My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Leicester on Friday 17th October? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps are being taken to ensure that food relief to the people of Zimbabwe will not come under the control of ZANU-PF.

My Lords, the UN, EU and other donors have made it clear to the Zimbabwean Government that they will not tolerate political interference in the distribution of food aid. The World Food Programme and others distributing international food aid all have monitoring systems in place. Humanitarian support is entering its third year and we remain confident that the systems are in place to ensure that no humanitarian relief provided by the UK and our donor partners can come under ZANU-PF control.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I confess that I am not entirely reassured. The United Nations estimates that by January of next year, as many as 5.5 million Zimbabweans will be dependent on food distribution. That gives Mr Mugabe and ZANU-PF the opportunity quite literally to hold the nation by its throat. What assurance can the Minister really give us that, compared with the ineffectiveness of sanctions and actions taken to date, real pressure will be brought to bear by Her Majesty's Government and by the international community on Mr Mugabe and his regime?

My Lords, there are two parts to the question of the noble Lord. With regard to the second half of the question, which is about wider political pressure, the noble Lord will know that we continue to work within the EU and the Commonwealth and with our partners in the UN and southern Africa to try to bring a resolution to the situation. Some discussions have been ongoing between the Zimbabwean and the South African Governments. I know that there is a great deal of impatience in this House that nothing appears to have been delivered, but we are continuing to make strenuous efforts.

In response to the noble Lord's first point, perhaps I may try to reassure him that we do have monitoring mechanisms in place. It took the World Food Programme a long time to sign an MoU with the Government of Zimbabwe because they were seeking to take control of food aid and we will continue to be very robust on that.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in July the United Nations launched an appeal for 530 million dollars of humanitarian aid for six southern African countries, much of it for 4 million hungry Zimbabweans? Is she aware that the results so far have been most disappointing and that only about one-fifth of the money has been forthcoming? While I appreciate that Britain has been very generous in feeding Zimbabweans, will her Majesty's Government do their very best to encourage other friendly governments to give money to that UN appeal, thereby averting yet further Zimbabwean tragedy?

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. There is a gap in food aid resources. The WFP pipeline is only 31 per cent resourced. We will be making an additional £5 million available to the WFP next week. Regarding my noble friend's point about putting pressure on other donors, we will continue to work with other donors, but the fact that the Government of Zimbabwe tried to put in place mechanisms that would see them control food aid has meant that other donors are somewhat sceptical.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. There is a great deal of impatience, both in this House and outside. Would she agree that no news from Zimbabwe is not good news and that we are still seeing the unending violations of human rights and the crushing of liberties? The economy is in tatters and people are now living on roots and berries. It has been called "the land of the empty plate", which is what it has become.

Does she recall the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report from another place in May? It made a string of positive recommendations—there were eight of them—which sought direct government action of a practical kind now, including the production of a dossier on human rights abuses and a wider examination of the whole food relief distribution system. When will the Government implement any of those eight proposals and possibly relieve some of understandable impatience that we all feel that not enough is being done?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite right. The situation has not improved and, in some cases, it is getting worse. We have seen the closure of the Daily News and I learnt this morning that the inflation rate has now reached some 450 per cent. The country has run out not just of foreign currency, but also of local currency. One can imagine what effect that is having on the population in Zimbabwe.

On the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, I gave evidence to that committee myself. I remember the recommendation of a dossier on human rights abuses. I pointed out to the committee that a number of NGOs and other organisations are compiling that information. We should be cautious about who owns that information. The noble Lord will know that the British Government's relationship to the Zimbabwean Government is such that what we say is very often not taken seriously, but the underlying point of making sure that that information is publicly available is absolutely right.

My Lords, I welcome the contribution from the United Kingdom, announced by the noble Baroness, and the 6 million dollars granted by SIDA, the Swedish agency. Will she agree that the 70 per cent shortfall in the World Food Programme's appeal, which she mentioned, is due to donors' fears that despite the memorandum of understanding, when it comes to the crunch ZANU-PF will find means of diverting aid from the people who need it most? How can assurances be given to donors, other than from the MoU?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that that is exactly the concern of donors. They are also concerned that as there has been no shift in the political situation, the position will not improve. The monitoring mechanisms that the World Food Programme and donors have put in place are robust and we need to persuade our donor colleagues of that.

My Lords, is it not the case that while the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorates daily, it is important that Members in this House and people elsewhere make it clear that we abhor entirely what ZANU-PF and President Mugabe are doing? Will she undertake to continue the pressure, advice and dialogue especially with President Mbeki of South Africa who still believes that the softly, softly approach will work? Will she tell him that many of us believe that it will not work and that the southern African countries need to be much stronger in their dealings with Zimbabwe?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we need to put at the centre of our concerns relieving the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe and that has always driven our policy. With respect to our work with our southern African partners, there have been disagreements about tactics and the best way of taking the position forward. But, ultimately, Zimbabwe's neighbours will make a real difference. I have been assured on many occasions that the conversations that they have in private are most robust.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they will undertake a review of Part M of the building regulations, as revised in 1999, concerning the accessibility of all new homes.

My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently commissioned research to evaluate the impact of the changes to Part M of the building regulations, which concerns the accessibility of all new homes and was introduced in 1999. The work is expected to begin before Christmas and to report in about two years’ time.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the positive confirmation that a review of the regulations will be taking place. Will he ensure that in the review consideration is given to the problem of some house builders failing to comply with the regulations, which now stipulate, for example, that all new homes must have level front entrances for the benefit of disabled or elderly people? Will he also in that review look to the future and add a few more measures to those regulations in order to make more homes fully accessible to people with any kind of disability, continuing the good work that was done with their earlier revision?

My Lords, we will look further. The review is being undertaken in order to see what has happened to Part M. It concerned only the provision for people to visit new dwelling houses and to use the principal storey. That is not the same as designing a building for lifetime experience. It is true that some of the builders are ignoring it. The public end up subsidising the building industry by way of the disabled facilities grant which last year was £175 million. That is the overall effect. If we can install facilities when homes are built in the first place, we will not only save money but improve people's quality of life.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the enormous hidden costs caused by the scarcity of accessible housing? I have in mind the huge additional burdens on care services and the costs in unemployment and loss of employment. Is he aware that that affects not only people who are permanently disabled, but those who are temporarily so—such as from breaking a leg? I declare an interest on both counts. Have the Government made an assessment of the potential savings of ensuring that lifetime home standards are adhered to in all new housing developments?

My Lords, no, not in the way the noble Baroness puts it, but it will be covered by part of our review. The regulations have been in place for four years. There is a cost and there will be others. I am not saying that the £175 million disabled facilities grant will be wiped out completely, but there is a large hidden cost in failing to ensure that our homes are designed properly. Furthermore, there is a good deal of ignorance among house builders about the needs of disabled people.

My Lords, will the Minister reassure us on another point? He will know that there is a perception among some builders of a conflict between planning policy guideline 3, which tries to increase density, and Part M of the regulations? Density is also increased in the sustainable communities plan. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will look seriously at that issue so that many of the homes built under the sustainable communities plan will not ultimately be inaccessible?

My Lords, I absolutely refute that building to a higher density means building to a lower quality. That includes the facilities for people with disabilities and Part M. It is an excuse made by builders and those who want to continue building at low densities, wasting the valuable asset of our land.

My Lords, how can the Government encourage more flexible lifetime housing, which he mentioned; for example, the kind of houses that are being constructed in The Netherlands? In those, only the outer shell of the house is fixed and the inner walls are easy to move around so that as one goes through the life the house will adapt to suit one's needs rather than the other way around.

My Lords, yes, I have heard about some of the work that is going on in The Netherlands. As I say, we will seriously review the regulations because there is a good case for designing properties for lifetime use. That means flexibility. That still means that we are dealing only with new buildings while there are 25 million existing dwellings in the country to deal with. We must not ignore the fact that we shall still have a large programme of adaptations.

My Lords, although the Government are to be commended on commencing a review of the regulations in relation to residential housing, the fact is that they have just completed a review of non-residential buildings. I may have a peculiar sense of priorities: while access to non-residential buildings for disabled people is very important, access to residential buildings is absolutely essential, fundamental and vital. Can the Minister explain how the Government managed to get their priorities the wrong way round?

My Lords, I do not believe that we did get them the wrong way round. Where practical, all buildings, whether old or new, should be available for use by all citizens, particularly if they are public buildings where access is required by the public. It does not matter what they are for. We have already brought in Part M of the building regulations to deal with that matter. I accept that that happened only in 1999 and that therefore they have been in place for only four years. There is a good deal of ignorance about the regulations, even among some builders and, I regret to say, probably among some architects. I pay tribute to the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in that respect—it is very important. However, I do not accept what the noble Lord said about our priorities. We are operating on both fronts—in relation to both domestic dwellings and commercial public buildings.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Best for all that he does with regard to housing for disabled people. I want to say how important that is. Will the Minister encourage greater accessibility to old as well as new buildings? Is he aware that I am going to dinner tonight in Westminster Gardens and that my block of flats, on one side of the building, is accessible because I live there? However, I am going to dinner on the other side, where there is a four-inch step. It is so easy to install ramps in those buildings. Will he encourage the use of such aids?

My Lords, of course. That follows on from what I said in answer to the previous questions. We have an overall policy—it is a public policy shared by everyone—to ensure that, where practical, all buildings are accessible by all people.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they consider that the current plans for judicial procedures at Guantanamo Bay will permit fair trials of those detained there.

My Lords, no. That is why, over the past few months, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has vigorously expressed to the United States Administration our strong reservations about the military commission's procedures. Our objective has been to ensure that if any British nationals are detained at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted, a fair trial takes place in accordance with generally recognised principles. Discussions continue.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I know of the great efforts that are being made. However, I remind the House that the detainees have now been in small mesh cells for nearly two years, that they have no access to families, friends or defence lawyers, and that, by any international standards of human rights, this has become a totally unacceptable scandal.

In view of the strong statements made by the Attorney-General to the International Bar Association in which he pointed out—I thought very eloquently—that one objective of terrorists was to undermine democratic governments’ commitments to the rule of law and human rights, can the noble Baroness suggest at the very highest level of government, by which I mean the Prime Minister, that representations should be made to the President of the United States that this is no example of the way that democracies should treat even the poorest and most disadvantaged of our country's citizens?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her acknowledgement of the great efforts that have been made. Indeed, there have been five rounds of talks on the issue of trying to secure a fair trial. I hope that the noble Baroness will also acknowledge that there have been six visits from officials at the Foreign Office to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I assure her that, in addition to those contacts, numerous contacts have been made between British and United States officials on this matter.

I am sure the noble Baroness will remember that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised these issues with the President of the United States. Therefore, these matters have already been put on the agenda as matters of concern at the highest levels in both governments.

My Lords, in the event that a fair trial is secured and it leads to an acquittal, can my noble friend confirm that the prisoners will be immediately released?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty and I am sure that my noble friend will understand the point that I am about to make. The discussions and negotiations are continuing. On 22nd July, following his initial round of talks with the United States, my noble and learned friend issued a statement in which he made a number of points about progress thus far. However, in relation to the specific point raised by my noble friend, at present so much is under discussion that nothing can be agreed in addition to the position on 22nd July until everything is agreed. But I assure him that his point is also very much in our minds.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for, to my knowledge, the very strenuous efforts that he has made to do his best in extremely difficult circumstances. Is there a process—and, if so, can the noble Baroness say what it is—to distinguish between a terrorist and a prisoner of war?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his acknowledgement of the strenuous efforts being made by my noble and learned friend. He is, indeed, being robust, energetic and vigorous in pursuing these discussions. The noble Lord asked about a process to distinguish between the two cases that he cited. The position regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is virtually unprecedented and very difficult, apart from the obvious parameters of international law and what amounts to a fair trial in international law.

The noble Lord goes back to questions raised in your Lordships’ House on previous occasions about defining a "terrorist". I believe we can all readily acknowledge that the types of issue being discussed in relation to the detainees—not only the British detainees but also all detainees at Guantanamo Bay— are enormously serious. They relate not only to terrorism but to the activities associated with terrorism. Those issues must be taken seriously, but that point in no way undermines the fundamental point about securing a fair trial.

My Lords, is not the problem that the rules published by the United States Government for trial by military commission are so plainly incompatible with international human rights law that either they must be disapplied and a special arrangement made for trial by proper courts in the United States or the detainees must be repatriated and tried here? Perhaps I may give the Minister a couple of examples of the ways in which those rules are incompatible.

Oh!

My Lords, I shall do so with the leave of the House. They involve secret trials. They are entirely under the control of the President of the United States and there is no effective remedy—

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to put his question.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that those are the kinds of ingredients that make the rules entirely incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other conventions and covenants?

My Lords, the noble Lord was very kind to try to help the House with his examples. But, of course, it was because of those examples and others that I answered the Question of the noble Baroness, his Leader, in the way that I did by saying that the United Kingdom Government do not consider that the current plans will permit fair trials. That is why my noble and learned friend has spent so much time trying to negotiate to a point where a fair trial might be possible.

I say to the noble Lord that there is an ambiguity in the noble Baroness's Question because it relates to current plans for judicial procedures. Those current plans might have referred to the initial proposals for the trial but, to a certain extent, they have been superseded by the statement that my noble and learned friend issued on 22nd July, which indicated that he had already made progress in eight important respects. That is not sufficient and therefore my answer to the fundamental point would still have been "no", otherwise my noble and learned friend would not be pursuing the discussions so vigorously.

My Lords, I join the acknowledgement of the very robust position that the British Government have taken. I am well aware that they find this issue as difficult as we all do. In the various points being negotiated with the United States Government, has the question of independent observers at these trials been raised?

Yes, my Lords, that has been raised, as has the possible access to public scrutiny by the press and media. Indeed, all those matters are under discussion. The question of access by the press and media was dealt with by my noble and learned friend in his statement on 22nd July in which he stated that, subject to any necessary security restrictions, the trials of the first two individuals who have been designated will be open and the media present.

My Lords, is not the right answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the American officials have given a new status or label to the prisoners at Guantanamo; namely, that they are not prisoners of war or suspected criminals but illegal combatants? That is the label they thought up to reflect the new nature of the war on terrorism which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, is an "unprecedented" situation.

Is not the message that we should be giving to our American friends that this status should be given official form and speedily? While we all accept that lawyers in every country tend to move very slowly, is it not the two years in limbo in which these people have been left which really is intolerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said? That must now be ended and the new status defined if we are in a new situation.

Yes, my Lords; I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. The question of the legal limbo in which all these detainees have been left was pinpointed by the International Red Cross in its criticisms. The noble Lord talks of a new status. Moving towards an internationally recognised new status would be enormously helped if there were an internationally recognised fair trial that went with such status. It is rather difficult to argue for one without the other.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they intend to review the performance targets of the police in the light of comments made by the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner on 10th October.

My Lords, we welcome last week's constructive speech by the deputy commissioner. On performance our clear position is that there are certain standards of policing, which should be delivered to all communities, the framework for which is set out in the National Policing Plan. We have no immediate plans to revise the PSA targets, but we shall shortly publish the National Policing Plan for 2004–07, which will encourage forces to engage with their communities about local priorities within the framework for delivering key national standards.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but there still seems to be a gap between police expectation, Home Office requirements and police performance. Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who stated:

"We have to insist that the interest in police numbers is diminished, that the concentration in crime numbers and judicial disposals is not removed but balanced with a measurement of locally agreed targets of police visibility and … public satisfaction"?

Would not outcomes based on locally agreed priorities rather than performance targets imposed centrally by the Home Office be a better way of organising our future police force?

My Lords, as I indicated, we welcome much that was said in that speech. It was constructive and very much in tune with what the Government seek to do. The relationship between local and national targets is clear. We have said—ACPO members have supported this—that it is important to have a national standard for minimum standards to be delivered across the country. It is also important to ensure that the needs of local people are met.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the speeches made at the Future of Policing Conference last week by a number of police chiefs show that the police service has willingly embraced an agenda for reform and civil renewal? However, in order to play its full part in that programme it seeks some relief from the rather tight straitjacket of centrally imposed performance criteria so that it can respond more effectively to the compelling policing priorities set by local communities.

My Lords, first, it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the support and assistance that we have had right across the country from our most senior police officers who have engaged in this new agenda. Secondly, the PSA targets are not a straitjacket. Noble Lords will know that we have negotiated a new policing plan. We have honed the targets and limited them. We have listened carefully to what the police have said in this regard. We believe that the new plan meets with general acclamation. That gives us a great deal of pleasure.

My Lords, do the Government accept that one of the major drawbacks of centrally imposed targets is that, as the noble Lord has just said, they distract from the attainment of local objectives and local priorities, which are all important to local communities to whom the police should be and, indeed, would wish to be, accountable? How will the new national plan, to be announced, cope with the defective situation that exists at present?

My Lords, first, I do not accept that the current system is defective. Neither do I accept that the national criteria which have been set detract from local delivery. I acknowledge the debate about national targets. However, as I have tried to say, our bottom line is that there are certain standards of policing which all communities should expect to enjoy. We are very committed to raising the performance of all our forces. We have made clear in the National Policing Plan that we are responsive to the needs of local people and local forces.

So far the focus on performance management in forces has been successful and shows results. Merseyside, West Midlands and Staffordshire, for example, are forces with a clear focus on performance management. They are performing well in tackling the targets on crimes of burglary, vehicle crime and robbery. Crucially, we are seeing increased public satisfaction with those forces. We believe we are on the right track and applaud those police officers who are working hard to deliver high quality policing to the people they serve.

My Lords, is there any possibility that the officers who are trying to achieve such performance targets might be hindered by those monitoring their performance targets?

My Lords, no.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will put forward new ideas for helping schools in disadvantaged areas.

My Lords, with Excellence in Cities, the Leadership Incentive Grant, the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the London Challenge we have very effective policies in place for helping schools in disadvantaged areas. We are developing and evaluating these programmes to focus even more intensively where the need is greatest.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that long list of initiatives. Is he aware that only last week Ofsted issued reports on Excellence in Cities, education action zones and the City Learning Centres and found that for all the good they were doing, nevertheless they were not consistently focused on their main objective of improving achievement?

Given that the average spend per pupil at a school such as Lillian Bayliss in Lambeth of £4,674 per annum in the past financial year is still only half that of an independent school such as some people think appropriate for their children, does he not consider that there is room for future initiatives?

My Lords, the Ofsted report contained some criticism and stated how these programmes could be made more effective. The Government have taken that to heart. However, it also reported on the excellent work that was being done. The noble Baroness referred to the Lillian Bayliss School, which has been in the news in the past few days. She is right; there is an enormous gap between the amount of resources available to the Lillian Bayliss School compared to many schools in the private sector. However, before reference is made to the problems of such a school it should be recognised that in terms of value-added and of improving the educational level of children who come to that school, the school is substantially improving. In all fairness, that should have been recognised.

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the biggest single factor which would improve conditions in disadvantaged areas is much smaller class sizes? To do that there would need to be more teachers. Can he confirm, as was reported in the Guardian today, that there are thousands fewer teachers now than a year or two ago? As regards the main Question, surely the Government should make financial provision to the appropriate LEAs to employ many more teachers in such areas.

My Lords, that is an issue of resources invested in teachers. Let me emphasise that last year the Government put £2.7 million extra into education, and that we have a vastly greater number of teachers—40,000—in the state system than we had when we came to office. I might also add that part of the problem schools found last year with regard to funding was because there has been a substantial enhancement of teachers' pay scales, investment in teachers and the quality of teachers. That surely is exactly the right priority to adopt.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the latest proposal we understand being developed to send children from care homes to schools such as Eton—our top public schools—is not very different from the assisted places scheme, against which the Government showed their opposition?

My Lords, the Government's policy is to seek to give extra resources to children most in need. The problem with the assisted places scheme, as every noble Lord will recognise, is that many people who were by no means from disadvantaged homes were able to take advantage of it.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that hill and upland areas could be classified as disadvantaged areas? Schools situated in these areas are out of touch with broadband. By being giving extra grants, would they have access to it in order to assist them to compensate for their isolation?

My Lords, that is an important and interesting question. Certainly, we recognise the importance of modern access to technology for all involved in education in our schools. I should indicate to the noble Lord that we have sought to extend the concept of "disadvantage" well beyond the inner city to the development of cluster programmes in recognising that there are other areas of real need. We seek to direct resources to those areas.

My Lords, having been responsible for introducing the assisted places scheme, does the Minister accept that that scheme provided educational opportunities for many people in inner-city areas, which they otherwise would not have had?

Well, my Lords, this concept featured in the general election debate of 1997, in which the noble Lord and his party put their view and value on the assisted places scheme and we put ours on the basis that we intended to abolish it. We did abolish the scheme.

My Lords, have the Government considered taking away the charitable status from independent schools, ring-fencing that money and giving it to the Lillian Bayliss School, and others of that ilk, in order to make a much fairer contribution to education as a whole?

My Lords, we are eager to search for any resources that could be made available to disadvantaged schools. I think my noble friend would recognise that the issue of the charitable status of private education has been the subject of a great deal of examination over several decades. There are many problems attendant upon it. So, although it looks like a straightforward, and, let me say, a just solution, it is not an easy one to achieve.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that schools in disadvantaged areas, which this Question is about, have a disproportionate share of disturbed and difficult children whose disturbance and difficulty is aggravated by their academic failure? In view of that, will he look again at the level of support given to voluntary agencies such as Schools Outreach, which achieve astonishingly good results in getting these children productively into mainstream education?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is the case that, however we provide education through public sources, those who are motivated through private concern, charitable action and voluntary action, often light upon solutions to problems and produce better strategies than we are able to do through our normal bureaucracies. We should take account of and be receptive to that. I take on board the point the noble Lord made.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that new ideas are not necessarily the prerogative of Her Majesty's Government? Much could be learned from looking at some of the best practice in schools in disadvantaged areas. Could I commend him to consider having a look at how Towneley High School in Burnley has turned itself round? With tremendous support from staff, parents and pupils alike, it has turned into a success story in a very deprived and disadvantaged area.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has highlighted achievement which should be recognised in areas of considerable disadvantage. But, as I indicated in my previous answer, we are aware that there can be illustrations of successful good practice which emerge in a whole range of devolved parts of our education system where we need to take those ideas on board and translate them into general practice.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, would accept that we support very much the point he has just made and want to be associated with it. How do the Government defend assisting young people from deprived circumstances being awarded places at schools such as Eton and top public schools?

My Lords, I never expected to be asked that question by the Opposition. I understand that the Opposition support that position. We were opposed to a situation where subsidies for private education were given to those who were not necessarily from deprived backgrounds. We are in a partnership in those areas where we can actually identify students with very special needs, where the state system does not have the flexibility in every case to deal with people with such special needs, and we intend through partnerships to take advantage of that situation.

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

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

My Lords, in view of the debate we had at about 11 o'clock last night, may I ask the Chief Whip what time he intends that the House shall rise tonight? I quote from Chapter 3, subparagraph 3.01 of the Companion, which states:

"It is a firm convention that the House normally rises by about 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays".

It has been normal for the House to rise much later than that in recent weeks.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for giving me some notice that she was going to raise this question. The short answer is that, given a fair wind, you always have to keep several fingers crossed. The intention is that we shall finish the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in order to rise around 10 o'clock tonight. I need to complete the quotation from the Companion, because beyond the passage that the noble Countess quoted it states:

"The time of meeting of the House can be varied to meet the convenience of the House".

That obviously is a factor which is regularly debated among the usual channels. I keep my fingers crossed. There are around 43 groups of amendments, which I know sounds horrendous, but of those 17 have already been debated—which is music to my ears, even as I say it—and a substantial number of the rest are, I am reliably informed, technical amendments introduced by the Government. So I hope that my wish becomes a fact.

My Lords, does the Government Chief Whip have any indication of how many staff were in the House to service the 22 Members who were here and who kept the Committee going?

My Lords, I cannot give an answer to that question. I am in total sympathy with the motivation behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, which is a calculation we need to make, not just about late sittings, but about the demands that the workload of this House, which we recognise is considerable, makes on the staff who look after us so well and so effectively, and, I might say, even at 1.30 in the morning—this morning—so uncomplainingly.

My Lords, can the Chief Whip confirm that 50 per cent of yesterday's amendments were government amendments and that two-thirds of the amendments today will be government amendments? Can he tell us, in relation to the growing burden of work in this House, what proportion of those relate to clauses which were never discussed in the House of Commons and what reflection that has on the burden that we have to carry?

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows, the vast majority of government amendments—this certainly applied to yesterday's debate—meet the approval of the House and are indeed there precisely to respond to questions raised during the passage of the Bill. All that I can say is that the vast majority of them were accepted with wide agreement across the House. The majority of government amendments—certainly at this stage in our proceedings—are introduced to try to reach agreement and consensus. Believe me, I work very hard to try to achieve just that.

As for the work of the other place, it is not a bad rule—I say this with some diffidence—to say that the approach is precisely the same there. We have different methods and different procedures in the two Houses. At our best, we work complementarily; I shall do my best to ensure that we do so.

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept two things? First, it is a gross abuse of procedure that a Bill as important as the Criminal Justice Bill should arrive in this House not having been discussed fully in another place. The real work of scrutiny is done by this place; that is the value of this House and the way that it does its work. Secondly, most of the government amendments moved yesterday were indeed accepted by the whole House, but they had little to do with responding to points made by opposition Members of the Committee. They were mostly additions to the Bill. In response to my noble friend Lord Elton, many of them related to clauses that had received no discussion whatever in another place.

My Lords, I fear that if we start comparing the procedural methods of the two Houses, we shall rapidly lose our audience. The noble Baroness well knows that when it is discussing timetabling arrangements, the other place does so with the full involvement of the opposition parties. There are often arguments about the length of time that should be available, but it is then up to the Opposition to decide how they should time their contributions—frequently to have key debates taking place at key times in the proceedings. But, honestly, we shall become a House of anoraks if we start comparing procedural devices and methods in the two Houses to try to decide which is the best.

My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Bill was not taken upstairs in Committee? Was it blocked?

My Lords, once again I find myself in complete agreement with the import behind that question, which is to emphasise that in the judgment of my noble friend—which I must say I share—there is far more effective, detailed scrutiny of legislation when it is performed in the atmosphere of a Committee. In Committee, the Minister, who frequently has to respond to extremely difficult questions, has the advantage, among other things, of having Civil Service support right alongside. If we could avoid the system whereby difficult questions are responded to by people running up and down carrying notes, that would be to the advantage of all of us.

The question asked was when we will finish tonight. My estimate of when we may conclude has now fallen by six minutes.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Chief Whip has a silver tongue, but the truth is that we are now suffering the consequences of the House of Commons having turned itself into a part-time Chamber and guillotining every Bill, with the result that Bill after Bill is coming here having been insufficiently considered in the other place. Until that is put right, we shall never be able to meet the wishes of the Chief Whip and the House that we should rise at, say, 10 o'clock in the evening.

My Lords, a number of us have form on this business. I have never before been accused of having a silver tongue, but I am grateful for that, if it was a compliment. Can the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I agree to have a draw on this one? If I were to check the number of times he voted for guillotine Motions in the other place when he was in government and he were to check the number of times I voted for guillotine Motions when we were in government—

My Lords, it is not the same.

My Lords, when in government the noble Lord frequently voted for guillotine Motions. Shall we declare it a no-score draw?

My Lords, there is no possibility of declaring a draw on this argument when the Government win again and again both here and in another place. What worries me is that the noble Lord and the Government as a whole tend to find it so easy to identify the convenience of the House with that of the Government.

My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that if the sole objective of the House has been to respond to the convenience of the Government, that has escaped me in my present role.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government, instead of thinking things out well in advance of a Bill going to another place—or this House, if it comes here first—have developed the custom or habit of thinking up further things later on? We have been asked to accept amendments that will add 30 or 40 pages to an enormous Bill, which was 374 pages long when it reached us. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that in future the Government should get their thoughts and intentions well matured before presenting a Bill to either House?

Yes, my Lords, it is clearly in everyone's interest that any Bill should be in as good a shape as possible when it is introduced to the House. I do not detract from that for a minute, but any legislative system ought also to be able to deal with issues as and when they arise during what can be a lengthy passage between being introduced to one House and concluded in the other. It is a duty of governments to respond to public need and issues that arise, even when that is during the course of a Bill's passage.

Even if it sounds a little immodest, a government who managed in 1997 to be elected with a majority of more than 150 and who managed to repeat that operation in 2001 cannot be entirely out of tune in legislating in a way that is acceptable to the public.

My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for trying to pour oil on troubled waters? However, I respectfully point out to him—I know that time is going by, but this has been an important debate—that the usual channels are not the whole House. There has been much restless feeling on the Back Benches about the length of sittings. We would all very much appreciate it if something could be done to control the time at which the House rises.

My Lords, I am totally in sympathy with the thrust of the question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I should love the House to be able to complete its business earlier. As for the rights of Back-Benchers, I wholeheartedly agree with her, not least from the knowledge of having been a Back-Bencher for a large proportion of my life and knowing that, given the inevitable way in which these things operate, one day I shall be a Back-Bencher again. So I agree.

I have listened very carefully this morning—although I confess that I was rather surprised at the outcome—to what the noble Baroness said about the Magistrates' Association's view. I share her concern that the association must have confidence in the arrangements. My honourable friend the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, Paul Goggins, has discussed those issues with the association already. I can certainly undertake that the National Probation Service will follow the issues up as a matter of priority. I know, for instance, that it is setting up a communication forum. I shall write to the noble Baroness with details before Report. I ask her not to repeat the process of last night and to allow us to move on more swiftly to other business.

I explained to the Minister's office this morning that I had been in contact with the chairman of the Magistrates' Association and that we wish to press ahead. We accept the Government's good efforts in talking. I understand that that will proceed regardless. It is considered important, and, since I have a duty to the association, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

I rise to commend the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on having identified this loophole. He will know from my noble friend Lord Glentoran that we strongly support him and now look to the Government to deal with this problem.

I hope that I will be able to give a modicum of pleasure to my noble friend Lord Dubs, and I would like to thank him for bringing the anomaly before the House. The Government are aware of concerns on this matter and fully agree with my noble friend that the police service in Northern Ireland should be provided with the power of arrest without warrant for the offence of driving while disqualified, notwithstanding the displeasure that that will cause disqualified drivers.

As my noble friend has already acknowledged, however, the amendment is technically defective. Although the Government agree in principle that this is an oversight in the law of Northern Ireland that must be corrected, we do not believe that the Criminal Justice Bill is the most appropriate vehicle in which to correct it.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is committed to introducing, at the next available legislative opportunity, a provision to give the police the necessary power. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel content.

I thank my noble friend. Of course, I would rather my noble friend had accepted the amendment or said that she would introduce one on Report, but I think that we have the next best thing. I welcome the commitment and hope that it will not be too long before she is successful in seeing such legislation through the House. I am grateful to her for her support and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I am glad to follow my former pupil—a status of which I often remind him. I agree with everything that he said, except that I would go further and say that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. The suggested increase from seven to 10 days suffers from the same vice as the Government's proposal.

As the noble Lord said, Clause 284 will extend from seven to 14 days the period during which a terrorist can be held without charge. I will start by thanking the Minister for her great courtesy in writing to me, when she saw the point that I sought to make, and for letting me see the evidence on which the clause was based.

The obligation on the police to charge or release a suspect is one of the cornerstones of the liberty of the subject. I hope that that does not sound too pompous. The length of detention has always, necessarily, been a matter of compromise between, on the one hand, the understandable need of the police to gather as much evidence as they can before charging the suspect and, on the other hand, the insistent demands of human rights. I remind the Committee, as I have often done before, that human rights were not invented at the time of the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998; judges have enforced human rights since the beginning of the common law.

In 1984, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed, there was an intense debate in Parliament about the appropriate period of detention. It was eventually settled that the suspect could be detained for 36 hours, with a further extension, if authorised by a magistrate, not exceeding four days in all. That is the maximum currently allowed for even the most serious crimes such as conspiracy to import class A drugs, for example. That crime often involves difficult and detailed inquiries here and abroad.

When I wrote my terrorism report in 1996, I received much evidence from the Metropolitan Police, backed up by case studies and detailed figures, that, in terrorist cases, four days were not long enough. The facts and figures that were put before me are set out in paragraph 9.10 of my report. I was persuaded that, in terrorist cases, the existing limit of seven days was justified, even though a period of seven days greatly exceeded the period allowed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and, more importantly, the four days allowed under Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as indicated in the case of Brogan. The fact that the period went beyond what was permissible under the convention did not matter. We had already derogated from the convention on the ground that, in Northern Ireland, we were, so it was said, facing a crisis that threatened the life of the nation.

When the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed, Parliament accepted that seven days was the correct compromise and ought to be sufficient to enable the police to carry out their inquiries. Now, scarcely three years later, we are asked to double the limit. We should do so only if the Government can make a very good case for it.

The extension is justified on three grounds. The first is that police inquiries may involve analysis of chemical substances and that the analysis of such substances takes time. The second is that there is a need to extract information from computers. The third relates to the problem of translation from foreign languages. Those are the three grounds specifically relied on by the Minister in her letter to me dated 23rd July, 2003.

There is nothing new in any of those grounds. They all existed in 2000, and they all existed when I wrote my report in 1996. Moreover, there is nothing unique about terrorism in respect of those three grounds. The grounds are common to other crimes and, in particular, to the importation of class A drugs, which, as I said, frequently involves international aspects, including the translation of documents, and the extraction of information from computers. On their own, the three grounds do not justify the increase that we are asked to make.

Then, it is said that terrorism is different from other serious crimes. It is, it is said, a "uniquely serious" crime, words that became familiar to us yesterday when we discussed earlier parts of the Bill. I question whether terrorism is, in any real sense,, uniquely serious. The harm so far done by terrorism in this country, at any rate, is far less than the harm done by, for example, the spread of class A drugs.

Will the Minister remind us when the last serious terrorist incident occurred in this country? She will say that terrorist incidents in this country have been so few because of the success of the anti-terrorist squad. I am glad to concede that point, and I have nothing but admiration for David Veness, who helped me greatly when I wrote my report, and for the anti-terrorist squad in general. However, if the Minister says that, so far, the system has worked, she will undermine her main point: if a seven-day limit has been sufficient to keep us safe, why do we suddenly need more time now?

The police will always ask for more time. I do not criticise them for that, but they are not the only judges of what is acceptable in a free society. Our job, in Parliament, is to make sure that they are not asking for too much. I have seen the evidence that the police put before the Minister to justify the increase. Obviously, I cannot comment on the extent or detail of the evidence, but I can say that there is nothing new in it and nothing that begins to justify an increase from seven to 14 days or the more modest increase for which the Liberal Democrats ask. I am not persuaded that 10 days is right, and I am even less satisfied by the proposal by the main opposition party that the matter could be resolved by having a sunset clause. Although we are all rightly concerned by the threat of terrorism—none more so than I—the liberty of the subject still counts for something.

I shall speak to Amendment No. 252BA. I share the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the number of attacks, fortunately, has been comparatively few. I, too, join the tribute to the outstanding police officer, David Veness. On looking back over terrorist attacks, one must take into account not only the number of attacks but also their severity and their impact. Otherwise, I am very much in agreement with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who rightly referred to this amendment as being the sunset clause.

We share the Government's resolve to deal with the threat of terrorism. That is why we do not completely oppose the clause, but it appears to be overtly draconian. I hope that the Minister may give additional information along the lines requested by the noble and learned Lord. It is well recognised that we face a serious terrorist threat. Presumably, that is why the Government are suggesting such an unprecedented period of detention—namely, keeping a person for 14 days without charge. As has been pointed out, that is a very serious matter indeed.

However, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Government should provide examples from past investigations where the police thought that the seven-day rule was not sufficient and that a longer period of detention was necessary to secure evidence and to carry out chemical or biological tests. I believe that the request was made in the other place. As yet, no such information has been forthcoming, but I hope that it will be introduced by the noble Baroness in this debate.

As we understand it, the statistics in the 10th Annual Report of the Independent Commissioner for Northern Ireland, published in 2003, show that out of a total of 236 suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland, only two were detained for more than five days. That does not demonstrate an urgent need for doubling the detention period without charge from seven to 14 days.

Another point is the anxiety that the noble and learned Lord mentioned about evidence and the Human Rights Act. The longer a person is detained, surely, the more worrying the weight and reliability of any evidence obtained from that person. For example, if a confession were to be obtained on the thirteenth day of being held without charge, would that evidence risk being excluded as unsafe? That is why we have proposed a sunset amendment to Clause 284, to which I now speak, which would give the Government three years' grace. That period could be utilised to monitor how effective the power is and whether it is necessary. On that basis, I shall move the amendment at the appropriate time.

I declare an interest in this matter as the statutory independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000. I believe that it is right never to vote on issues relating to the Terrorism Act and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Part 4. However, before this amendment was laid in another place, I was asked to consider what was proposed and I have spent considerable time doing so.

It may be helpful if I give Members of the Committee an insight from my viewpoint as independent reviewer which may inform the debate. Like everyone here who has met him, I, too, have great admiration for Commander David Veness. However, most of the information that I obtained about this has come from others. Although I have spoken to Mr Veness, most of my information has come from officers in Scotland.

I acknowledge the eminence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in relation to legislation on terrorism, particularly as, with great respect, I am about to disagree with him. His report of 1996 provided the template—indeed, most of the detail— upon which the Terrorism Act 2000 was founded. As the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000, I have to provide reports on the operation of the Act as a whole. I do so by travelling the country, by reading material that is provided and by speaking to various interest and pressure groups, political parties in Northern Ireland and the police, notably Special Branch. As regards the operation of the whole of the Terrorism Act 2000, my next report will be published around the turn of the year.

As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others said, it is extremely rare for detention without charge of as much as seven days to take place. There are controls upon the exercise of detention for longer periods permitted under existing legislation. I have reviewed those controls. For what it is worth, in my opinion, those controls are exercised very carefully by those in charge of them. Certainly, in the period that I have been the reviewer, I have not received complaints that those controls are being exercised in anything other than a proper way.

Therefore, are seven days sufficient for the purpose of the legislation? Is the seven-day period fit for the purpose, having regard to what has been happening in recent times? I say to the noble and learned Lord that there is room for argument. It is justified to say that there has been a change in the character of terrorism. Certainly, there has been a change in the character of the terrorism upon which investigation is strongly focused during the past three years.

In summary, the police are involved now in the investigation of terrorism in which the suspects, as compared with the suspects from the island of Ireland, are people about whom we know far less and who are far more difficult to investigate over a short period. There are very few cases in which the seven-day period may not be sufficient. If there are any such cases, they are at the extremely serious end of the spectrum. They are likely to be the most serious cases.

Perhaps I may give the reasons, which are slightly more in number than those described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, following his review of evidence provided by the Minister and by the Home Office. First—this is derived from the experience of an operation that was founded in Scotland recently—it can be the case that a substantial number of suspects have to be interviewed during the course of their detention. If the operation requires very tight security—many of these operations depend upon intelligence material provided by the intelligence services to the police—it is absolutely necessary that the loop of knowledge is very small. As a result, it is not possible to have a very large squad of officers involved in arrests and interviewing in such cases.

Secondly, in order to identify suspects who have been arrested, it is important to know who they are, where they have come from and what they have been doing recently. If the suspect has lived in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, we are bound to know a great deal about that person at the time of their arrest. However, the real experience of the police in relation to recent events is that they have on occasion arrested people about whom they know nothing, not even their names. In some cases, these people entered the United Kingdom illegally and have never come into official contact with any kind of authority. They may have arrived in the back of a lorry, or by some other secret means, and have been dispersed into the community. They first become known at all to the authorities, let alone the police, on their arrest. So it can be a tortuous process involving inquiry across Europe and the rest of the world to find out who they are.

Will the noble Lord give way? Would it not be more satisfactory if this matter were reviewed by a judge so that he could give leave for an extended period?

There are controls of a judicial kind and that does take place. Further, a dedicated group of district judges (criminal) does exactly that. Some months ago I spoke to the district judge in charge of that operation and I am certainly satisfied that they are very rigorous about it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, can be reassured on that point.

I turn to the next important issue. An operation was carried out in Scotland called Operation Scotia, which crossed the Border. However, it is a matter of which substantial parts are still sub judice, so it is difficult to talk about it in any detail. The operation resulted in the forensic science procedure in certain premises taking three days—just the search process, not the analysis. In any case where, for example, the presence of poisonous material is suspected, the police have no option but to exercise the most extreme and—using the word literally—minute care in—I hope that I will be forgiven for the use of a rather ugly word now in common use—forensicating the premises. Sometimes it is not realistic to interview suspects who were on those premises unless the process of forensication has been completed and without some kind of report being made, even if it is only preliminary, about what has been found.

I turn to the question of interpretation facilities. The police have had difficulties with interpretation in some parts of the country—not by any means are all terrorist suspects found in London. In certain areas it can be extremely difficult to locate enough interpreters with the skill and the time to play their full part in the interview process, bearing in mind that the defence lawyers also need to use interpreters. Those people must be drawn from a small pool and great skill is required.

We have already heard mention of computer hard drives. Anyone involved in criminal cases concerning matters such as fraud, for example, knows how difficult it is to find experts who are not already fully occupied to analyse computer hard drives. It can take a long time.

Time must be made available for legal advice. In many of these cases, it so happens that a very small number of legal firms advise most of the suspects. Those lawyers have to be given time to do so, including making an allowance for interpretation as already mentioned.

There are the personal needs of the suspects to consider. Many of those arrested recently are Muslims. Their prayer rights and wishes have to be and are respected, as are their meal arrangements. They must also be allowed sufficient visits by their families as well as their lawyers. All this takes a considerable amount of time.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has listed a number of points, all of which would apply equally to other forms of crime, in particular to the importation of serious drugs.

With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, cases involving the importation of class A drugs very rarely involve people of the kind I have described; that is, those who have never been identified, who have extreme language difficulties of the kind already mentioned and with the forensication requirements which may involve public safety issues of an immediate kind.

Where the noble and learned Lord and I would probably have to disagree about this matter is that I would say that there are special features here. I do not refer only to the trauma of a potential terrorist act, but to the special features of the arrest situation which mark out serious suspected terrorist offences from other forms of crime, including international dealing in class A drugs.

The final matter I wish to mention—it is the eighth point—is one which leads me to the conclusion that this proposed measure ought to be available. We hope that the police would carry out very carefully collated and thought-out interviews in cases of this kind. They will be given only one chance and it is in the interests of both the public and the defendants, if they become defendants, that the interviews should be well researched and conducted in a proper way, without undue prolixity. Having spoken to many police officers about this, my view is that there will be cases where the issue of interviews, taken in conjunction with the other points I have mentioned, means that— only occasionally, but in very important cases—seven days may not provide enough time.

Reluctantly, therefore, and on balance, on the grounds that the protections which are already in place do work to protect the interests of suspects, the advice I would give in this debate is that this power is appropriate, although it will probably be used only on extremely rare occasions.

I come back to the point which I raised in my intervention. It is highly dangerous for the extension to 14 days to be exercised without judicial approval, which would have to be very specific. I noticed that, in the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not refer to this.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord's work and I think that it is invaluable. However, we have to be conscious of the rights of ordinary people—which includes terrorists. We may not like them, but so far as the law is concerned, they are entitled to protection. I think, therefore, that the burden of proof for which this extension is being sought should rest firmly on my noble friend. There can be no equivocation about that; it is a very serious matter indeed. For all I know, my noble friend may be able to convince the Committee that an extension of this kind is required, but I would be surprised if she were able to do so.

The noble Lord also said something about a change in the character of terrorism. He may be right about that, but in my view we should be very slow to dismiss altogether the claims of those who purport to present a view about civil rights, which is most important. All I ask is that this issue should be considered impartially—perhaps in secret, I do not know by a judge. The trouble I see ahead is that, slowly but surely, a rule will develop to the effect that prospective defendants on this kind of charge will be held for 14 days willy-nilly, and it will not matter whether it is justified; that will be the case. Have defending lawyers and defendants asked for a change of this kind to be made?

In my view—I may be wrong- the burden of proof cannot be properly discharged in such circumstances. The gravamen of the noble Lord's intervention is that the change foreseen in this proposal is justified, but nothing that he said in his powerful speech would enable the Committee to come to that conclusion.

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, perhaps I may express my concerns. I support what the noble and learned Lord said about the obligation to charge or release being the cornerstone of the liberty of the subject, although he said it with some hesitation and apologised that it might sound pompous. Let me say immediately that there is absolutely nothing pompous or wrong in reminding the Chamber, and the nation, of the importance of liberty and how easy it is to cede its precious principles.

In saying that, I am not suggesting for a moment that we roll over in the face of terrorism. The work carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in relation to this subject was crucial and he has incredible experience of the balancing that has to take place. The problem with the trade-off between civil liberties and security, which we all entertain when referring to terrorism, is that we always imagine that it is not us who will be making the trade. We always believe that someone else's liberty will be affected when in fact liberty cannot be separated out in that way. In the end, the "them" always means us. It is our liberty inside our system that is affected. It is important that we hold on to that idea because it is those precious principles of our democracy that terrorism assaults. So let there be no apologies for explaining why this matters and why this subject is so important.

I am concerned, however, that this seems very much like an administrative convenience. When investigating crime, it is always difficult to get things done within the set parameters. So you always think that if you were given more time, that would be the answer to the problem. It is in that way that a kind of "creep" takes place which erodes liberty.

I should say to my friend and colleague at the Bar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that when you spend too much time with people on the investigative side you hear only about the problems they feel they are facing—how they would like more time; how they would like to have interpreters at the ready; how they would like more computer experts, and so on. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, none of these problems are new. They are not very different from what they were three years ago when the Terrorism Act 2000 was enacted, and they are not very different from those experienced in the many terrorism cases in which I have been involved, which now run into double figures. Not all of them were to do with Ireland. Many cases involved people who had language difficulties—they were from the Middle East and from the Indian sub-continent—and they needed interpreters, and so on.

By enlarging the amount of time in which people are kept in custody—people who are in fear; people who know the seriousness of what is being alleged against them—we run the risk that people may end up making confessions against their own interests and which may lead to miscarriages of justice.

This brings me back to the principle that liberty matters. We do not want people kept in custody without good reason. They should be brought before the courts and charged at the earliest possible opportunity. Fourteen days is too long. Nothing has changed to justify such an extension.

My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis inquired whether anyone had spoken about this to anyone on the defence side. I can assure him that the answer will be in the negative because, if anyone had inquired, they would have been told that this is an outrage. We should remind ourselves of why protecting liberty is so important. We need better justification for this incredible change than we have heard so far.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that liberty is the cornerstone of our democracy—but liberty for all, not only for those who wish to perpetrate crimes of terror against us. It is a question of balance. We have to balance the liberty of those being investigated with the liberty of those who will be the subject of terror. It is a difficult balance.

I part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, when he says that there is no distinction between terrorism and drug trafficking; that there is nothing unique about it. I do not share his view for the following reasons. I absolutely accept that trafficking in class A drugs is pernicious; I absolutely accept that it visits terror of a long and enduring nature upon those who take and abuse drugs. But there is a significant difference. Those who take drugs have an element of choice. Sometimes they are vulnerable and pressured, but they can choose to take the drug or to say no. There is no element of choice when it comes to terror. Terror is visited upon us whether we like it or not. There is no consent; there is no agreement; and there is nothing that those who are subjected to terror can do to avoid it. No one asks our permission; no one asks for our consent. So while I accept what the noble and learned Lord says in relation to investigation, we should be frank in accepting the nature of terror.

We also need to accept that things have changed. We may not like the fact that things have changed, but they really have changed. Why? Because in the past those involved in nefarious practices—if I may speak colloquially—usually had form. What happens now? More and more of the people who engage in terror appear to have no record of involvement in crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said.

Tragically, there is a new feature: those who perpetrate terror have no feeling of self, and dying is not an issue for many of them. That is a tragedy because previously we could rely on the fact that most bombers who perpetrated offences—I refer to the terror visited on us by the Real IRA and others in the terrible bombings to which we were subjected—wished to escape; they did not wish to be subject to the death they visited on others. Tragically for us, that situation has changed and we are living in a new environment where the risks to our people are more acute than ever before.

How do we respond? I take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in relation to the courts. What will be the courts involvement? Let me put it into context, although I know that not all Members of the Committee are totally familiar with the provisions.

Clause 284 amends Part 3 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 which governs the detention of persons detained under Section 41 of that Act. Section 41 gives a constable the power to arrest a person without a warrant whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist. An individual detained under Section 41 may only be held by the police for a maximum of 48 hours unless an application has been made asking a court to issue or extend a warrant of further detention. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—the judges who are tasked with performing this function are rigorous in the way in which they apply it.

Under Schedule 8 as it stands, a court may extend the period of detention for up to seven days if the conditions set out in the legislation are met. Clause 284 will allow such detention to be incrementally extended by the court for up to 14 days. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who said that this will be used sparingly and not frequently. But there appears to be a need to use it.

These provisions come to us from the police and are considered to be essential to them. I add my voice to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Carlisle, and others who have rightly complimented Commander David Veness on his work and the work done by all those officers who have been so successful in trying to keep us safe in recent days. I add my voice because the police are simply asking for unmerited extensions—they have persuaded us that these extensions count.

The Committee will be very grateful to the Minister for explaining the way in which this works. Has she had any discussions with those judges and retired judges who are performing the function she has explained and would have a better view on this than almost any of us, as to whether this extension is justified?

I can certainly undertake to write to noble Lords about that matter. The pressure that the seven days has caused on certain of the more sensitive operations has been understood by the judiciary who have had to deal with these matters. On the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I do not think we have ever had any dissociation from their understanding about how difficult this is and the benefits that there may be from extensions. If we have had any formal consultation with them, I will certainly write to the noble and learned Lord to indicate that.

It may be that the dialogue ought to be extended, particularly in light of this debate. Will my noble friend agree to that?

I hope this matter does not come back on Report, but if it were to do so, I would happily see what we have and come back to the Committee on the next occasion.

Notwithstanding what may happen on Report, does the Minister not think that it is desirable for there to be a dialogue between the Government and those other people at this stage?

It is difficult for me to answer because I believe that there may already have been such a dialogue. The noble Lord will know that a very limited number of judges deal with these matters; they are intensely involved in the way in which we develop these issues. I am quite confident that if the judiciary, seized of this matter, felt that it was unnecessary and we were quite happily dealing with matters within the ambit of that which we had, they would have told us about that very forcefully. But I am very happy to check it and to have some confirmation, and I am sure that if the officials in the Box have such information, I will probably have it by the time I sit down because I have a feeling I will be here for a while. Well, I am told that they have not had specific conversations but they will certainly do so.

It follows that for some limited and very specific circumstances under which the current seven days may be insufficient to enable the police fully to investigate the offences in respect of which the individuals have been detained, the proportion of cases to which this applies is small but significant. I obviously cannot go into individual cases or give any information that might be useful to those to whom the legislation might apply, but I am able to say that of the 212 persons detained from 1 st January 2002 to 31 st March 2003,16 cases went into the sixth day as a result of extensions.

I will also give examples of the types of circumstances which might lead the police to need more time. While I cannot refer to actual operations, the examples I am about to give are not hypothetical but are extrapolated from actual occurrences. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I cannot identify them more specifically than that.

Increasingly frequently, there may be occasions when it is necessary to examine substances that are thought to be dangerous—all the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, bite on these matters— which are found on or with the detained individuals, to establish whether they are chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials. Such substances have to be retrieved in accordance with forensic procedures. Moreover, very detailed health and safety provisions exist to protect the experts doing that work. This is a time-consuming process which needs to be carried out with painstaking attention to clinical procedures and often in stages, with one stage needing to be complete before the subsequent stage can be started. In one significant case, it has even been necessary to bring equipment from the United States to perform the analysis.

A further layer of complexity that technological development has added is that investigations increasingly involve the requisition and analysis of hard drives of PCs and the subsequent search of suspects' work or home premises after an arrest has been made. It is therefore a matter of days, not hours, before any material from a hard drive is available to be used in the questioning of a suspect. This can be further exacerbated when the hard drives or PCs obtained from a number of individuals have to be cross-referenced to each other to establish patterns of communication and even movement.

There is another difficulty in investigating terrorism. When one is undertaking a sting, if 1 may call it that, in relation to drugs operations, usually it is possible to do much of the preparatory investigative work before one goes in to arrest. Quite often in terrorism cases, one simply does not have that luxury. So the level of preparation on cases can vary because things can turn very quickly. You find yourself having to investigate an issue earlier than you would otherwise have preferred. I regret to tell noble Lords that terrorists are not very compliant with one's timetabling.

A similar situation arises with mobile phone use and the swapping techniques of whole phones and phone parts, such as SIM cards, designed to make it more difficult for the police to track the owner and the pattern of use. Establishment of identity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, is increasingly a feature of re-questioning and pre-questioning activity with the police, often having to work through the use of false identities or multiple false identities. The unravelling of the false identities involves extensive national and frequently international inquiries and cross-checking. It would be unusual to reach a successful outcome easily and speedily. The same applies to bank accounts, for which up to five individuals have used the same identity to access and move funds. For the analysis of documents and possibly video material found on premises, and in the questioning of suspects, translators and interpreters frequently need to be used, possibly for rather remote languages. Those persons have to be used for interviews at all stages during the period of detention.

Moreover, and I believe significantly, it is unusual for there to be only one set of the above or similar circumstances contributing to delay in the investigation. More frequently, there is a combination of factors, each of which involve detailed and time-consuming but vital research, which impacts on the time available to the police for questioning.

The modus operandi available to terrorists is clearly growing in sophistication and breadth. In such combined cases as I have mentioned, the police investigation will need to be correspondingly more sophisticated in order to analyse and cross-reference the available evidence. That is what creates a different investigative playing field and justifies the need for allowing the police an extended period to put the information together.

However, I hope that the Committee understands that it is not proposed that the court be given a power to issue a warrant authorising 14 days' detention on the first occasion that a warrant for detention is sought. On the contrary, there is a significant number of safeguards within Schedule 8 that will continue to apply, and we have built further safeguard provisions into the amendment. Thus a court will be able to extend the period in the warrant for more than seven days only if the warrant already authorises detention for the maximum seven days currently permitted.

The provision will be incremental, and it is perfectly possible for the court to say, "I will give you 48 hours, but on this investigation I am not going to give you any further extension". So the court will have the control that it needs to supervise and incentivise—a horrible word that is used more and more—the people undertaking the investigation to go as quickly as possible.

I wish to emphasise the fact that there is a real imperative in undertaking such investigations to work as speedily as possible. Once the perpetrators are aware that one of their number has been identified, the evidence will evaporate quickly. The important thing is to have the scope; everyone knows that time is absolutely the essence in such cases. I know that there are those who will say, "You don't need it", but the tragedy is that we do. There are cases in which, even if we work as fast as we can, we may not be able, tragically, to stop them. We have had examples of that in our history.

Schedule 8 has a brake, which can be applied by the court. The court will be able to extend the period in the warrant for more than seven days only if the warrant has already been authorised. The police can detain for 48 hours; if the conditions of the investigation meet the criteria stipulated in the Act, the police may apply to a court for an extension of that 48 hours. The maximum that the court could allow at that point is five days, in theory. Usual practice is for the court to grant smaller extensions of 24 hours or 48 hours and for the police to have to return to the court to request and justify further extensions. Only if the police had already obtained a warrant extending detention to the full seven days would they be able to make a further request under the provisions in the amendment to go into the post-seven-day period.

The application and use of the power in Clause 284 will be subject to annual review by the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000; that is, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who has spoken in the debate and has been fully briefed on the formulation of the amendment and the reasons for it. I am grateful to him for having participated.

Noble Lords will have to make a balanced judgment. Detaining people, whatever they are suspected of, is, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, a very serious matter for any democracy. It is right that such a measure should receive very careful scrutiny. However, it is for noble Lords to judge whether on balance the limitation of liberty being proposed is proportionate and justified in a very small number of cases, in relation to the potential damage that the actions of suspected terrorists would have on society.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked about the most recent incidents—the terrorist attacks by the Real IRA, which are well known to us all and which caused a huge amount of mayhem, disruption and distress in our country. We can rejoice that the same officers who seek a greater extension have been able to keep us safe so far. However, it would be foolish for me not to emphasise to the Chamber how difficult that has been. There have been occasions when, had there been more opportunity to investigate matters, we might have been able to do that which we eventually did more quickly, limiting the risk to which we put our nation. It will be no comfort, if we have a slip between cup and lip, to be told that the consequences of that slip could be justified to the people subjected to it by virtue of the fact that there is no difference between terror and drug trafficking.

Our amendment, Amendment No. 230B, which aimed at a compromise period for the length of a detention, is clearly weak and inadequate. In the light of the debate that we have heard this afternoon with my friends and colleagues, not to mention tutors, it is clear to me that there is no basis in principle for the compromise that our amendment contains. Therefore, I do not propose to press it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed to the clash between civil liberties and the security and safety of the state. If a defendant is kept without charge for an undue time, civil liberties are clearly violated. I admire the statements of principle made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Baroness. On the other hand, a lengthy investigation and interrogation before charge, about which my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew spoke, may be necessary for security. How does one achieve the balance?

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed us in the right direction when he emphasised the necessity to consider the degree of judicial control. It is in the intensity of judicial control where an investigation takes place over a lengthy period. It is in that where we may ultimately find a solution and safeguard. Because of the noble Lord's intervention, I was delighted to hear from the Minister that she proposes to have a formal consultation with the district judges, who exercise that control at the moment.

By Report stage—the matter will certainly be returned to on Report—I should like to have light thrown on the problem from that quarter. I should like to know how often the suspect is seen. Is there only an application made to a judge, who takes no further interest in the welfare of the person detained after that application has been made? To what degree are the suspect's physical and psychological health supervised? What reports are brought back to the judicial authority on the progress of the investigation?

I do not accept some of the justifications for the Government's position. In my experience—in the cases that I have dealt with—it is quite impossible to analyse a hard disk within 14 days of seizure. I do not think that a period of seven, 14 or 21 days would make much difference at all in that regard.

However, I take heart from the statistics that the noble Baroness gave; namely, that in the past 15 months or so for which figures are available, only 16 out of 212 suspects were held into the sixth day. Therefore, it does not appear at the moment to be a huge problem which is preventing the proper investigation of these cases.

I have already thrown a huge amount of cold water on my own amendment and the Committee will not be surprised if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I do not wish to add anything to what I have already said. I take note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not even put it stronger than saying that very occasionally seven days may not be enough. In my belief that is not good enough to justify the amendment. However, it seems to me that some consultation with those who have had experience of dealing with these applications would be of great help. If that can be done before Report I should be happy not to press my objection now.

The amendment is widely welcomed but remarkably late. It might assist the Committee if the noble Baroness explained why it has taken so long to bring forward this amendment and its accompanying consequentials. I have in mind particularly the exchange that occurred in the other place on 20th May when Mr Blunkett appeared to be unaware that an undertaking had been given to amend the Bill in the way described by the noble Baroness. An undertaking had been sought in particular by my honourable friends in the other place, including the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. He agreed to withdraw his Private Member's Bill in return for an undertaking that was given by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life on 21st March. On 20th May the Home Secretary appeared to be unaware of that undertaking, but promised that effect would be given to it as quickly as possible.

I do not seek to make much of that except to say that there have been a number of other instances where Ministers have made promises to bring forward amendments and changes to this Bill but, in some cases, we still await those amendments and changes. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to secure a system within the Home Office whereby every pledge and every promise that is made by a Minister, in particular by the Home Secretary, is carefully recorded and implemented as soon as possible.

I suppose that I take rather an old-fashioned view of Report stage in that I believe that it is the stage when a Bill is reported to this place with or without amendments. It is not the stage at which completely new amendments should be introduced. I very much hope that the noble Baroness agrees with me. In the circumstance that we still await certain amendments, I have a distinct foreboding that we shall see a number of government amendments on Report and, indeed, at Third Reading. That would echo the very effective intervention of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, earlier today when she said that Bills must receive greater scrutiny before they are introduced and that pledges and commitments that are given should be very carefully thought through and introduced at a much earlier stage. But having said all that, I warmly welcome the introduction of these measures.

Although I support what my noble friend Lord Hunt said, I feel bound to add that it seems to me very extraordinary that we should have the proposed new clause at all. Subsection (1) of Clause 306 points out very clearly:

"Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Act extends to England and Wales only".

The Bill is concerned with criminal justice in a broad sense. However, for us to add the rare application of some "regulations implementing Community legislation" simply on endangered species seems to me to be right outside the themes of this Bill. One could imagine other occasions when the measure might be implemented. Indeed, it would not surprise me if it were technically feasible to do so by regulation instead of by amending the statute. The Bill is so lengthy anyway. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, would be so good as to consider whether it would be better not to add this minor addition to the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the amendment is widely welcomed. It was brought forward by the Government in response to an amendment tabled in the other place. The Government gave an undertaking to do that as swiftly as possible. The Committee will be aware of the arrangements in the other place in relation to tabling amendments. The amendments were not tabled in the other place because some key policy provisions, such as sentencing principles for murder, were brought into the Bill on Report in the Commons. The Government said then that they would table these amendments in the Lords. They have been tabled as quickly as was reasonably practicable.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would wish the Government to continue to consider very carefully each and every suggestion made by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition together with the other parties before considering the final position at which they rest. We have done that and we have responded. I had hoped in moving the amendment to give the Committee a little pleasure and respite. I apologise if that is not the case. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is indeed a system in the Home Office whereby commitments made by Ministers are monitored. In each and every Bill to which I have been party we have without exception tried to honour those matters.

I do not know what stage the noble Baroness has reached in her argument, but I am a little troubled by proposed new subsection (4). Does she propose to address it?

Actually, I do not. Part of the reason is that I am not certain whether I have the wording of the amendment absolutely correct. I am really trying to establish the principle behind what change is necessary. If there is advice that the wording is not correct, I am happy to take it.

My final point is about the clear cross-reference between domestic violence and violence against children. A review of 105 children in 1996 by Brandon and Lewis showed that domestic violence had taken place in almost half the families. When the proposals on the consultation paper on domestic violence are made into law, as I hope they will be, I hope that there will be a further opportunity to press for the change.

The public need to know that the penalty for such horrific cases involving serious injury or death to a child will be treated with the greatest gravity. All the evidence shows that our criminal justice system is failing one of the most vulnerable and defenceless groups in our society. Children suffer serious injury or die in the care of adults who should protect them, yet the number of convictions is minimal. The crimes go unpunished and the offenders remain at liberty, perhaps to offend again. As the Law Commission says, we must improve the law. I hope to hear from my noble friend that urgent action will be taken in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move.

I would very much like to give my general support to the noble Baroness. I shall not try to support every word of the amendment, but she is dealing with a very real problem that is thought by many people to be a real injustice in our law. To many people it seems odd and unjust that, if a person must have died at the hands of one of two people but the evidence does not point unambiguously to one rather than the other having committed the crime, in the absence of evidence of a joint enterprise neither can be convicted. That is the inevitable consequence of it being up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

That does not mean that there may not be a case for creating new offences which catch those who ought to be convicted of some offence. That is what the noble Baroness, with great ingenuity, is seeking to do. If one were to direct one's attention to that problem, one would find, not only in the case of maltreatment of children but also in other areas of law, that one could create new offences which would prevent obviously guilty people getting away with not being convicted of any offence whatever.

There is nothing unjust in condemning someone who has the opportunity to protect a child from ill treatment and has failed to take it. There is nothing unjust in making that person guilty of an offence and subjecting them to punishment. I therefore hope that the Minister will take the matter away and think carefully about how we might deal with an area of law that has always worried me and many others.

I, too, support my noble friend Lady Gould, but I am rather worried about subsection (4) in her new clause. Frankly, it does not make a lot of sense. However, since she has said that she would be prepared to consider the issue, I recognise that what both she and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, have said makes a lot of sense. Rather than weary the Committee, I shall merely offer her my support.

I am full of admiration for my noble friend Lord Waddington and I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I fully understand what is behind the noble Baroness's intentions in proposing the new clause. However, I come to a different conclusion from that of my noble friend Lord Waddington or of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I hope that the Government will make it clear that to introduce a new offence of that kind is not a serious, practical proposition.

One realises and understands, as the noble Baroness has said, the distress and anger that greets one when one hears that a child has been injured or killed, but that since the prosecution is unable to say which of two people have committed the offence, neither of them can be convicted and both are acquitted. One understands that position, but as I understand the clause, it provides that anyone who is responsible for that child or is one of those people with the child when the child is killed, although that person may be in no way responsible for its death, he shall nevertheless be guilty of an offence of failing to protect the child.

What does that mean? If a father, stepfather—as is often the case—or a stranger kills a child by shaking him or her to death, is one really to say that his or her mother, who may have had nothing to do with his or her death, is nevertheless in some way guilty of an offence, deserving of 14 years' imprisonment? That surely cannot be right.

Although one is then left with the challenge of looking at the evidence to try to prove which individual caused the death of the child, it is not a solution to say that someone else who happened to be present must be assumed, by virtue merely of their presence, to be guilty of an offence in failing to protect the child.

Surely, if a person is present at the time when a child is killed, it is reasonable to assume, until the contrary is shown, that that person, as he or she was present, could have taken some steps to try and prevent the child being killed. If, therefore, the person were charged with failing to protect the child, it would then be open to that person, having entered the witness box, to show that he or she had no opportunity to protect the child. In those circumstances, that person would not be guilty of an offence, but at least the matter would be resolved, because the person would have had to have shown what actually happened.

I do not accept my noble friend's argument. I am not sure what the phrase "whilst it is with two or more people" means. Does it mean that those people have to be present? How does one show that they were present at the moment when the act was committed? In those tragic cases where children are shaken—that is what normally happens— in order to cause injury or death, the act is usually carried out by one person, with nobody else in the room or in the presence of the child. To reverse the burden of proof and say to the other parent, "You must prove that you did everything to protect the child" is not the answer to the problem.

Although I sympathise with and understand the point that the noble Baroness has made, I hope, with great respect, that the Government will not accept her approach.

I support the amendment for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Gould so eloquently gave, but in addition, I should like to say that when I sat regularly as a magistrate, which I did for more than 15 years, it became increasingly clear to me that what people expected of the justice system was, first and foremost, the full attribution of responsibility for criminal and illegal acts, and after that, of course, the right sentence.

The attribution of responsibility for crimes seems to me to be at the heart of justice. It is what marks the transition of a society from primitive theories of the causation of evil acts to a system based on reason and the rule of law.

Yet in one of the most heinous crimes of all— injuries to or even the murder of children—our law, in its present state, prevents the attribution of responsibility through the trial process when there are two or more adults who must have been involved in the assault, but when it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt who did what. Those are adults who are in a unique position to safeguard the child or to account for any injuries, but they cannot be brought to book. The law remains impotent in the face of a clearly acknowledged, most serious crime.

The amendment seeks to right that injustice. It does it through modest extensions of the criminal law which were first proposed by the Law Commission and have been endorsed, as my noble friend said, in its most recent report on the subject last month. To adopt this amendment would show real compliance with the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and it would ensure that we had brought justice closer to the important sphere of brutal violence within the family.

While for various reasons I need not go into I cannot accept the working of the amendment, I see that it undoubtedly addresses a problem. The one-off attack on a child when there are two people living in the house is not too difficult to solve. It is usually obvious which of the two people committed the offence. However, the trouble is that in case after case of this type there is a long history of a child being battered and of non-accidental injury. In case after case that is brought before the court, there are the hospital records, the doctors' records and the social services records from which one can follow and trace the various injuries as they occur. In the usual position, it is difficult to attribute blame precisely to one or the other if the process of battering ends in death.

There is a considerable danger—and I speak from experience—of the wrong party being convicted and the person who carried out the final fatal attack not being charged. Again, speaking from experience, there is a considerable danger that a jury faced with the history of a battered child will convict both people. I have read and heard about people being acquitted because the jury cannot decide who carried out the act, although I have no experience of that. But far more often, the jury convicts both partners in the house. There are considerable dangers in the judicial process and in trying to identify who did it.

Therefore, such a provision carries a great deal of merit. Perhaps not in this Bill but in a future Bill, the matter should be truly addressed and dealt with.

The Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for moving the amendment and to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for having reminded us of the need to ensure that we answer the concerns raised outside the House and her wish to see the full attribution of responsibility.

I benefited greatly from the contributions of my two noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I agree with them both. It may seem curious that I am in agreement with them when they disagree with each other, but here we have a serious problem. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, identified that and I agree with the context in which he put it.

Some high profile cases are crying out for a solution. However, as my noble friend Lord Carlisle said, there are some serious problems. I have seen cases in which one person stands by and does nothing while an abuser is committing criminal acts which can amount to murder and manslaughter. There is sometimes a reason for that. In cases I have seen, the partner of a defendant is often abused and is frequently powerless to stop what is happening.

The clause offers such people a defence, but the burden is put on them to show that they were suffering from abuse at the time. I know from my own practice that many battered women do not admit, even in open court, that they are so treated. Therefore, there is the danger that they will be punished twice.

Furthermore, as I am sure my noble friend had in mind, there have been circumstances in which the partner did not suffer abuse but simply was completely unaware that the abuse was taking place. A whole range of situations must be carefully considered, which is why the matter has received such excellent scrutiny from the Law Commission.

I return to my support for my noble friend Lord Waddington. He rightly says that there is nothing unjust in penalising someone who is just standing by when the crime is committed. That is why I agree with both my noble friends and now look to the Government, with all their resources, to do what Mr Hilary Benn said would be done: to find a solution.

I warmly congratulate the noble Baronesses on providing the Committee with this important debate and I now look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

I, too, congratulate my noble friend on moving the amendment. I totally take into account the fact that she does not propose to pursue it or to suggest that it has anything other than a number of fundamental flaws. She has moved the amendment to enable us to have a debate and I thank her for doing so.

Any death of a child is obviously a sad and terrible matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, made plain. We are all concerned to ensure that prosecution in cases of non-accidental death is not hampered by the perceived loophole in the present law. It is not acceptable that those guilty of killing a child in their family should escape because the law cannot determine who struck the fatal blow. A number of agencies have examined the problem, most recently the NSPCC and, very helpfully, the Law Commission.

I regret to tell the Committee that I have experienced cases in which the jury could not decide which person committed the act. Mainly, those were cases in which neither defendant gave evidence. One of the problems we have is that it is difficult in that situation for the court—for the jury—to make a determination as to guilt. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right in saying that in many such cases often the woman, regrettably, has been brutalised and subjugated to such an extent that not only has she not been able to protect her child but she has become unwilling or unable to give evidence against her partner and as a result justice cannot be done. I understand all those problems and they are difficult to solve—not least because if they were easy to solve, governments in the past 100 years would have done so.

But we believe that we may be edging our way towards a solution. We have previously made clear our determination to act. We are wholly committed to legislation in order to resolve this problem. But we need to get this right and to legislate on a complete set of measures to achieve our goal. There are some tricky issues for us to balance. I do not believe that the amendment gets it right, but I entirely understand the thrust of what my noble friend is seeking to achieve. We therefore had, and continue to have, detailed discussions with the Law Commission and others on their proposals in this area.

We have also been working on our own measures in discussion with other government departments, the police, the NSPCC, the working group and other professional people. We have a duty to secure an effective investigation and adjudicative process to protect the rights of children and, indeed, of other vulnerable people. It has been my pleasure to expend a not inconsiderable amount of my time trying to help craft the solution.

We believe that part of the solution lies in changes in procedure and part lies in the creation of a new offence, to which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made reference. However, the two need to work together to provide the answer that we need. The amendment before us acknowledges that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is much merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, said in relation to caution, and there is much in the passionately expressed opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that we must get on and try to do something.

As I said, the two need to work together, but the present Bill is not the right vehicle for a new offence. We believe that, although the Law Commission has taken this whole issue much further than has previously been the case, there may be a little further to go before we are sure that we have the right answer. It must be compatible with the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and all the other matters with which we shall have to deal.

I want to commend my noble friend Lady Gould, who tabled the amendment. It is right to keep this issue in the public eye and, if I may respectfully say so, to keep up the pressure up on the Government, which I feel. The voice of others has been very helpful in ensuring that that happens. I particularly commend my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her ceaseless efforts in this regard. We intend to see that the desire expressed in Committee today is fulfilled. Children have every right to place their trust in their carers and not to discover, to their cost, that it is sadly misplaced and that justice is thwarted. We need to ensure that their killers are brought to justice and that those who stand idly by are also brought to account where that is justified.

With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel content. We shall continue to pursue this issue with a great deal of energy and we hope to find an early opportunity to return to the House when we have an appropriate legislative slot.

I thank my noble friend very much for her remarks. I also thank everyone who has spoken in what I believe has been a very important and interesting debate. I said at the start that I have no legal training, and therefore 1 tabled the amendment with some trepidation. It was a probing amendment because I felt sure that the wording would not be as it should. I accept that without a doubt. However, I am very pleased that many noble Lords have spoken in support of the principle of the amendment.

I am pleased, in particular, that my noble friend said that the solution is under serious consideration and discussion. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I look to the Government to arrive at a solution and to bring before the House another Bill that will stop this appalling situation. It has gone on long enough, and those who commit such terrible crimes must be brought to justice. However, at present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I welcome these new clauses. If I recall correctly, it was not only the judiciary that expressed some concern. Sir Robin Auld—the Minister nods—also criticised the inability of the Court of Appeal to direct the commission to investigate and report to it on any matter in an application for leave to appeal, as distinct from an appeal itself. 1 recall the noble Baroness explaining in a letter that there may, indeed, be instances where the court might require the assistance of the commission at the application stage and, without it, it might even be forced or obliged to deny leave. Therefore, the amendments are welcome and I support them from these Benches.

As I entered the Chamber, a noble Lord said to me that he hoped the noble Baroness would apologise to me. I have a warm recollection of our exchange. On that occasion, the noble Baroness criticised me for having gone on at too great a length in seeking to explain the amendment. Indeed, she said that I had entertained the House— here she used a very rude phrase—to an exhaustive exposition, which can be translated as my having been exceedingly boring.

However, I had only set out the view, expressed very clearly by the judiciary, that there was a need to move in this direction. Therefore, I do not look for an apology; I merely now look for the Government to accept that what we said from these Benches was correct, even though we may have done it at considerable length. I shall certainly not make the same mistake this time. I warmly support these clauses.

This point needs a certain amount of consideration. It is not so much the issues upon which a judge has to decide as a matter of discretion—for instance, those under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—because those matters will not be left to the jury. I have in mind, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 232E, the situation where there is a question of inferences from silence.

I cannot believe that juries are not surprised that on occasion a defendant says nothing about a particular matter. I remember one case—and I am sure many other noble Lords with experience of this issue will remember similar things—in which one defendant out of a group did not give evidence because he had a bad record and consequently would be cross-examined by one of his co-defendants. One then has the problem of what to say to a jury about inferences from his failure to give any evidence. I can readily see that that someone on a jury who knew about these things would carry an undue influence. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, could help us greatly in describing how she sees this kind of situation being resolved.

The issue would have to be resolved at the selection stage of a jury. These things do not necessarily arise at an early stage in a trial; they turn up as it goes along. One does not want to have a jury member, who has obviously been acquainted with the other members of the jury in the course of the proceedings, suddenly being discharged because something arises about which he or she is bound to know more than would be good for anyone to be told about during a jury's deliberations. There are great practical difficulties on this issue. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about it.

I should declare an interest because I am in the unusual position of having actually served on a jury. I concluded my degree aged 20, but did not join the Middle Temple until shortly after my 21st birthday. In the interim I was called to jury service. I must confess that to your Lordships because I did not disclose my knowledge to the jury. So, I was perfectly aware that the defendant had convictions when they were not put in; I was also perfectly aware that the basis upon which the judge retired was to hear something on the voir dire; and I understood perfectly the issue. I must say that I hope it did not impinge on my ability to do justice, but I did not tell anyone who I was.

So I understand the anxiety about the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We believe—and I welcome the warmth given to these provisions by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that widening the ambit of people who can give assistance as jury members is very important and that we need to have that inclusion clearly faced.

The proposal will take two stages. There will undoubtedly be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for, say, a police officer, a judge, or a lawyer to serve on a jury. A number of safeguards exist to ensure that people whose presence on a jury might threaten, or even appear to threaten, the fairness of a trial will not so serve. These will be adequately covered in the new arrangements.

The screening process is to have two stages. At the first stage, the jury summoning form, which will need to be amended to reflect the new arrangements, invites anyone who thinks they have a "good reason"' to defer or be excused from jury service to state that reason. One such reason would be that it is very likely that the person will know, or be known to, someone involved in the conduct of the trial. The guidance to be issued by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will also make this clear.

A number of noble Lords know about the situations of which I speak. There are members of the judiciary who have been in an area for a very long time. There will be no one in that locality who does not recognise either their face, their name or sometimes, just as importantly, their voice. There will be police officers who have worked in an area for a very long time. It may be that in another district, in another area but within the same jury catchment, it would be perfectly proper for them to so serve. So we would—

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, as will be the Committee, for her careful exposition of these matters. But she is clearly reading from some guidance or draft guidance. It perhaps might be useful to the Committee for her to share her detailed notes on this issue. Rather than take up the Committee's time in going through the guidance, it might be very helpful before Report for noble Lords to have sight of the document to which she refers.

I regret to tell the noble Lord that there is no document: I seem to have developed the ability to read and think at the same time—I know that that is somewhat testing. If it would be more helpful, we could certainly set out in a written document the sort of ideas that we have about how it will work. They are not set in stone, because they are just our thinking, but I want to reassure the House that we entirely take on board the issues raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. We shall have to make proper arrangements. I should be happy to do that.

The Minister mentioned people who have been detained at some stage, especially under Part 2, in relation to disqualified persons. There is a small group of people—immigration detainees—who may subsequently find themselves legally qualified to remain in the United Kingdom. Will they have to wait for 10 years before they can serve on a jury, or will the fact that they have been found to be legally entitled to stay in this country entitle them to jury service?

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It will date from the time that they are declared to be lawfully in the country. I do not know whether we have resolved that difficulty. Usually, the time starts to run from the moment that lawful presence or residence is acknowledged. I do not know the precise answer; I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, because he has raised an interesting point.

I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his intervention. Like him, I can see some great practical difficulties here, but the Minister has done much to reassure us. Without wanting to curtail matters, I am grateful to her for having agreed to share with us in more detail some of the anticipated guidance. I am pleased that it is in draft form, so that we have a real opportunity to influence it before it is finalised.

I should make clear that I do not have guidance; I have our outline thinking on the matter. I am certainly happy to place the outline that I have just described in written form, but it would be wrong if the Committee were to think that we yet have the guidance, because we have not. I can do my best to provide that outline.

I was referring to guidance with a small "g". I was warmly welcoming the guidance that the noble Baroness will give us. That will give us the opportunity to think through some situations; we are very much with her on how vital is the inclusive nature of a jury. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My noble friend Lady Massey could not be present, but I wish to take the opportunity to support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the wonderful way in which she champions in this House the rights of children. I support the amendment. I wish to reinforce the three principles to which the noble Baroness has spoken.

I was involved in the launch, in July 2003, of Scope, an umbrella group of most of the children's charities, including the National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's, the NSPCC and others. The real concern of those organisations in coming together was to address the very issues that the amendment highlights. The concern is that we are not living up to our international obligations. We are talking about the human rights of children. We should see the distinction between children and adults. I would have thought that it was very much in keeping with the Government's thinking.

The Green Paper published recently is a very positive document welcomed by many of us concerned with children's rights. Clearly, it still has some way to go, but that such work is being done on so many fronts is a welcome innovation. I hope that the Government will listen to the principles in the amendment, that they will take the amendment to heart and include it in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has made a very powerful case in setting out the amendment. It forces us to think about the numbers and the position of children under 18 who are still held in adult prisons. That has been the subject of at least one report by the Howard League, chaired by, I believe, my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton. It has been discussed in your Lordships' House on several occasions. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, how many children under 18 are held in adult prisons? If they are still there, are they at least held in wings separate from adult prisoners? It is regrettable that relatively little progress has been made on the issue. I hope that the noble Lord will have some good news for us today.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for moving this very constructive amendment. I suspect that, ultimately, there is not much difference between our objectives and views. I am sure that the noble Baroness will wish to join me in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his important work as chair of the Youth Justice Board before he moved on to his current ministerial responsibilities. The work of the Youth Justice Board has enabled us to make progress in how children and young people are treated and regarded in the criminal justice process. It has perhaps broadened perspectives on how the criminal justice process works in the interests, and supervises the interests, of children and young people caught up in the criminal justice system.

I echo the tribute that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, paid to the important work carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in that field. I recognise the vigour with which the noble Baronesses have argued and advanced their case.

We established in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people. That has proved to be of great value, acting as a focus for previously disparate agencies and services and enabling us to face up in a pragmatic, non-judgmental way to the problems that crime causes to society. By focusing on offending behaviour by children and young people, we are acting in their interests because we are trying to get behind the issues relating to that pattern of offending.

The welfare of young offenders has long been a very important issue in the criminal justice system and has a long history. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to legislation going back to 1933—the Children and Young Person's Act 1933—which obliged those involved in government and the provision of services to have regard to the welfare of juveniles when sentencing them. Welfare considerations are therefore firmly rooted in legislation.

Let us also be clear, however, that child welfare is not the only consideration in the justice system and cannot be the main consideration. The justice system exists to tackle crime; welfare issues arise as a consequence of the need to tackle crime. We must also have proper regard to the needs and interests of victims and the wider community. We have a duty to ensure that justice is delivered and that the needs and interests of victims are not lost in the process. It is also our view that preventing offending is, as I said earlier, in the best interest of the child or young person and does not undermine the interests of the victim and the wider public.

Praise has already been heaped on the Green Paper, Youth Justice—The Next Steps, and the main children Green Paper Every Child Matters, both of which were published on 8th September. In those documents we propose a single main sentencing purpose of preventing offending. Currently, the sentencing of young people is subject to several different statutory aims and principles—a point that was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her contribution to the debate. As such, the relationship between and the relative strength of preventing offending, taking account of welfare and ensuring just desserts is not entirely clear.

We propose a single main sentencing purpose of preventing offending to put the main priority beyond doubt. We propose that that main purpose would be supported by requirements for sentencers to take into account the extent to which punishment is needed; whether, and if so how, there needs to be public protection because of the seriousness or persistence of the offending; the individual's age and vulnerability; whether there should be a restorative or reparative approach or obligations on the young person; and what particular interventions have been tried if the person has been sentenced before and what would be appropriate now or in the future. It is a holistic approach that takes on board many of the concerns raised in this debate.

With regard to welfare, what we are proposing through this formula is a more up-to-date, pragmatic equivalent of age and vulnerability, which is less value-ridden and focuses on the actual issues that can require special protection for a young person. It is selective and highlights the practical points. We propose that other sentencing considerations, along with their cost and evidence of their effectiveness, will be set out by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

We should welcome views on this proposal, and, indeed, on all the other proposals outlined in the consultation document. Those views should be forwarded by 1st December. We do not consider it sensible to make changes in law to the principles of juvenile sentencing in advance of that consultation process. That would be approaching it from the wrong end. That brings me to the remaining part of the noble Baroness's amendment to this Bill—minimising deprivation of liberty. Such a measure should, of course, be used only as a last resort in respect of all individuals and should not be taken lightly. It is particularly important that children and young people do not get sent to custody or other secure accommodation by the courts if there is a more appropriate alternative sentence.

In Youth Justice—The Next Steps, we have put forward proposals on introducing more intensive sentences as the main response to the serious and persistent offending of juveniles. Intensive supervision and surveillance—a highly supervised community programme involving close attention from supervising officers, full-time daytime programmes and electronic monitoring—is currently being expanded to 4,200 places in England and Wales by January 2004, three-quarters for sentenced juveniles and a quarter for bailees. However, custody would still need to be available when the offence or offences are so serious that only a physical restriction of liberty can be justified. It is finally for the courts, and rightly so, to use their judgment when choosing the most appropriate sentence for an individual young offender.

We are happy to undertake to look seriously at building the thinking behind this remaining element into future strategic sentencing purposes for youth justice. However, it is not our intention to tinker now. We have fallen into that trap too often in the past. We want to stimulate and hear a full debate on the proposed general purposes and put together a properly integrated formula for new legislation. Our minds are therefore open on the issue and we are delighted to have stimulated debate on it, of which this discussion is an important part. Tinkering with the process of sentencing at this stage, however, would be wrong and inappropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the numbers of juveniles in custody in adult institutions. My figures suggest that, at the end of August 2003, there were 2,760 juveniles held in secure facilities of which 2,270 were held by the Prison Service. Only around 100 of those juveniles mix with over-18s when there are genuine reasons and in strictly controlled conditions. I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that the Prison Service has a distinct estate for 15 to 17 year-old boys. They are in 13 juvenile-only establishments on their own sites or on sites shared with, but separate from, young offender institutions for 18 to 20 year-olds. I hope that that provides some context.

We are beginning to witness a reduction in the number of young people held in custody. The numbers peaked in October 2002 at some 3,175. Since then, they have fallen back to 2,760 in August this year. That is a decrease of just over 13 per cent. I am sure that that reduction after a period of increase will be welcomed by all. I hope that that answers the statistical point raised by the noble Lord earlier. Following my comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley made an important point about the judgment given a year ago on an application for judicial review by the Howard League to which the Minister failed to reply. My noble friend mentioned the distinction between what the court decided about the welfare of the child and the responsibility of the agency to provide that welfare. This amendment misses that particular obligation. Nowhere in the Minister's explanations does he give any indication whether the judgment was considered by the Home Office and whether there is likely to be any appropriate legislation in the near future. If there is not, is it not right in this day and age that we have legislation that covers the duty and obligation of the agency, not just the welfare of the child?

I apologise if I missed that point. I thought that I was making the general point throughout my reply. Of course, the welfare of the child is extremely important. It is at the core of our thinking and forms a part of the consultation documents that were published recently. I cannot comment specifically on whether the Home Office directly reflected its thinking on the particular case mentioned by the noble Lord when constructing the consultation documents, although I am sure that it will have done because that case clearly has an important bearing on the way in which these policy issues will develop in the future.

If there are particular points that I have missed, I would be happy to follow them up, perhaps in correspondence, which I would be happy to share with other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and related debates.

I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia for their report. I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is in her place and that her other responsibilities have allowed her to be present for the Minister's response. I add my warm compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is now a health Minister in your Lordships' House, on the sterling work that he did when he was chairman of the Youth Justice Board. It was at that time that he made the comments that I quoted.

The Minister said that he felt that we had the same objectives: I agree. However, he said the objective was to prevent offending and reoffending by children. He said that that should be the primary objective of the youth justice system, not the welfare of the child. Offending behaviour often occurs because the child's welfare has been compromised. Addressing the child's welfare would help to meet the Government's objectives for the youth justice system. I pointed out the shortcomings of existing law in that regard. I am not satisfied that the Minister has given an explanation that covers the reasons why we feel that the new clause is required.

I add my praise to that for the Green Paper Every Child Matters. It has the potential to make many improvements to the life chances of children in this country. I look forward to giving my response to it in the fulness of time. However, as I said, its weakness is that it covers only the sentencing system, not the whole system. With due respect, I do not believe that the Minister covered that point.

I was delighted to hear the Minister's restatement of the principle that custody should be the last resort for young people and for all offenders. However, the fact remains that numbers in custody are rising. Nobody is suggesting that custody should never be available for those who need to be taken away from the public because they are a danger. The fact that the number of young people in custody is rising must be recognised, and something must be done about it. I welcome the indication that the Minister gave that the principle is likely to be built into future legislation more clearly than it is at the moment. I look forward to seeing the Bill—I presume that that is what the Minister meant— that will follow the Green Paper in the fulness of time during the next Session of Parliament. We will have many conversations on the subject in the next 12 months.

I shall read with great care what the Minister said. On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and myself, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has raised an important matter, but it is not a new one. We must go back many years—to 1940. During World War II, no more prisons were built, and the Home Secretary—a Labour Home Secretary, I think—gave a ruling to those responsible for looking after the prisons that there should be three prisoners to a cell, not two, if more than one prisoner were admitted. That was a sound principle. It prevented homosexuality and has worked pretty smoothly.

In the years since, more prisons, especially open prisons, have been built, and the prison population has remained high. If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, were made and the principle behind it put strictly into operation, some problem or other might arise. However, the noble Lord has made it easy for the matter to be dealt with by asking merely that Parliament should be informed. It is a matter that we should have in mind, and the Government should welcome the requirement to inform Parliament as a moderate solution to the problem.

I support my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. My noble friend is right to say that it is an important matter. He speaks from the position of having had a distinguished career as a Minister, particularly at the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, speaks with the authority of the chairman of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. He has served on the councils for nearly 20 years and has been chairman since 1998. We have had an important discussion about a pressing issue, and I shall add my own concerns about the situation.

The Prison Reform Trust study, which was based on the Prison Service's data for England and Wales, was published recently—in July, I think. It showed that a serious situation was developing. For instance, the rate of positive drug tests rose to 11.7 per cent last year. The trust made it clear that that was happening in a range of areas as the system struggles to cope against a background of overcrowded gaols, leading to poor performance.

In 2002–03, we saw the highest number of suicides on record, with 105 gaol inmates taking their lives. Prisons in England and Wales also failed to meet their overcrowding target, with 20.4 per cent of the average population doubling up in single cells, against a Prison Service target of 18 per cent. In Shrewsbury, the most overcrowded gaol in England and Wales, there was an average of 91.1 per cent of prisoners doubling up. That situation cannot be allowed to continue, nor can it be allowed to deteriorate.

The report reveals a Prison Service in which performance is very seriously hampered by a record prison population. Far too many prisons are overcrowded, provide inadequate levels of purposeful activity and experience high levels of recorded drug use. The only way to improve the situation is to reduce the prison population and to extend facilities immediately. The noble Lord cleverly highlighted the problem by proposing that if a prison must be overcrowded, Parliament should be informed. We must have a safe environment in our prisons. I support my honourable friend and the noble Lord.

I, too, heap praise upon the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his selfless work in relation to NACRO, over many years. I know that this is an issue dear to his heart, and rightly so. The new clause, after Clause 294, requires the Secretary of State to inform both Houses of Parliament whenever—that is the issue—a prison is to hold more prisoners than its certified normal accommodation, which is the uncrowded capacity, and that a responsible authority had considered it safe to do so.

I understand the import of what the noble Lord seeks to do, but it is unnecessary. It is important, but existing procedures already ensure that the conditions under which prisoners are held are humane and decent and that a responsible authority exists to ensure that prisoners are held safely.

As noble Lords will concede, certified normal accommodation is a measure of the uncrowded capacity. It represents the good, decent standard of accommodation that it is aspired to provide to all prisoners. The degree by which an establishment can exceed its CNA is known as the "operational capacity", which is determined by operational managers on the basis of their operational judgment and experience, taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime. Notwithstanding these considerations, all accommodation must be certified in accordance with Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 and Rule 26 of the Prison Rules 1999.

Details of changes to individual prison capacity are already made available on a monthly basis. Any requirement to inform Parliament before a change occurs would be difficult to deliver practically. Every week, several prisons may adjust their capacity for operational reasons—such as, refurbishment or opening new capacity—sometimes outside parliamentary business hours.

I hear what noble Lords have said about overcrowding and pressure in prisons. To reinforce what we said earlier, we wish prison to be the port of last resort. We have invested greatly in this area. The Government are already investing £1.3 billion in extra capacity in 2005ߝ06. The Prison Service will increase capacity by nearly 3,500 places in existing prisons by 2006. A further 1,290 places will be provided through the new prisons currently under construction at Ashford, near Heathrow, and at Peterborough. The Prison Service continues to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity over the coming years.

Longer-term planning is being taken forward within the correctional services review, which is looking at the future direction of correctional services as a whole. Noble Lords know all that we are doing in respect of home detention curfew, intermediate sentences, conditions and reformation and the way in which we are able to take advantage of opportunities to release people safely into the community slightly earlier than we would otherwise. We take on board the noble Lord's concerns. I assure him that we are addressing them. The procedures are there to ensure that there is proper accountability.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. In the light of what she said, I shall look at the amendment again. However, I suspect that I shall continue to support what both noble Lords said. There is very serious concern about our prison population. No amount of tinkering or building more prisons will help because, put simply, they will be filled up.

My approach is simple. Ultimately, if Parliament is not informed about exceeding normal capacity, the only alternative is to raise repeated debate on the subject, which we have done in the past. It will be helpful to examine what the Minister said and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.