House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jul 1990

Column 501

of pounds of Government money on what is explicitly party-political propaganda when cuts in education and schools are occurring throughout the country. The Government have clearly breached the dividing line between legitimate Government information and party- political propaganda.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. As he correctly stated, it is not a matter that I can deal with on a point of order. It is a matter for the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I am sure, however, that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench, and we may hear more about the matter tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : There is no point in saying anything further about it, because there is nothing that I can do.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too have received complaints from governors, parents and teachers in my contituency about the booklet. I realise that this is not the time to debate the spending priorities of the Department of Education and Science which, to the consternation of my constituents, prefers to spend money on printing the Secretary of State's speeches rather than on textbooks for under-resourced schools. The Public Accounts Committee has recently recommended that accounting officers in Government Departments should not only consider the propriety of such publications, but record the results of their considerations. Is there any way in which we can discover the views of the accounting officer at the Department of Education and Science without waiting for the files to be opened in 30 years' time?

Mr. Speaker : That is not a matter of order for me. It is not a question that I can answer.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Madden : It is on the point that this blatant party political propaganda was unsolicited by the schools which have been deluged with booklets. I have received many complaints about schools having to charge playgroups for the use of facilities this summer because of the new budget arrangements forced upon them by the Government. They will be shocked and dismayed to receive thousands of copies of this party-political propaganda, for which they have not asked, at a time when playgroups and many other users of school buildings have been placed in great difficulty. As we are approaching the recess, is there any way in which, you, Mr. Speaker, can pass on the concern of hon. Members about the matter to the Public Accounts Committee so that at least some investigations can be made during the summer?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman should do that himself.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [ Hon. Members-- : "It is not a point of order."] That is for you to decide, Mr. Speaker, not for Conservative Members.

Column 502

It is increasingly the case that the Government twist and cheat the taxpayer in the interests of their own party -political propaganda. This is only the latest in a series of such disclosures. It is a matter on which the House should have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Who has authorised this expenditure and how can it possibly be justified, especially at a time when many children in schools throughout Britain are short of basic educational materials? I place the matter on the record because I hope that we can have your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in obtaining later today or tomorrow a statement from the Secretary of State so that the House can ask him those important questions.

Mr. Speaker : It is not for me to grant a statement. The Chair does not have that authority. As the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Gentleman's best course would be to have a word with the Leader of the House himself to see whether a statement could be made.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to complain that I have not had a copy of what is clearly a valuable document? I hope that the Secretary of State will send me one.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be pleased to know that it is a different point of order, for the simple reason that the Minister responsible for education in Scotland would be dead scared to send us a copy of his speeches. You, Mr. Speaker, heard the exchange between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself during his statement, in which he said that I owed him an apology. You, Mr. Speaker, know better than most that I am always pleased to apologise, especially when I am wrong. I wish to put it on record that if the Secretary of State had not withheld the information that I sought I would willingly have apologised, but he chose to withhold the information.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to pursue the point about booklets which come more or less direct from Tory central office being published at public expense.

I assume, Mr. Speaker, that you have not received a request from a Minister to deal with the tense situation in the middle east and the military threat by the Iraqi regime against Kuwait, because had you done so there would have been a statement. As it is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House should express their points of view about this dangerous situation which arises directly from the criminal regime which rules in Iraq, has serious consideration been given to recalling the House at the first instant should the situation become more tense and the British Government decide to take action of any kind?

Mr. Speaker : I do not initiate a recall of the House during the recess, but no doubt what the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account if anything serious were to occur. In that event, I am sure that what he has suggested would happen.

BILL PRESENTED

Personal Records (Employment)

Miss Emma Nicholson, supported by Mr. William Cash, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Steve Norris, Sir Geoffrey

Column 503

Pattie, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Bowen Wells, Sir Jim Spicer, Mrs. Ray Michie and Mr. Greville Janner, presented a Bill to impose duties upon employers and other holders of factual information about employees or applicants for employment in respect of such information ; to provide for the correction or deletion of incorrect information ; to extend the powers and duties of the Director General of Fair Trading ; to define offences and prescribe penalties ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

Column 504

Breath Tests on Licensed Premises

5.59 pm

Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require every holder of a justices' on-licence to install on the licensed premises concerned a device enabling persons who have consumed intoxicating liquor to take a breath test before leaving the premises ; and for connected purposes.

No one will be more aware than you, Mr. Speaker, that much of the most basic controversy in the House is not about objective, but about method. Objectives are easily stated ; implementation and method are altogether another matter, involving not only resources but generally that most difficult civil procedure, an adjustment of rights and obligations. The Bill is no exception. Its objective is quite clear and I wish to make it unequivocal. It is to reduce the incidence of dangerous driving associated with alcohol.

Both the motor vehicle and alcohol, taken separately, may be described as good servants and bad masters. Taken together, the combination can be lethal. We know that the current cost to society is some £400 million per annum and an unmeasurable quantity of tragedy, pain and grief. The current Government philosophy assumes that a total separation of the vehicle and its driver from alcohol is both desirable and possible. It is expressed in the exhortation, "Don't drink and drive", and that has been confirmed most recently in a letter to me from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. All concerned now accept that there is a gulf between the law and the advice given, and some advocate a stiffening of the law which, taken to its logical limit, would require a zero limit and random breath testing. My Bill is based on an analysis which seeks to demonstrate that the current philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

First, a zero limit implies that the motor vehicle can be used as an instrument for enforcing prohibition on the roads. No state has ever achieved that, and none ever will. It is an aspect of moral fundamentalism, and fundamentalism flies in the face of human nature. Secondly, it is based on an assumption that random breath testing, on a large enough scale and enforced with Cromwellian rigour, will eventually achieve the objective. That, too, flies in the face of experience. It is an emotional response to the problem, and that is something that we cannot afford.

Emotions are malleable ; facts are very stubborn--and the House will probably not welcome the facts that I shall now place before it. They are drawn largely from two official reports from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, published within the past two years, on drinking and driving. They disclosed that, of some 2,500 people stopped and tested on a random basis in Warwickshire and Sussex recently, 52 per cent. had consumed alcohol within the last 12 hours ; 17 per cent. had alcohol in their bloodstream ; and that, of those, 3.6 per cent. were just under the limit and 1.3 per cent. over the limit. Some 33 per cent. of those sampled had visited a pub, club, hotel or restaurant.

What does that suggest? First, it suggests that the elimination of the 1.3 per cent. is an essential and legitimate target ; secondly, that the reduction of the 3.6 per cent. is both desirable and practical ; thirdly, that exhortation--however brilliant or intense--will not have much effect on the remaining 69 per cent. There is not

Column 505

much point in endeavouring to push water uphill or alcohol back into the stills and vats of the distillers and brewers.

I come now to the crucial figure of 33 per cent. who had visited clubs, pubs, hotels and restaurants. There are about 135,000 licensed premises in the United Kingdom. Assuming that each receives a modest 50 visits per day by car, we have a target figure of more than 2,000 million visits per annum. If we apply the research laboratory's figures to that total, we must conclude that 344 million journeys will be made by drivers with alcohol in their bloodstreams, and that 2.6 million--1.3 per cent.--will be made by drivers unfit to drive. That last figure is the real target of the Bill, bearing in mind two other research laboratory figures--that 40 to 50 per cent. of those tested drove themselves home and that a significant number of those tested who thought that they had consumed fewer than three units had, in fact, consumed more. Fifteen were over the limit. That ignorance cannot be right or justified, and it is not in the public interest.

What can be done? I have already eliminated draconian enforcement, which leaves only one obvious alternative--to assist members of the public to discover for themselves whether they are in categories 1, 2, 3 or 4. That requires the Government, first, to abandon the absurd notion that either laws or exhortation can achieve a total segregation of drinking and driving ; secondly, to encourage drivers to test their alcohol levels as a matter of routine ; and thirdly, to provide them with the means to do so.

My Bill would make the provision of such a facility an obligation on every licence-holder. I could not bring a machine into the Chamber, but I have a photograph with me which some hon. Members have already seen. The machine is accurate, reliable and easy to use. It has been successfully applied in Australia, California, Germany, Sweden and many other countries. It is estimated that 17,000 tests a day are carried out voluntarily by members of the public in Australia alone. The Royal Australian Navy has rated such machines an outstanding success, and some states are considering compulsory installation. It would cost £137 million, at a cost of £1,000 per machine, to install one in every pub in the United Kingdom--but what is that against a saving of thousands of lives and a medical bill of several hundred million pounds?

One outstanding criticism is that such devices would encourage drivers to drink up to the limit. There is no evidence to support that view. A pilot study in Australia revealed that there was

Column 506

"no evidence of changes in respondents' behaviour as a result of obtaining BAC levels."

The inventor of the fuel cell--I have two examples with me, of the sort used by the police and of those that can be applied to the ignition lock of a car--concluded that

"their installation does not, contrary to some opinion, lead to brinkmanship but to responsible and knowledgeable drinking by an educated public."

That is our target.

Drivers should never be driving when out of the yellow zone depicted in the diagram I am holding. It is the zone of virtually nil risk. The whole of the red zone is a legitimate target and it should enjoy all our attention. If we endeavour to eliminate the yellow zone, we shall be squandering massive resources to no avail. There are about 7,000 breathalysers in the United Kingdom, almost all in the hands of the police. My purpose is to put 135,000 in the hands of the public, and thereby both reduce dangerous and drunken driving and release the police for much more important tasks.

I shall conclude with an analogy. Aircraft flying into Heathrow have their height and operations controlled by two devices--the radar at Heathrow and the altimeters in the aircraft. To suggest that the pilot should come in without altimeters and that the only people to know the aircraft's height should be the controllers at Heathrow, is obviously ridiculous. To suggest that vast numbers of the public who are likely to be driving with alcohol in their bloodstreams should have no method of discovering that fact until they are stopped by the police has always struck me as ridiculous. To put that right is the purpose of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Ian Lloyd, Sir Hal Miller, Mr. Stanley Orme, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Michael Colvin.

Breath Tests on Premises

Sir Ian Lloyd accordingly presented a Bill to require every holder of a justices' on-licence to install on the licensed premises concerned a device enabling persons who have consumed intoxicating liquor to take a breath test before leaving the premises ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 15 October and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

Column 507

WAYS AND MEANS

Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]

6.9 pm

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you may know, I served on the Committee considering the Bill. You may know also that, in the past few weeks, the Government have tabled 30 new clauses and amendments to it. I agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that some of them are acceptable and welcome. However, it is usually the Government's practice--as it was in Committee-- to produce guidance notes for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who have not had an opportunity fully to study new clauses and amendments. Such notes would be useful to members of the Committee and to all right hon. and hon. Members as we arrive at the Report stage.

I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been informed by the Attorney-General whether such notes have been prepared and, if so, whether they have been circulated to members of the Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The provision of guidance notes is not a matter for the Chair, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will comment when I ask him to address the House on the Ways and Means motion.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : I beg to move, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board by way of repayment of grants made to the Board by the Lord Chancellor.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is right to say that there are a large number of amendments. A high proportion of them arise in response to matters which were debated both on Second Reading and in Committee, and come forward as a result of constructive suggestions made during the course of the Committee stage. I apologise to the hon. Member if we have been unable to send him guidance notes, but I hope that the purpose of the amendments will become clear, and I am sure that he will make a constructive contribution to our debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums falling to be paid by the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board by way of repayment of grants made to the Board by the Lord Chancellor.

Column 508

Orders of the Day

Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 6

Allocation of family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts

.--(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, give directions that, in such circumstances as may be specified--

(a) any family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts ; or

(b) any specified description of such proceedings,

shall be allocated to specified judges or to specified descriptions of judge.

(2) Any such direction shall have effect regardless of any rules of court.

(3) Where any directions have been given under this section allocating any proceedings to specified judges, the validity of anything done by a judge in, or in relation to, the proceedings shall not be called into question by reason only of the fact that he was not a specified judge.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) "county court" includes the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court in so far as it is treated as a county court.

(5) In this section--

"family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 ;

"judge" means any person who--

(a) is capable of sitting as a judge for a county court district ; (

(b) is a district judge, an assistant district judge or a deputy district judge ; or

"specified" means specified in the directions.'.-- [The Solicitor- General.]

6.11 pm

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Harold Walker) : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following : Government new clause 7-- Family proceedings in magistrates courts and related matters. Government new clause 20-- Extension of powers of justices' clerks.

Government amendments Nos. 168, 47, 50, 53 to 58, 172, 59 to 61, 182, 62 to 64, 173, 76, 175, 79, and 82 to 85.

The Solicitor-General : This group of new clauses and amendments relates to or arises from the Children Act 1989 and the need for new arrangements for family proceedings. The changes will allow the 1989 Act to deliver its aims and objectives more fully in all family proceedings.

Clause 6 enables the Lord Chancellor to make directions about the allocation of family proceedings in county courts. They will fall into two parts. First, directions will be made allocating particular types of proceedings to a particular level of judge. That will enable the Lord Chancellor to give a comprehensive direction

Column 509

covering all family business and to ensure that particularly sensitive proceedings, such as care cases, are heard by judiciary of sufficient standing.

Secondly, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a specific individual judge. The effect will be to create a nominated group of circuit and district judges who will specialise in specific types of family work in county courts. Their selection will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor on the advice, and with the concurrence, of the president of the family division. New clause 7 extends the rule-making provisions in section 93 of the Children Act 1989 to cover all family proceedings. That will ensure that children and other family proceedings brought in the magistrates court under the Children Act 1989 will be subject to the same rules of procedure. New clause 20 amends section 28(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 to enable rules to be made under section 144 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 to allow for the delegation of the duties and powers authorised to be done by a justices' clerk to somebody who is his deputy or assistant. Amendment No. 59 concerns section 97 of the Children Act 1989, which provides for rules to enable a magistrates court to sit in private in certain proceedings under that legislation, and restricts the publication of material that might identify the child in question. Those measures supplement other statutory provisions concerning privacy, and amendment No. 59 clarifies that point. Amendment No. 53 makes it clear that when a young person is brought before a court for variation or discharge of a supervision order, the court will have the power, should it be necessary, to remand him to local authority accommodation if he is under the age of 18 or, in the sad cases where this is necessary, to a remand centre or prison if he has attained the age of 18.

Amendment No. 54 concerns regulations about staying access--that is, access to a member of the family with whom the child or young person is staying, which needs to be properly planned. Amendment No. 54 provides for that. Amendment No. 60 removes the 90-day time limit for complying with directions made under a supervision order, and amendment No. 61 will ensure that no child in care will remain a ward of court. Amendment No. 168 will ensure that the power to make rules of court contained in section 93 will be available also to the relevant rule-making authorities in Northern Ireland. The remaining amendments make the necessary consequential amendments, repeals and minor technical changes, and correct certain inconsistencies. I commend the amendments, which will enable changes to be made to the Children Act 1989 necessary to allow that very valuable legislation to deliver its aims in a full and proper way.

6.15 pm

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) : I welcome the Solicitor-General's explanation, but we are dealing with a host of new clauses and amendments which would have been better introduced in Committee, when there would have been an opportunity for organisations and individuals to consider and comment on a major initiative. That would have been the right course, rather than introducing these amendments on Report.

Column 510

Having said that, I welcome the proposed changes, and hope that we may eventually see the emergence of a complete family court, bringing together all the jurisdictions. The Bill is an important step in that direction. I should like to know how many different tiers of courts will still be dealing with children's work and what changes are envisaged in substantive law. Judging from the new clauses and amendments, I suspect that no changes are anticipated.

It is some years since I ventured into a juvenile court or into the family division, but I know from magistrates close to me that they look forward to the new challenges in family work. Shall we still have wardship dealt with in the High Court, custody in the equivalent of the divorce courts, care in the magistrates courts, and so on? Will the old divisions remain, or will a change emanate from the proposals that we have had only a short time to study?

I welcome the proposals for specified judges and for "specified descriptions" of judges--whatever that expression may mean. I accept the need for specialisation. I am told that nothing is more impressive than the solicitors panel which appears in care cases before London juvenile courts. The expertise and the care that it exhibits is, I am told, impressive. It follows that the Lord Chancellor is right to propose a degree of specialisation, and the considerable training and familiarity gained from dealing with like cases on a regular basis will be of assistance.

How are the new procedures to be monitored once they have been implemented? We all recognise and regard as important the independence of the judiciary, but we know also that some are better than others. Where people no longer wish to be specified or are quite frankly, not up to the task of being specified, it is important that they should be able without difficulty to be transferred to other tasks. There is plenty of demand in the realm of general Crown court work, so none of them would be unemployed.

It is important not to specify or allocate responsibilities to someone who, over a period of time, finds that he is perhaps not attuned to the needs and changes. I hope that we can have an assurance that the president of the family division will keep a most watchful eye on those who have been chosen to ensure that standards are not only maintained, but improved.

In a half sentence before he finished his opening remarks, the Solicitor- General referred to the reliance on local authorities with regard to care and accommodation facilities. My impression is that that is rather patchy in some areas and perhaps one or two local authorities are not so co- operative as they might be.

That co-operation must exist in the provision of facilities and we must bear in mind that local authorities have very few financial resources these days. It must also exist in the provision of reports. I have heard complaints from magistrates that local authorities do not always produce the required reports and that they are not always particularly co- operative. We should be told about that because it is very important. If any persuasion is necessary, I am sure that in the face of argument, those who may not be so good as the others will do what they can to improve the necessary co-operation between the judiciary and local authorities.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : I wish to raise one point about the Children Act 1989. It has been brought to my attention by the Justices' Clerks Society that there is a proposal that legal aid certificates for the

Column 511

child and the parents should be granted by the Legal Aid Board. The board's delivery rate is in the region of up to 20 weeks for 100 per cent. delivery. In such cases it is absolutely essential that legal aid is granted immediately.

The justices' clerks know the facts of the matter and can very often grant legal aid overnight or during the course of the night. They can assess the needs and representation in those delicate cases in which speed is often essential and in which the aid should be granted at the first available opportunity.

To leave it to the Legal Aid Board with its cumbersome processing procedures--I do not say that unkindly--would, I believe, be a considerable mistake. I hope that the Solicitor-General will take on board that one small point, which could mean a terrific amount to the children and parents involved. Perhaps he can suggest to the Lord Chancellor that that proposal is not wise.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) : I echo the concern voiced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) about this procedure today. We now face complicated new clauses which have been introduced at the last minute and without adequate briefing for hon. Members. It would have been convenient and a courtesy if the Government had provided some notes on clauses to allow for a better informed debate.

Not only hon. Members are being neglected in that way. The interest groups affected by the changes, in many cases, learned of them only at the last minute. Some of those groups learned about the changes only last Friday. That is far too late to allow a proper process of consultation. This procedure is a preparation for inadequate legislation. I am not sure whether Ministers want to give the House of Lords a useful job and something to do, but having considered the Bill initially, further changes will have to be made in the House of Lords to remedy the deficiencies caused by the last-minute rush of clauses before us today.

There is such enormous legal power on the Government Front Bench that it is virtually an all-knight party. However, it is not good enough for the best legal brains to be vamping the Bill at the last minute in this fashion. The president of the National Union of Mineworkers was invited to go away and run a fish and chip shop. On the evidence of this Bill, the best legal brains could not run a fish and chip shop. Cobbling things together in this way is just not good enough. Indeed, my most devastating criticism is that I could have done it better myself. That should certainly bring them to their knees.

I welcome the Government's proposals as a first step along a road which we need to take and along which we need to progress far more quickly than the measures propose. However, the road leads towards a separate self-contained structure of family courts to deal with those matters as a specialised area. That proposal is long overdue in this country and we delayed far too long in developing such a structure. The faster the progress we can make, the better. That structure will need a specially trained and selected hierachy of judges to deal with family matters. People with sensitivity and with experience and training in that area are required and any step along that road is welcome.

I have long been an advocate of a Manpower Services Commission or Training Commission scheme for judges.

Column 512

The training of judges in this country is totally inadequate in view of the weight of responsibility that falls on them. Training is to be provided in family matters. Such training is long overdue in many areas.

I understand that, in France, judges who deal with family matters are required to undergo a course of psychotherapy so as to understand their own prejudices, what motivates them and their own feelings, hang-ups, inhibitions and problems about the family--in short, so that they can know themselves. I do not know what results would be produced if some of the judges that I have seen around this country were required to undergo psychotherapy in that way, but if they at least knew themselves and the prejudices that motivated them, that would be extremely useful.

Next Section

Home Page