---

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I can interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I asked a simple question once, then twice and now a third time. Does the Minister approve of the terms of the article and does he believe it is proper for a Minister of the Crown--namely, the Solicitor-General for Scotland--to accuse a judge of playing political football? Those are two questions which require two simple answers.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I did not approve the article in the sense that I was not asked to approve it. I saw it and it went out in terms which I considered to be unexceptional. It did not criticise the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for playing political football; I regret to say that many others have had occasion to do so. I regret that as much as anybody else did, as I made clear to the House during the Second Reading. I said that I regretted the political controversy which had become associated with certain utterances and certain consultation responses of Senators of the College of Justices when taking part in a debate which I welcomed.

Lord Kirkhill: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way for a moment. Would it not be more gracious for him on this occasion to acknowledge that his colleague's article was a disgrace? It was not a political disgrace taken in isolation. But it is a disgrace in this sense: the Solicitor-General is not a Member of either House and his attack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was of such a character as to demean not only the reputation of himself, but of the Lord Advocate's office.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I can only repeat what I said. I do not consider that it did. The Solicitor-General is not a Member of either House; he is a Member of the Government. He is perfectly prepared to speak in public and have articles published in his name. If they happen to criticise the view of a certain Senator of the College of Justices who has himself criticised government policy, then so be it. That does not demean his office; on the contrary, that is part of his office.

It is a bit of a constitutional anomaly that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General who have to take an independent role in prosecutions, also have to play a part in the running of government and in the politics of government. If one was inventing a constitution, one might not give those differing and to some extent inconsistent roles to a man who has responsibility for prosecution. But that is a system we have had for generations. It is a system in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, took part under the last Labour Administration. I do not believe it demeans his office or my office for him to speak in public, any more than it demeans the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as a serving judge, to speak in public if he deems it appropriate to do so.

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1728

Finally, before inviting the Committee not to support this amendment, perhaps I may mention two small points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. He said that the existence of life sentences was a quid pro quo for doing away with capital punishment. Again, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I disagree with that assertion. Each and every one of the qualifying offences carries with it the maximum penalty of a discretionary life sentence. As far as I recall, none of them--certainly this century--has carried with it any risk of capital punishment. So the suggestion that it was a quid pro quo which in some way is being misused by the Government is not a proposition I can accept. Finally, the noble Lord mentioned the estimates of judicial costs and accommodation. Again, I regret to say that the noble Lord misunderstands the position. The figures in the financial memorandum relate to all the provisions in the Bill, not just to Clauses 1 and 2.

Clearly, when viewed with later amendments, Amendment No. 1 is very important and I invite noble Lords to follow me into the Lobby to vote against it.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him one question. Clause 2 of this Bill is rather different from Clause 2 in the English Bill. Did I understand my noble and learned friend to say that this group of amendments would weaken Clause 2, which is the clause dealing with Class A drug trafficking repeat offences?

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The short answer is yes.

Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify a point which I am not sure that I have properly followed. In our debates on the English Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not hesitate to say that the sentencing by judges in England was inadequate in regard to the matters to be the subject of the automatic minimum sentence and the automatic life sentence. She produced figures which were heavily criticised in the House and to which I diffidently referred recently in a letter to The Times. My question is this: is it said that in Scotland the judges are failing adequately to sentence? If so, what is the basis for so saying? And if so, why have there not been more applications by the Lord Advocate to put the matter right? If they are sentencing adequately, what is the need for, and the purpose of, this legislation?

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble and learned Lord's question raises a number of points. As he will recall, one of the clauses in the English Bill deals with the problem of repeat burglary. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the statistics that were read out by my noble friend Lady Blatch related to the sentences in burglary cases. Again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for confirming that.

The provisions on mandatory drugs offences are based on legislation which applies in both England and Scotland. The view is taken that it is appropriate

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1729

to have similar sentencing provisions north and south of the Border for a statute which applies north and south of the Border. In addition, there is concern that in some instances--not a huge number--repeat mandatory drugs offenders are not receiving sentences which command public support.

As far as automatic life sentences are concerned, I have some difficulty with the noble and learned Lord's intervention because as I have said already-- I do not want to repeat myself--the purpose of those sentences is to give additional safeguards to the community, and not necessarily to lead to individual offenders spending longer in prison. That was made clear in the English Bill and it is a matter of regret if that was not accepted on all sides of the House.

Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may complete the point. When we were given the statistics for England, a separate set of statistics (quite apart from those for burglary) related to serious sexual and violent offences: 217 were alleged to have occurred in 1994 and only 10 were the subject matter of life sentences. It was pointed out that the Attorney-General, who had the right and the obligation to bring such matters to the Court of Appeal, had done so in only six cases--and in none of them had he asked for a life sentence. I raise the point to discover whether there is a similar alleged dissatisfaction about inadequate sentencing because each and every one of those offences carries a potential life sentence.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: To be quite frank, there is some dissatisfaction. Indeed, I commented on that at Second Reading. Since the Secretary of State for Scotland brought forward his proposals and published the consultation papers and the White Paper, it has become clear to anybody reading the newspapers or taking note of any section of the media that there is such a concern. However, as I have said, that concern can be met in a variety of ways, one of which is by the provisions set out in Clauses 1 and 2.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Does my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate realise that in his answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner he said that one of the purposes of the Bill was that the Government could see advantage, in relation to Clause 2, in having similar provisions for both England and Scotland? If that is so, surely my noble and learned friend should be inviting the Committee to pass the amendment as that would then bring the Bill into line with the amendment that was passed to the English Bill. The Commons would then have the opportunity to make the same decision on both Bills rather than decide in different ways on different Bills.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Game, set and match!

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: No, it is not quite game, set and match--and for reasons of which those sitting opposite are well aware. The Committee will recall that when a similar amendment to the English

4 Mar 1997 : Column 1730

Bill was tabled in Committee it was not grouped with an amendment similar to Amendment No. 14. If the Government were to lose the vote on this amendment, the convention is that we would accept defeat on the subsequent amendment. That means that the Bill would end up differently from what is proposed. If there is a problem with correspondence between north and south of the Border, don't blame me!

Lord McCluskey: With respect, I think that the Committee should know that the Lord Advocate is wrong in that regard. I have the grouping paper with me. It was written in my absence, but it states:

"It is ... open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".

The grouping is of no significance at all; it is only a matter of convenience. Whether or not the Committee decides to pass this amendment, it is left free to pass, not to consider or not to pass Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 47 and 48. The Lord Advocate is simply wrong on that point.

---