage irony of a lady telling us that the conversation will be recorded in order to preserve quality control. The process we are presently discussing, however seriously, involves the liberty of the subject. If it is not to be the norm, if it is not to be used should video conferencing be available, if it is to be the subject of careful guidance, we can assume that the occasions for its use will not be too many. In those circumstances, if the integrity of the process has to be demonstrated, is that not going to be successfully achieved by recording the telephone conversation between the inquiring officer and the advising officer?

Before the Minister answers the noble Lord's question, can he answer mine? Simply, what is the basis of the Government resisting Amendment No. 20? By all means, then reply to the noble Lord's question.

Can the Minister confirm my recollection about these reviews? They are of the utmost importance to the person being detained. One of the ways in which they are important is that the reviewing officer should reassure himself that the people carrying out the investigation are getting on with it. It is not something for which the defence solicitor will be much use. He may wish to know it but he will not be able to assist. What the reviewing officer wishes to know is that there are still grounds for detention in that ongoing inquiries are actively taking place. In the type of geographical circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—I remind him of the Dyfed-Powys force and some of the other Welsh forces where the distances are very great indeed—it is extremely important that the reviewing officer should talk to the people on the ground who are at the police station and carrying out the investigations. That is as much of a safeguard for the person who has been detained as having the solicitor present in the course of the review. There is a better balance here perhaps if looked at in that way.

The noble Lord makes a very important point. For operational reasons, which in a sense is the counter-argument raised by my noble friend Lord Brennan, the significance of having the facility to review these very few but appreciable cases and recognising the importance of the individual's liberty, obviously is as important as anything else. Operationally, that facility must exist.

The answer to the question of why we are resistant to Amendment No. 20 is simple. As it is, with the proposition that it contains, Amendment No. 20 could create long delays in many cases while waiting for a solicitor to attend the police station. If it is difficult for the police officer to attend the police station to conduct the review in person, it may equally be the case in large geographically spread out police authority areas for the solicitor or legal representative to attend the police station. That would tend to defeat a key purpose for which telephone reviews are being introduced.

The criteria for extending detention are and will be clear. The reviewing officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that continued detention without charge is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or obtain evidence by questioning. That very important criteria, which in some circumstances will be limited, must be satisfied. The criteria will be very clear and will have a bearing on the judgment made by a senior police officer. Understanding the importance of that should impress upon Members of the Committee who have been raising and pressing these amendments. I understand the concern about the individual's liberty, but the operational advantages and, coincidentally, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about the benefits to the arrested person, are also important considerations. Efficiency and effectiveness are key parts of our argument. While we respect the liberty of the individual, we must have regard to the importance of operational matters in these situations.

Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the Youth Justice Board which expressed serious concern about the detention of young people in this provision. The Minister replied that the Government are giving serious consideration to this matter. We should like to know precisely what is the intention of the Government in relation to the representation made by the Youth Justice Board? Would it not be wise for the Government to withdraw this clause until they are in a position to come back and inform the Committee about the action they intend to take?

The answer is plainly "no". Parliament recognised the importance and significance of this power in earlier legislation. We greatly respect the advice that is given to us from all quarters—not least, of course, from the Youth Justice Board, which does brilliant work and has an excellent track record.

Obviously the guidance will have to be clear where juveniles are concerned and we are listening to representations on that issue. It would not be appropriate to withdraw the clause or power while we take on board the comments and observations being made. Ultimately, the guidance will be critical to the way in which the provision is operated. That is common in this kind of legislation and in many other kinds of legislation.

The noble Lord kindly referred to the broad support that I give to the principle of the clause but, having listened to the debate and the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will the Minister consider whether the effectiveness of the process includes its validity? If it does, would it not be sensible to accept unreservedly that a person has the right to the presence of legal representation, and to be told that he has that right? That would complete the integrity of the process, which is surely one of the points at the heart of its efficiency.

I respect what the noble Lord says about the validity of the process—that is an important consideration—but there is no need for legal advice to be physically present. Representations can be made over the phone and the amendment does not take us any further in that regard. Amendment No. 20 is not needed. Legal representatives do not always attend physical reviews at present. The operation of the review process has worked very well and we are not aware of any wholesale abuse of it. We believe that we have got the balance about right.

I listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has to say about this because I know of his great experience in this field. Obviously we will continue to consider the point he has made as we go through the legislation, but we are content with the way it is drafted.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. particularly because in this complex debate he has been called upon to respond at different times to different points as it has developed. Detention is a serious matter. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, said at the beginning of the debate, this is a serious, sensitive matter of civil liberty.

We believe that a senior officer should be involved. I was intrigued by the Minister's response that a senior officer, an inspector, was involved. He referred to a senior officer in middle management, so suddenly "senior" is "middle". I am not too sure where the logic is in that, but never mind.

I am concerned with the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon about the integrity of the whole process. The Minister has directed us time and time again—both in this debate and before it—to the issue of guidance. I shall dream tonight that guidance will form the third, fourth or fifth volume of the Bill. There is a deep concern that without the safeguards in my amendments the Government have not justified their stance on Clause 4.

The killer blows came from two quarters. First, from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—I beg the Committee's pardon, from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I am looking at the right person but saying the wrong name. I apologise to the noble Viscounts, who are both in their places. One killer blow was delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when he referred to the fact that the reviewing officer needs to be there to check upon this serious process. The second lethal blow was dealt by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We have not been told the response to the Youth Justice Board.

Although I shall not press my amendments, I believe that the Government need further time to consider the whole issue and to bring forward a good Clause 4. When we get to clause stand part I shall maintain my objection. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 4, line 26, leave out "an arrestable offence" and insert "an offence which is triable only on indictment"

It seems to me that as a result of Amendment No. 6, which was carried a short time ago, we are left in a completely absurd position. Clearly, something has to be done. As a result of the acceptance of Amendment No. 6, possession of a class C drug is an arrestable offence; as a result of Clause 5, anybody who is arrested for an arrestable offence can be detained without charge for up to 36 hours. That means that anybody in possession of some of the fairly innocuous drugs listed as class C drugs, including anabolic steroids, can find himself detained for 36 hours. That is manifestly absurd.

Somehow or other, the Government have to get themselves out of the mess they have got into as a result of Amendment No. 6. I am not quite sure how they will do it, but things certainly cannot be left as they are.

Following on from what my noble friend Lord Waddington has said, if one accepts the premise that the time one should be held in detention prior to charge should be as short as possible, on what basis do the Government justify making this change at all? Am I right in saying that all the research that has been done and figures that have been collated show that the average time for which people are kept in detention, for arrestable but not seriously arrestable offences, is well below the limit of 24 hours? If that is so, what is the justification of putting it up to 36 hours?

I point out to the Minister that, in practice, many arrests for the type of offence that will now be covered will take place in the evening. This will result in people spending the equivalent of two nights in the nick rather than one—for them, a great deal of time. There is no justification for removing or changing the wording at all in view of the way "arrestable offence" is already defined in the PACE legislation.

I support Amendment No. 22 in particular as it seems to give the Government an appropriate degree of flexibility. What concerns me about the proposal is that there seems not to be any very good reason for it. It will apply to minor offences, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said, but it will also cover offences such as touting for car hire services and traffic offences.

The Home Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons was in no sense convinced that there was a general problem. Its report said:

"We therefore question the need for an extension in non-serious cases. There are other—more appropriate—provisions in the Bill, which are designed to assist the police in conducting their investigations before charge".

There does not seem to be any special reason why we should need a longer period of detention without charge than most other civilised jurisdictions. In another place, the figures were helpfully supplied for other jurisdictions. We are told that in Australia,

"in New South Wales, the period of detention is four hours. In Queensland, it is eight hours, which can be extended for a further eight hours with a magistrate's approval. In South Australia, the period is four hours, with a four-hour extension granted by a magistrate. In Canada, the period is 24 hours, with a possible extension from a justice of the peace. In Denmark, it is 24 hours, with a 48-hour maximum, to be extended by the court. In Finland, the period is 24 hours. In France, it is 24 hours, with an extra 24 hours possible on the stamp of the public prosecutor. In the Netherlands, the period is six hours, excluding the hours between midnight and 9 a.m., and there can be an extension of another six hours thereafter".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/03; col. 931.]

When other jurisdictions operate with a system in which 24 hours is an absolute maximum, unless extended by judicial authority, it would be deeply disappointing if for some reason we went for a longer period in our own country where we pride ourselves on the need to be alert—to keep people in custody for the minimum period. That is something for which the Minister would have to provide a very good explanation, which so far, reading all the material surrounding the Bill, I have not seen.

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 24, which is tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. It is another probing amendment from the children's charities whose purpose is to ensure that children and other vulnerable groups are not subjected to the increased police powers to detain people for longer periods.

As we heard, Clause 5 provides police powers for detaining suspects before any charge is made beyond 24 hours and up to 36 hours for any arrestable offence, and allows detention for a whole range of non-serious and in many cases very minor offences. The children's charities are concerned that the provision will lead to increased detention periods for children and believe that that should be weighed against what we know about how harmful periods of detention can be. The measures seem disproportionate, given the range of offences involved.

Amendments were tabled on Report in another place to delete the provision on the grounds that the range of offences being brought into it was not warranted. The Home Affairs Select Committee also expressed considerable concerns at the provision and is opposed to its introduction.

It is widely accepted that the numbers involved will be extremely small. However, the provision represents a dramatic lowering of the threshold for the significant deprivation of liberty at the behest of an individual—albeit senior—police officer without the need for magisterial involvement. Reduction of the threshold for the exercise of the power to "arrestable offences" means that offences such as football ticket touting are in effect viewed as equivalent to murder and firearms offences when consideration of extended detention is made.

The Government have said that the change is necessary in order to bring into the existing provision offences such as robbery, but that is not one of the current specified offences nor does it fall within the offences covered by the definitions in Section 116 of, and Schedule 5 to, the PACE Act. If there is real concern about particular offences, the simple course of action would either be to include robbery in the specified offences, amend the definition or accept Amendment No. 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The recent revision of the PACE codes of practice, operational as of 1st April, saw a significant revision of the level of seniority of officers who could authorise suspension of the codes and their provisions. My noble friend Lady Harris expressed concern on that matter earlier. The result is that the majority of decisions are now exercised by officers at the level of inspector, or even a suitably qualified sergeant. The children's charities are concerned that a future revision of the code would move the decision making for the increased powers to detain to those levels.

The organisations believe that it is essential to prevent any unnecessary extension of the detention period before charge for children. Cases involving children should be treated as a matter of priority to ensure that, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, detention is used only for the minimum appropriate time. Detaining children for up to 36 hours for a range of arrestable offences does not seem a proportional response. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendment and whether she can give the children's charities and myself any reassurance on the matter.

Detention without charge is a familiar feature of all totalitarian states. In the case of democratic states, it is recognised as a regrettably necessary power in jealously scrutinised circumstances. I believe that to be quite right, as I am sure the Minister does.

I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, who very helpfully reviewed Commonwealth jurisdictions and other jurisdictions elsewhere in the world to make the point that the averages are way below the law in this country now, let alone what is proposed by the clause.

I should like to ask the Minister one question and make one point. Am I right in recalling that the present 24 hours derives from the recommendation of the Philips Royal Commission in 1978, on whose work the PACE Act is founded? I believe that I am, but I cannot be absolutely certain. If that is the case, the provision has survived for very little under 20 yeas. One wonders what recent development has created the necessity in the minds of the police or the Government to enlarge it, as the clause does.

The point that I wish to make is this. Does the Minister not accept that if this is to become available to the police, there is foreseeably going to be a lesser degree of urgency in the examination of a case and the investigation of the defendant than would otherwise be the case? Those cases ought to be examined urgently when the liberty of the citizen is involved. I hope that the noble Baroness will be good enough to deal with that in due course.

I rise very briefly to support Amendment No. 24. In doing so I pray in aid Amendment No. 21 as it was spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, outlined the consequences of the time allowed for adults. His description brought home even more firmly how much more dangerous it is in every sense of the word to detain children longer than necessary and against all our international obligations. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, also carry weight. Why must it take longer in this country than in other countries? Are we that inefficient in doing what we must to proceed with charges? The point requires further explanation and I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us all.