Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in clause 7, page 4, line 18, after 'death', insert 'or suicide'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 86, in clause 7, page 4, line 18, leave out

'a person aged 16 or over'

and insert

'an adult or child'.

No. 48, in clause 7, page 4, line 18, leave out 'aged 16 or over' and insert—

'(other than a person aged 16 or under in respect of whom a Serious Case Review has been undertaken)'.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

If amendments Nos. 85 and 86 were passed, the definition of domestic homicide review under clause 7(1) would be a review of the circumstances in which the death or suicide of an adult or child had, or appeared to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by the categories of persons listed—those with close personal relationships to the individual, or members of the same household.

Liberal Democrat Members have tabled amendment No. 48. I think that we are trying to shift things in the same direction, although I would not put the same reliance on part 8 reviews. Part 8 reviews are serious case reviews undertaken following the death of a child known to child protection services. However, they were criticised by Lord Laming in his report following the Victoria Climbié inquiry. I hope that we can move to the sort of system recommended by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, involving the establishment of independent multidisciplinary child death review teams to review all child deaths systematically.

That is an argument for another day, but it sets the scene for the debate, and my argument is that although the proposal for domestic homicide review is tragically welcome, it misses an opportunity to join up policy across the whole grim area of domestic violence, adult homicide, suicide and the murder of children. I hope that we may, by taking on the amendments, give full coverage of situations in which one parent kills the other, children are killed by a parent during a contact visit, or the violent parent—or, indeed, the victim of domestic violence—commits suicide.

I am grateful for the support from all corners of the Room for my amendments. I am also grateful for the work of Women's Aid and, above all, the assiduous commitment of its children's policy officer, Hilary Saunders, who has debated the issue with many of us on many occasions. We had a good opportunity on Monday to discuss this matter informally with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who gave a sympathetic and caring response.

The amendments are an attempt to ensure that all deaths, in all circumstances of violence, abuse and neglect by those specified in clause 7(1)(a) and (b), will be properly reviewed. The end purpose is to ensure that lessons can be learned. In the briefing for the Bill, Hilary Saunders thoroughly dissects the part 8 review in relation to the death of a 12-year-old boy, Tony Bangs. That analysis is instructive. There had been considerable concern about domestic violence in that case, but the professionals and even the author of the part 8 review assumed that the separation of a parent would make mother and child safer.

Some of us have encountered such cases—I certainly have—and expressed huge relief when the

perpetrator of domestic violence left or was removed from a fraught and worrying family situation. One is tempted, largely on the grounds of reasonable common sense, to think that things will be better when that happens. However, as Women's Aid points out, the time of separation is precisely one of the most dangerous periods of all and can typically lead to even greater acts of violence on the part of the perpetrator towards women or children.

That is a good example of how knowledge of domestic violence can assist professionals reviewing such situations to develop and improve practice and to ensure that women and children are better protected in future. I look forward to hearing the comments of other hon. Members and hope for a positive response from the Solicitor-General.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am delighted to support the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I am also delighted that so many hon. Members have added their name to the amendment, which I hope is an indication that the Solicitor-General will accept it. I say that in eager anticipation, because the Home Office Minister who received the amendment so well in informal discussions is not to reply to this group. Forgive me for any cynicism that I may show, but one feels that he has reserved his position and been entirely sympathetic to those in all parts of the Committee who proposed the group—I dread to use these words—on behalf of Women's Aid and the other organisations that have briefed us. I hope that the Solicitor-General will look seriously at the amendment as I deploy my arguments, because it adds to the Bill.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I am one of those who is most unhappy about the wording of clause 7. Could the hon. Lady help me to build confidence in such a vague clause? What does she understand by

''lessons to be learnt from the death''?

For example, what is the quality of evidence? Who are the consultants? Will a consultant—or so-called consultant—watch a TV programme and then phone the police station with a piece of evidence? The review will apply in the case of a death that only ''appears'' to have resulted from violence, abuse or neglect. There does not have to be a conviction. Are the hon. Lady and others who tabled the amendment absolutely content with the wording of the clause?

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am not here to do the Government's job. I admit that the wording of the clause is a little woolly, and that has worried me. The Solicitor-General will probably rely on the fact that the Government intend to issue guidance to make everything clear. I do not want to pre-empt anything that the Solicitor-General says, but it will be useful to hear how the provisions will be drawn together. I hope to raise a similar point on clause stand part, should you consider that we need a clause stand part debate, Dame Marion. I hope that the Minister will respond to the hon. Lady's intervention, particularly in the light of dramatic events that hit the news recently.

Not enough is known about the dynamics of domestic violence and what leads to death in those situations. The amendments were originally tabled in

the other place by Baroness Walmsley. I welcome the opportunity that they give us to create a vehicle that will allow us to build up a more comprehensive picture of the circumstances that surround domestic homicide. It would be a great shame if the Government missed this opportunity to create what could be a truly comprehensive vehicle by failing to include the deaths of children under 16, and continued to rely, as they seem intent on doing, on part 8 serious case reviews.

I understand that the serious case reviews apply to children under 18. By selecting the age of 16 for the clause, however, the Minister has a clumsy overlap of about two years, which seems a little odd. When this matter was discussed in the other place, Baroness Scotland merely brushed that overlap to one side. On 2 February, she said:

''But we believe that that overlap should be kept to a minimum.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. GC225.]

I hope that the Minister will tell us how that overlap will be kept to a minimum, because the Government are creating more complications for themselves at a time when they are doing something particularly good in trying to create a comprehensive vehicle to analyse these situations. According to Baroness Scotland, the serious case reviews are conducted under a Department of Health provision, which is one complication. Another complication is that the domestic homicide reviews that the clause establishes will remain with the Home Office, while the part 8 reviews are a matter for the Department of Health. Those of us with ministerial experience under our belts know the horrors of anything that falls between two or three Departments.

Ms Meg Munn (PPS (Rt Hon Margaret Hodge, Minister of State), Department for Education and Skills; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour/Co-operative)

I hesitate to complicate matters, but children and social work have become the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills, so this is probably a matter for that Department rather than for the Department of Health.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The hon. Lady may be right, which means that yet another Department is involved. I was merely referring to the remarks made by Baroness Scotland, which gave the impression that I described. I hope that the Minister will clarify things; it may be my ignorance. Even so, another Department is involved. My point is that involving several Departments with overlapping responsibilities complicates matters.

During briefings on the Bill, I was also surprised to learn of the lack of statistics on the deaths of children and adults under the same heading of a violent domestic relationship. I tabled questions to the Department to try to establish what facts are held on the number of deaths of children and adults, particularly in cases in which there has been no previous contact with any of the usual agencies, such as social services. I asked someone to check the record just after the start of the Committee to see whether my questions had been answered. They were tabled on 8 June. In one, I asked the Secretary of State how many children had been killed by a parent as a result of domestic violence in each of the past five years. I put

the questions again to the Home Office Minister who is here this morning. They remain unanswered, so will he say when they will be answered? The information may not be readily information, and the Department may not be able to flush it out. It would be extremely useful if he would throw light on the statistics that the Department does have.

We have already acknowledged the complexity of domestic relations in the Bill; that recognition would be reinforced by the specific mention of suicide in the clause. Suicide is often a feature of domestic violence incidents, particularly among Asian families. I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on that, as she has done tremendous work in that area. She and I have discussed this matter on occasions, and I suspect that she may want to intervene. In many cases, we are dealing with a closed society in which pressures are put on people by family members. Such situations could well lead to suicide, and that should be recognised.

Back in 1993, when the Conservatives were in government, we Back Benchers got terribly excited about adding the word ''hat'' to a criminal justice Bill—I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was on that Committee—which was significant because it extended powers of search to include looking under people's hats for various substances. Although we only added only one word, we felt that it was a major triumph. This amendment concerns a small word, but the acceptance of that small word would recognise people's pain and anguish, and would broaden this entire area of the Bill. The Government could well accept that change and be satisfied with it.

Presciently, Baroness Walmsley mentioned that people who murder family members often subsequently commit suicide. A stark example was the recent tragic case of the so-called barbecue murders, in which the alleged perpetrator committed suicide in prison. We could have no more recent illustration of the need for the amendment than that.

Notwithstanding the broad drafting of the clause, I sense that the Government have a strong desire to build a bank of information that can be deployed to reduce the likelihood of deaths related to domestic violence. I firmly believe that my two amendments could easily be accepted, and that they would strengthen clause 7.

I am impressed by the representations that I have received from organisations that have far more experience of this area than I do; I bow to their superior knowledge, and to organisations such as Women's Aid, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, because they have done so much work. Women have put years of work into this area, and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to withdraw his amendment if the Minister is not minded to accept it. The Minister could strengthen the clause and satisfy a lot of people who have put a lot of work into the Bill by accepting amendments Nos. 85 and 86.

Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)

I support the amendments that were ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, and I strongly

support the introduction of domestic homicide reviews, which is a tremendous step forward. In south Wales, we have experienced only one review, but the amount of information that we learned from it was absolutely incredible. Every agency learned from the review, and changed its practice, particularly the health service. In one case, there were 27 visits to accident and emergency, 11 assaults and nine unexplained injuries, which were suspected assaults, before a victim was killed. The accident and emergency unit has changed its practice as a result of that review. I strongly feel that the reviews are a huge step forward, from which we will learn an enormous amount.

One finding fits in with my hon. Friend's amendments: the review found that the same sort of evidence was coming out in the domestic violence homicide review as in part 8 reviews of children, and reviews of vulnerable adults. It seemed to the people conducting the review, when they were doing the summary, that it would be much better to do the reviews together, and to take an holistic approach. It was felt that a lot of evidence was duplicated in separate reviews, and that a great deal of expertise could be built up through a more holistic approach. One conclusion of the review in south Wales was that there must be strong links between different reviews, and my hon. Friend's amendments would bring that about and be a better way to deal with the situation.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Can the hon. Lady enlighten me as to whether there was a conviction in the case that she has drawn to the Committee's attention?

Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)

Yes, there was a conviction in that case. It was a horrific case of a 51-year-old woman in a long-term relationship who was beaten to death by her partner. The review highlighted the different areas in which agencies had failed to recognise signs that the offence was likely to happen. In this and other reviews, it is important not to attach blame to agencies. The review must be a way of identifying problems and giving the agencies the opportunity to develop and improve their practice. That has been true of this review—the case has been extensively reviewed and we have probably learned more than we would have done from any training sessions or lengthy conferences. The review highlighted the important issues that we must tackle and echoed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that there must be strong links between reviews of children and vulnerable adults.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Does the hon. Lady also agree that an added benefit of the reviews is that there is almost a form of restorative justice for the wider family, because they feel that the incident has been taken seriously and that, despite the sadness involved, lessons may be learned to prevent future harm? At a time when we are considering the benefits of restorative justice, such a review accords with that theme and is a good process for family members.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I remind hon. Members that I am minded to have a stand part debate, and I ask them to concentrate on the amendments.

Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)

I agree with that intervention, Dame Marion. My concern is that the Secretary of State should not be able to choose whether to carry out a review. There should be a statutory duty that, for every victim who meets the conditions to be decided during the passage of the Bill, a review should be carried out; there should be no element of choice. We have learned so much from the review in south Wales, and I do not like to think that there would be an element of discretion about which cases are open to review.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I shall speak briefly to the amendments that have already been introduced, and to amendment No. 48. I broadly support the introduction of the reviews, particularly because they give us a better understanding of the circumstances and allow us to build on our level of knowledge. They also allow us to learn from mistakes that have been made.

I do not want to pre-empt the stand part debate, but it is fair to say that those with the greatest experience of these reviews have criticisms of them, which we must take note of. I am thinking particularly of the criticisms set out in the Greater London domestic violence project's response to ''Safety and Justice''. The Metropolitan police were the main promoters of that form of review in this country, and have some serious criticisms of the process, or are at least warning about the effect of the process on voluntary organisations, in particular. They are also saying that we should arrive at the widest possible view of the circumstances, rather than taking a slightly mechanistic, bureaucratic approach that considers the role of the agencies without considering the genuine circumstances of the case. We must address those warnings in the stand part debate.

Considering the precise terms of the amendments, it becomes clear that people are concerned because suicide is not included, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help us with that, because so often there is an association between suicide and domestic violence. It seems almost perverse not to include suicide within the scope of the reviews, if we are to learn the lessons that we want to. I hope that he will be persuaded on that.

There is also an important interplay between the reviews proposed by the legislation and the serious case reviews. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has already identified an overlap in the interface with 16 to 18-year-olds, but there are also children for whom there will not be a serious case review, simply because they fall outside the ambit of the previous legislation. We are all trying to ensure that this legislation is comprehensive, so if there is to be a database containing a body of information derived from those reviews, it should deal with all the cases in its ambit, rather than some of them. Our current concern is that there is a degree of imprecision in the proposals, and those requirements are not met.

One way of meeting those requirements is the proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, which was considered in another place by means of my noble Friend's amendments. That has the advantage of being comprehensive: whether somebody

is under or over 16, there will be a review. The genuine difficulty is whether there could be competing reviews covering the same ground, which will not be co-ordinated because of the serious case review. The hon. Gentleman says that I rely heavily on the serious case review, but I do not. I simply state the fact that such reviews are in statute, and will be conducted. If the Government were to suggest that there would be either a substitution or a co-ordination between the two, I would be happy.

However, what is currently proposed involves two reviews in parallel; if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted in its current form, it would mean that every child under 16 would come to the notice of the relevant authorities. There would be two reviews happening in tandem, and I am not sure that that would be conducive to a better understanding of the circumstances of the case.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of running two different reviews in tandem. The amendment is intended to deal with the point that he has overlooked: there is no guarantee that part 8 reviews will be held. That was one of Lord Laming's criticisms.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I do not think that I overlooked it, because that is precisely what I said: there are children for whom there is no serious case review. That is why we need an extension of the current provisions to children under the age of 16. If there were to be one, it would be nonsense to have two reviews running side by side. I do not think that we disagree, other than over the precise terms being used. That potential overlap worries me, and we need precision in that area.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly reasonable point. If the Government accepted the import of the amendments, it would be open to them to table an amendment at a later stage to ''de-duplicate'' the provisions, so that the reviews would fall under the same area, if that was what was required. That would be an option that we would all accept and support if the Government wanted to pursue it.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Other than looking slightly askance at the neologism of ''de-duplicate'', I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She is right; we do not have a dispute. To re-duplicate my arguments, what we are all trying to achieve is that if we have a system it should be as comprehensive as possible, given the existing statute provision and the requirements that we foresee. There are other issues that I want to raise when we come to stand part, including the role of the coroners' courts, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help us with those.

However, for the moment I want the Committee to divide on at least one of these amendments, to demonstrate to the Government that we strongly wish to have a comprehensive and unduplicated approach. If the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is minded not to press his amendment to a Division, I shall force a Division on mine, because we should demonstrate our intent. However, it would be

even better if the Solicitor-General were simply to say that she understands the arguments and accepts the amendments, or that she will come back with a rewording at a later stage.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to press the amendment to a Division. Before he does so, I ask him to reflect upon the fact that in west Belfast in Northern Ireland we have a very high suicide rate among young people—young men aged 15, 16 and 17—which is a result of paramilitary beatings rather than family relationships. How can I explain that those young people are a lesser form of victim than those who are victims because of family and domestic circumstances?

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I do not think that we are talking about lesser or greater forms of victim. We are talking about investigations from which we can derive appropriate statistical information and information of a generic quality that will enable the authorities to address issues better. I am aware that there is a specific need in Northern Ireland to deal with the appalling circumstances that the hon. Lady describes. However, I would be straying far from the amendments before us if I were to debate that now.

The hon. Lady's point does not in any way undermine the view that where suicide is clearly associated with circumstances of domestic violence, the authorities should be aware of that. They should be able to log that for statistical purposes and make appropriate inferences for their own conduct and the performance of their duties. That is all we are trying to achieve, and it seems to me an entirely laudable aim.

Mrs Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour)

I shall comment briefly on the domestic homicide review and suicide. We have heard about the conference in The Hague and the comments of experienced police officers there; suspected ''honour'' killings will be investigated in a national review of almost 120 murders by Scotland Yard, and a further 65 such reviews will take place in other parts of the country. I use the word ''honour'' in inverted commas because no honour at all is attached to those killings.

Another fact was raised in The Hague. Four times more young women commit suicide in the Asian community than in the white community. That should be looked at in any reviews of those killings. We must ask whether these girls really committed suicide. Were they killed by parents or family, or were they pushed into suicide because of what is called izzat in Punjabi, which means the honour of the family?

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

Welcome to the Chair, Dame Marion. It often occurs to me that we would have better debates on amendments—this is a criticism not of you or of other Chairmen, but of our procedures—if we had the clause stand part debate first. I say that to excuse myself in advance if I should trespass on the clause stand part debate while dealing with the amendments.

I wish to set the important points that have been made in support of the amendments in the wider context of the provision to give the Secretary of State

powers to direct domestic homicide reviews. We all agree with the points that have been made and there are no differences over the objectives; the question is how extensive the Secretary of State's legal powers need to be.

It is not unpleasant for me to hear hon. Members from all parties and from Northern Ireland saying that the provisions should go further, because that shows that this part of the Bill is important and that the House wants it to achieve its objective. That will be encouraging for people who do not want to engage in reviews, because they will realise that the whole House really intends the provisions to mean business. It will also be encouraging for bodies such as the Cardiff women's safety unit and the Metropolitan police, which have been conducting reviews on the ground, because it will show that we appreciate what they have been doing and that we want it to become national practice and to be backed by law. This has therefore been a very encouraging debate.

Suicide and homicide, adults and children, are inextricably linked. To give one example, the case that first caused me to propose domestic homicide reviews involved—as is so often the case—homicide and suicide, adults and children. It was the case of Jill Bluestone, who was killed by her police officer husband; he also killed two of their children, before killing himself. I realise that the amendments refer to someone who is driven to suicide by domestic violence, whereas that it was the perpetrator in the Bluestone case who committed suicide, but the issues are inextricably linked, as we shall see when I deal with the points that were made about coroners' courts. It seemed to me quite wrong that there should be a part 8 review of the death of the children in the Bluestone case, but no review of the domestic violence. The children were killed only as a result of the domestic violence. It seems wrong that there should be a review when children are killed, but a coroner's inquest, in which people look at the narrow circumstances, when an adult woman is killed and the perpetrator has killed himself. If the perpetrator does not kill himself, there is a criminal case, people wring their hands, say, ''How unfortunate!'' and walk away. Everyone agrees that we must have a review, which is why there is great support for the proposals.

However, it is difficult to delineate where the powers should cut in. Although I should like to see reviews in all the cases that hon. Members have raised, we shall not accept the amendments, because we think that we have done enough to include the legal powers that will, I hope, change the culture and encourage reviews of cases across the board. I had the opportunity to read the Second Reading speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). She spoke about homicide reviews—in fact, several hon. Members who are present in Committee mentioned them. My hon. Friend said that the most common cause of miscarriages and child deaths is domestic violence—a fact that I think many hon. Members will not know. I do not want to propose other amendments that hon. Members might put to us on Report, but it could easily have been said that the Secretary of State should

have a power to direct such a review when an unborn child has died, given that domestic violence is such a prevalent cause of miscarriages and child deaths. We are providing a sharp, finely tuned legal power for the Secretary of State to direct, but we expect reviews to take place much more widely. We cannot in legislation predict all the circumstances that are likely to arise; the cases mentioned so far are the tip of the iceberg.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The Solicitor-General is rapidly persuading me not to divide the Committee, but will she help me on one point? Does she understand homicide to include suicide?

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

No, I would say that homicide does not include suicide. I am trying to think on my feet of circumstances in which it could do, but no, I think that we are talking about manslaughter or murder.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), let me say that there does not have to be a conviction. An amendment introduced in another place relates to the part of the clause that says

''or appears to have, resulted from'',

so there does not have to be a criminal conviction before there is a review. It is important that we do not wait what might be years until there is a criminal conviction. We want to learn the lessons and start the review straight away. Sometimes the perpetrator will have committed suicide, but that is the perpetrator of a homicide.

When I read the Second Reading speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), I was struck by the fact that the Cardiff area has multi-agency reviews that do not wait for a death to occur. Those reviews consider, on a multi-agency basis, cases that are causing problems, without waiting for a homicide. Those are just the sort of cases that should be picked up before someone gets to the point of committing suicide.

Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that as a result of those reviews—which we call multi-agency risk assessment conferences, or MARACs—the number of repeat call-outs for women who have experienced domestic violence has been drastically reduced, because the agencies are keeping on top of what is happening in each family?

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I saw the very encouraging statistics showing that preventive work can work if all the agencies sit down together and discuss cases, because individually they know where the problems are mounting up. Our objective is not to need any domestic violence homicide reviews. We want to so strengthen prevention that we do not see a steady escalation of violence. Very few domestic homicides are a bolt from the blue; usually, problems have built up over time. Therefore, if we can identify the issues at an earlier stage, we should not need the very serious lessons that have to be learned following a domestic homicide.

Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 would respectively extend the scope of domestic violence homicide reviews to cover children as well as adults, and

suicides as well as homicides. Amendment No. 48 would extend the scope of the reviews to cover children, but only in cases in which a child's death had not been the subject of a serious case review. I said that we are putting the provision in place so that we can learn lessons. However, we must take account of other legislation that requires other reviews, so that we do not duplicate, leave gaps or blur what should go on between the two.

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and other hon. Members know, a system of serious case reviews is already in place to examine cases when a child dies and abuse or neglect are known or are suspected to be a factor in the child's death. The aim of those reviews is to enable the agencies concerned to learn lessons and to improve the way that they work together. That system covers children under the age of 18. Our aim has therefore been to create a similar scheme in relation to victims of domestic violence. We have selected the ''16 or over'' threshold to fit in with the age of consent and the legal age for marriage. Of course, all age limits are to some extent arbitrary. We recognise that there will be some overlap with serious case reviews, whose scope extends to under-18s, but we believe that it should be kept to a minimum. The provision does not say that there cannot be a domestic homicide review if someone is under 16. The clause is about the power to direct; it does not mean that agencies cannot do it if there is not a power to direct.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

I would appreciate further clarification. The problem with part 8 reviews is that the power to conduct them is permissive—whether to conduct them is at the discretion of local authorities and they do not take place in all cases of child death. Is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that there will be provision in the Bill to direct a review in cases where the option of a part 8 review has not been taken up?

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

If there is a case of a child death that has not been subject to a part 8 review, it is important that that is raised not only with the local authority that is responsible, but with the Minister for Children. The system should work. It is not the case that people are prevented from carrying out part 8 reviews. If there are individual cases in which a review has not taken place, they ought to be identified so that it can be made certain that there will be a review. A review is taking place and there will be some change under the Children Bill in relation to the way in which child deaths are dealt with. There will be further discussions about the concerns that my hon. Friend raised about part 8 reviews.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Is the Solicitor-General telling the Committee that there will be a further change in other legislation that will turn reviews into a sort of tripartite area? If so, it would appear that the Government are creating a vehicle for more confusion rather than the comprehensive provision that we were all trying to achieve via this legislation. Will she throw further light on the change to the Children Bill and how it will impact on the Bill that we are discussing? That is

important to the arguments that we have all deployed about what the Government always like to call joined-up thinking. Judging by the contributions that have been made, we are all trying to achieve that. I am disturbed to hear that there are going to be more changes that we are not able to consider in relation the clause.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

It is always difficult to disaggregate different issues, especially when they are bound up together. However, the point is that there will be a range of options and the most appropriate one can be chosen in any particular case.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The Solicitor-General is trying desperately hard to convince us that the Government's thinking is joined-up when it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is not. Exactly what she said that she wants to happen is set out in my amendment No. 48. It says that where there is not a serious case review someone should look into the matter and direct a review. That is exactly what my amendment would achieve. She sounded as if she supported that aim. Whether she supports my amendment is irrelevant, as long as she brings in appropriate proposals to ensure that when a serious case review does not happen, something else does to ensure that the circumstances are looked into.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I am sorry to have created a sense that the thinking is not joined-up; I am obviously not explaining it well. It certainly is joined-up. We are considering the issues separately and with an overview.

Amendment No. 85 would largely duplicate the existing arrangements for child deaths and cause a lack of clarity a local level about what type of review should be used following the death of a child. I know that some hon. Members and domestic violence organisations have expressed concern that sometimes area child protection committees do not carry out a serious case review when a child or a family has not come into contact with social services prior to the injury or death. However, that is inconsistent with the guidance set out in ''Working Together''. If the agencies do not carry out such a review and say that they did not know about it, they are not implementing the guidance, which sets out the criteria for serious case reviews and says that agencies should always conduct a review when abuse and neglect are known or suspected to be a factor in the death. That includes cases in which a child has been killed by a family member, even if there has been no prior history of abuse and no contact with statutory agencies. That is the current guidance. If that is not happening, the guidance is not being complied with and the issue should be raised.

Ms Meg Munn (PPS (Rt Hon Margaret Hodge, Minister of State), Department for Education and Skills; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour/Co-operative)

In my experience, it was enormously important that the social services inspectorate, as it was then, had an oversight role. It was often able to say to local agencies that had not considered taking up a review that they ought to do so. The process should work in a joined-up way. The new Commission for Social Care Inspection has a role in ensuring that the guidance is implemented, and there needs to be similar

role in considering the serious case reviews in relation to domestic violence.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many Members will be aware that the Children Bill, currently under discussion in the other place, will replace area child protection committees with statutory local safeguarding children boards, which will have a more strategic and proactive role in ensuring that children are effectively safeguarded.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I need to be clear about what the Solicitor-General is saying. As I understand it, she is reinforcing our fear that, irrespective of whether they have had contact with statutory agencies, children under 16 will be investigated under part 8 review if there is any evidence of abuse. However, I see nothing that links the part 8 review with any review that might be conducted under the clause or that provides a read-across from both instances. The Solicitor-General appears to be describing a part 8 investigation that need bear no relation to an investigation taking place under clause 7. There is no vehicle to join up what might be two separate investigations into similar circumstances. If the Solicitor-General can give me an assurance that that could not happen, I would be satisfied, but I do not think that she can. I think that the linkage is not being made and that we are being sold a bit of a pup. It therefore becomes even more imperative that she should consider accepting the amendments.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

What the hon. Lady fears will happen has been taken into account. That is why I mentioned the Bluestone case, in which there was a part 8 review into the two children who were killed. Incidentally, in that case, social services and the police had already been involved in connection with injury to the children. They had already visited the family because one of the children had been injured when the father had thrown something at the mother. In that situation, because there was then no culture of or legislation on domestic homicide reviews, a part 8 review took place that examined the injury to the children and their death, but outside the context of domestic violence. We hope that a case such as the Bluestone case will never happen again because we will get better at prevention. However, should such a case arise, under the proposed legislation and the guidance that will be issued there will be a review that takes into account not only the children but the domestic violence. The situation would be considered as a piece; there would be no gaps. The gaps in dealing with the case that the hon. Lady mentioned as an example will be plugged by the legislation and the guidance that will accompany it.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Is the Solicitor-General telling me that any review conducted under clause 7 would be comprehensive—it would include the children and the adults involved?

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

Yes, if the circumstances involve both domestic violence and the death of children. None of us wants two separate and parallel reviews to take place; nor do we want a review that examines only the domestic violence and not the death of the children, or—as would happen under current legislation—a review that examined only the death of

the children, but could not examine the context of domestic violence in which the children were killed. The legislation and its accompanying guidance will address that. We do not want two parallel reviews, or a narrowly focused review. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members on that point. The proposal is entirely sensible, and has taken account of all the points that hon. Members raised. I appear to have made it more confusing, but it is simple.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

There is a distinction between part 8 reviews, which are subject to guidance, and domestic homicide reviews, which would be subject to the direction of the Secretary of State, who would take an overall view. We may be discussing different pieces of legislation, but if there is a role for the Secretary of State in relation to domestic homicide, there should be such a role for the Secretary of State or the Minister for Children in relation to part 8 reviews. Some of us would be more satisfied if that were the case.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

The provisions for reviews after the death of children are already in place and well established. If we take the Bluestone case as an example, I would expect all the agencies in such a situation to get together voluntarily and establish a review. In that sort of case, the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary—should not need to make a direction. It will be obvious what is required and the agencies will look to the guidance to determine which issues and which parties should be involved in the review. The clause enables the Secretary of State to make directions to require by statute agencies that are not otherwise prepared to participate to do so. The Met, which has tried to have voluntary reviews, has realised that it needs statutory backing, because some agencies were reluctant to participate in discussions without being clear that there was legislative weight behind them. Elsewhere, for example in Cardiff, the health authorities provided information without the need for legislation.

Lessons need to be learned locally and policy issues need to be understood nationally. All domestic violence cases involving children and adults need to be reviewed. It will not be necessary to have a serious case review in every case in which a child has died—one would not be required, for example, after a traffic accident in which a child was killed when walking along the road with its mother.

Amendment No. 86 would extend the powers of the Home Secretary to order reviews to cover suicides in which violence, abuse or neglect by a current or former partner, family member or member of the same household appears to have been a factor. I am well aware of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, among others, has raised and I know of yesterday's conference in The Hague. The issue of domestic violence leading to suicide has been raised by a number of groups, including Women's Aid and Southall Black Sisters, as well as by hon. Members. We accept that domestic violence is often a contributory factor to the reasons for suicide. However, we are not convinced that the Secretary of State should have the power in subsection (2) to order a review. There might be circumstances in which a multi-agency review is appropriate; they are already

used in Cardiff. Agencies will, of course, be able to undertake such reviews; nothing in the legislation will prevent them from doing so, independent of the operation of this clause, in case of suicide.

Bearing in mind the points that have been raised, we should consider whether the Secretary of State's guidance on homicide reviews should include the suggestion that agencies might consider such reviews in cases of suicide in which it is felt that there is a background of domestic violence and that lessons might be learned for the future. We could well do that. We should also include issues relating to unborn children who are killed. The guidance could prompt reviews in many cases, but they do not necessarily need to be specified in the legislation.

The legislation says that we have to learn lessons, and it creates a wave effect and a culture change. However we do not need to legislate for every possible circumstance; that would be heavy handed. The legislation provides powers, but we want people to go beyond the letter of the law. The agencies should not need the Secretary of State's direction if they work properly together.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I do not disagree with any of the Solicitor-General's remarks, and am glad to hear that she is willing to consider including certain issues in guidance. However, if she is willing to go that far, surely she is willing to go so far as to insert one word in the Bill, particularly in the light of its significance for certain groups in our country—mainly the Asian community, to be frank. It would indicate that the Government mean business. As Solicitor-General, she has infinite powers and she appreciates that the amendment is not a political trick, but is a genuine attempt to put in the Bill a significant recognition of a large part of our society that suffers specifically from the problem. I urge her to tear up the notes from her officials and to give us the word that we want on the face of the Bill because of its significance.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

The hon. Lady is very persuasive, but we have to continue to maintain that the power of direction is quite narrow but the way in which we want the reviews to work is much wider. We do not want people to look at the Act and say, ''Oh well, there's no direction on that. I won't do it.'' The direction is quite narrow, the guidance is wider and some activity goes beyond the guidance, which works at a local level.

I do not want to look as if I am arguing against myself, but it would otherwise be inconsistent not to include unborn children. What about very serious injury? If someone were put into a wheelchair, or a persistent vegetative state—a coma—for life, we would want to have a multi-agency review, but the case would not be homicide. We are taking a power in a narrow circumstance and saying that we have to understand and learn lessons in a much wider set of circumstances. We cannot anticipate all the possibilities in Committee. We do not want to be exclusive, compiling a list and saying, ''That's it.'' We

want to take a power at the top of the issue, in relation to homicide, and work forward from there.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

My point is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Granted that the intention is that the inquiries should be wide enough to cover suicide, is it not important that we make in the Bill a bold statement that suicides are covered? Then the particular communities in which such things happen would know that. They are highly unlikely to have the guidance, and if this is in the Bill it will send out the same message as that sent out by the very existence of a Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill—a strong message that it will not do any more, and that we are going to look closely at the matter.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I have to repeat that it is pleasant for me to be in a position where hon. Members are urging the Government to do more. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments, but I think that the Government will need to consider the issue further. Our position is that all such issues will be dealt with in guidance; we do not want the legislation to be too heavy, with a long list of all the problems. We have made our intentions clear.

I see such cases week in and week out, and if the legislation were not going to cover the problem that is so clear from those cases I would not be proposing it so enthusiastically. I am with hon. Members all the way, and totally agree with the issues about ethnic minority communities, forced marriages, domestic violence and people being driven to suicide. However, the question that we are discussing is not the desired objective, but the mechanism and how wide the legislation should be. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will agree to withdraw the amendment.

I am aware that I have not dealt with the statistics issue raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who made a fair point. It is frustrating that because there is no offence of domestic violence—there is malicious wounding, manslaughter, murder, offences under section 18 or section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the list goes on—the system does not capture the information or the context; it captures the specific offence and does not distinguish them.

However, there is a new IT system arriving in the criminal justice system, called Compass. I hope that spending billions of pounds on that—on the big criminal justice system, that is—will not only help with the management of individual cases and with communication within and between the agencies, as well as providing windows for the use of victims, but will help us in our work. It will have an accountability facility, for counting and monitoring the information needed to enable us to understand what is going on, and whether what we have done works.

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady; we would never withhold figures. We ask the same question: how come we do not have the figures? The answer is that we do not have them, but we hope that we will have them.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am grateful; the Solicitor-General and I are at one on this. I was appalled when I heard a

briefing from Refuge about the lack of statistics. It is important that Home Office and police crime statistics should record and publish the gender of perpetrators, not simply the relationship to the child, as at present. At present the information records only that a parent is responsible. I was surprised that the gender angle was not used; I was a champion of disaggregated statistics when I was the Minister responsible for this matter. The lack of a record of the gender of the perpetrator of the crime seemed to me to create a great gap in our knowledge. I urge the Solicitor-General to do anything she can to ensure that reviews under the clause include the broader issue of pulling together real meaningful statistics.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

Of course people locally, and the police officer involved, will know the gender and all sorts of other circumstances. I know that the hon. Lady does not want us to ask the police to gather more information. This is a matter of recording what they already know, because we want to understand the context, we want policies to tackle it and we want to understand whether our policies are working. Therefore monitoring is needed. I fully agree with what the hon. Lady said and hope that the Compass board will see the point that she has made in Committee.

Several hon. Members have made points about the joining-up system. There have been discussions about the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills and the different departments of the criminal justice system. Perhaps I can conclude by explaining that the work is multi-agency and cross-departmental. There is no getting away from that. We are working together nationally at ministerial level, through the domestic violence ministerial group that was set up a couple of years ago. That brings Ministers together so that we do not sit in our silos but look across the piece. Domestic violence forums should be doing the same at local level. The agencies should work together.

Hon. Members should not feel alarmed by the mention of so many different agencies, items of legislation and Ministers. That should be seen as an encouraging sign. In the past, perhaps one part of the criminal justice system would consider the matter, and no one else.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

The Solicitor-General has rightly stressed that the whole point of clause 7 is that lessons should be learned from deaths that happen in terrible circumstances. We all agree about that. She has also recommended that the review be a multi-agency review. There is already a children's commissioner in Northern Ireland—I am proud to say that we are leading the way in that—as well as a chief inspector of criminal justice, which was a very good appointment, and a justice oversight commissioner; why, then, are lessons not being learned from those important officers?

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

That is something that the Home Office Minister will deal with later in the Bill. We will return to those points, because we know that the hon. Lady is concerned about them.

I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. We are starting out on something and, having argued that the reviews that hon. Members have mentioned should take place, I feel that the proposed legislative vehicle is the right one.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for everything that the Solicitor-General has said on this matter. It is clear that there is no difference in intent across the Committee. With all due respect to what she said, however, there is still a serious question about whether the reality matches the intent.

I shall focus on two areas. I understand that it is the Solicitor-General's intention that where suicide results from domestic violence, there should be a review. However, the proposals define such reviews as ''domestic homicide reviews''—a definition which, based on what I understand to be her interpretation of ''homicide'', appears to exclude suicide. That is a mistake. Agencies can, of course, still hold reviews in the absence of a direction, but providing for one would strengthen the legislation. I ask the Solicitor-General to consider the matter again. If the word ''homicide'' were not included, there would be a review of the circumstances in which the death of a person

''has, or appears to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect''.

That would cover suicide resulting from domestic violence—but calling the reviews ''domestic homicide reviews'' at least implies that suicide is not covered, so I ask the Solicitor-General to consider the matter again.

The other important question is how the provisions apply to children under 16. It does not seem entirely logical to propose a power of direction in cases involving those who are over 16, but no comparable power in cases involving those who are under 16. The Solicitor-General said that there would always be a serious case review for a person under 16, yet practitioners tell us that that is not exclusively the case. She said that such provision was underpinned by previous legislation, yet, again, practitioners tell us that that is not necessarily the case.

The Solicitor-General said that the Children Bill would strengthen the process, but I have struggled to find any explicit mention of such matters in that Bill. I believe that they might be covered by clause 12 of that Bill, which is rather unpromisingly headed ''LSCBs: supplementary''. However, that clause does not mention the process in any way and merely says that the Secretary of State may issue guidance—not direction—to the proposed local safeguarding children boards.

There is a potential difficulty. I want every death to be subject either to a section 8 review or to a review under clause 7, but I cannot see the statutory basis to ensure that that would happen. Perhaps the Government have in mind further amendments to the Children Bill to introduce that power of direction. If so, that may cover the difficulty. However, there appears to be a gap in the middle, albeit an unintended one, and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who have spoken on the matter are worried about that. Just because there is a permissive power, we cannot necessarily assume that a review will be

conducted; otherwise we would not need the clause at all.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I believe I do not have the right to speak further on the amendment and can now make my points only in interventions. Having looked at the Children Bill and knowing that legislation on the matter is being considered, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be sensible for the Solicitor-General to draw stumps on the whole issue and undertake to amend the clause on Report? I hope to examine on clause stand part what we should do with the information gained and the lessons learned. Who will learn the lessons, and how will the information be disseminated? It is becoming clearer to me that there is less evidence of joined-up thinking on the matter than members of the Committee, irrespective of their political persuasion, desire.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

There is clearly a shared destination; I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be helpful if the Solicitor-General intervened to say that she would reconsider the matter and discuss it with her colleagues.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the correct position is that when a child has been abused or murdered there will be a special case review, and if there is an unexpected death of a child, there will be screening to see whether a special case review is necessary? If the death is due to a traffic accident, for example, and there is nothing complicated about it, a review will not be needed.

I did not go into a huge amount of detail about the circumstances in which child abuse reviews will be held; under the Children Bill, the local safeguarding children boards will have more guidance about when and how to hold the reviews; straightforward child abuse is for that Bill to deal with. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is related to that measure, not to one on domestic violence. Is he aware of that?

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I can only go by the Bill before me as amended in Committee, which does not specifically cover those matters, and by the advice of practitioners whose judgment I trust, who say that the power to direct does not exist at present. Members on both sides of the Committee want a proposal that states that where the death of someone aged under 16 has resulted, or appears to have resulted, from violence, abuse or neglect by persons to whom he or she may be related, and so on, that will invariably result in a review.

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will write to us about the matter. The NSPCC is advising us, and it may have got things wrong, but members of the Committee need to know that there is not a gap in the legislation. If we can be satisfied about that, there is no difference between us, as we all have the same objective, and we will not need to return to the subject. But at present, the clear advice is that there is a gap that needs to be filled. Some of us remain to be satisfied that that will be written into the law, as opposed to the guidance.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

There is huge consensus, even unanimity, in the Committee on the seriousness of these issues, but there remain matters on which we need to be satisfied. I have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division, not because I disagree with the principles, but because I am wary of compounding difficulties in an area of such extreme importance.

I ask my right Friend the Solicitor-General if she and the Minister for Children will co-operate to produce an integrated statement about how the policies and legislation will work together. Hon. Members want to know from both Ministers how they and the rest of the Government believe that that would work in practice. If any change in legislation is needed, let us consider it together.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman was particularly knowledgeable in moving the amendment, and I am disappointed that he is considering withdrawing it. If he does so, I shall table the amendments again on Report and force a vote on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members on both sides have made valid points, and I want to give the Minister the opportunity to table the amendments herself on Report, because it would be a shame if we do not shape this legislation in that way. At the start of the Bill's passage, the Minister assured us that the Government would listen to reasonable Opposition amendments. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his amendment, because I believe that there would be a winning majority for it. Hon. Members on both sides have put their names to it, so he is missing an opportunity. I suggest Report stage to the hon. Gentleman as another route.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

I thank the hon. Lady. I would press the amendment if I believed that there was a serious purpose in doing so—but the important thing is to stress the need for integration throughout government, and to ensure that the Government work extremely effectively in this area. We should not amend the legislation inappropriately and end up not achieving what we all seek to achieve.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman signed the amendments with the serious intent that they should be put into law. If he withdraws the lead amendment now, he will send a very strong signal to all those organisations that wanted us to table the amendments with which it is grouped.

Mr Hilton Dawson (Lancaster & Wyre, Labour)

The party political divide is showing itself. In all seriousness, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, the Minister for Children and officials from the whole range of Government offices will clarify this very important point. If there is a point to further legislation, I hope that that legislation will be produced. If existing guidance and the development of policy under the Children Bill will deal effectively with these issues, I see no point in taking part in the further distraction that pressing the amendment would entail. For that reason I shall withdraw it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will support the Committee by providing good, clear information about the way in which the various aspects of policy will operate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in clause 7, page 4, line 42, at end insert—

'Mental Health Trusts

Members of any educational establishment'.

I rise to my feet with a heavy heart, because I have rarely seen someone duck the opportunity to change a Bill when he has been told that there is an obvious majority in favour of an amendment. I am almost speechless.

Amendment No. 84 is a simple amendment that would add two more categories under subsection (4)(a): mental health trusts and members of any educational establishment. I almost anticipate what the Solicitor-General will—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.