HC Deb 31 January 1997 vol 289 cc637-45

Order for Second Reading read.

1.59 pm
Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful to hon. Members from all parts of the House who are sponsors of the Bill. It is a simple one-clause measure that would afford some anonymity to witnesses in major criminal trials, especially drug-related trials. It may be small, but it would bring major improvements for witnesses who are brave enough to come forward in such trials.

I commend Strathclyde police, who have tried hard to introduce measures on witness protection, but legislation is needed to help the police in that task. There are regulations that could be changed, but a change in legislation is required.

The greatest difficulty that the police have experienced in criminal and drug-related trials is in encouraging witnesses to come forward and to continue until the case comes to trial. The Bill would assist the police in bringing witnesses forward.

Questions have been raised about the restrictions that the Bill would impose on the press. I do not believe that it would restrict the press, but the press would have to take responsibility for what it prints. It does not apply to the national press or to television or radio generally, and I have found no case in which they were involved. The Bill applies particularly to small local newspapers which often print the names of witnesses before trials, as well as during and after trials. That is done mainly out of naivety, I think. I was asked whether the local press would be able to interview an old lady who had been beaten up and left in a bad way. Of course a newspaper could interview her, but if she were to be a witness at a later date, reporters would be asked not to identify her. That is a small price to pay for enabling witnesses to feel that they have some protection.

We sometimes do not realise the extent of witness intimidation. During the past two years I have raised questions in the House about a security company that operates in my constituency and which may be involved in criminal activities. As a result of my inquiries, my life and the lives of my children were threatened. That is not a very nice occurrence. However, threats against Members of Parliament make newspaper and television headlines. Hon. Members are used to seeing their names in print—that is often our ambition—but it is not always so for the general public. Threats against those who live in deprived areas on peripheral housing estates are unlikely to make the headlines. Such people are simply left to their own devices.

It is intimidating for witnesses to come forward in the first place, so we must ensure that they do not suffer further intimidation after the event. Witnesses often withdraw before a case comes to trial. The House has a responsibility to protect those witnesses who are brave enough to give evidence. Witnesses have many fears: they are afraid of coming forward initially and they may not want to see their names in print. Sadly, a witness who lives in a less salubrious area may labelled a "grass". The Bill would allow witnesses to come forward, safe in the knowledge that their identities would remain secret within their communities.

Witnesses who are identified publicly often face intimidation. They may be told to keep their mouths shut, threats may be levelled against them, or they may be bribed to keep silent. The intimidation of witnesses may continue in court, as they—particularly the young—are often frightened by the court and its procedures. Many frightened witnesses from recent trials in my constituency have come to my office. One woman had a child who was a witness in a major murder trial in Glasgow. The family had been threatened and intimidated for two years, and their 10-year-old had become the main witness in the trial, which subsequently saw five people convicted.

The family had moved house three times and have only just found a permanent home. During that time, the child's father was beaten so badly that he lost an eye. The family eventually split up, and they feel that their lives have been wrecked because they did the right thing. They were public-spirited citizens who stood up to be counted when the chips were down. They do not seek any reward for their actions, but we should have been able to give them a guarantee that their living standards would not be diminished. We cannot ask people to put their lives on hold—and risk ending up in a worse position—in order to do the right thing. That family did not flinch from their duty: they are still convinced that they did the right thing. However, they have paid a terrible penalty. We should not be asking that of a family. It is our duty to give the members of that family all the support that they need.

Concerns have been expressed about the right of the defence to interview witnesses for the prosecution. I would not, of course, wish to deny the defence that right. It will be a poor day when someone is accused and he does not know who his accuser is. Through the Bill, however, I am attempting to keep the list of witnesses who might be interviewed by the defence very tight. Only those who need to know who the witnesses are should be able to have that knowledge.

I have spoken of a security firm in my constituency, which was subsequently investigated by the police. There is a continuing police investigation. The firm has folded with £500,000-worth of debts. The firm had been set up by the public purse through a Scottish Office-led partnership. There was, of course, a vast sum of public money involved. I understand that a report will be sent to the Crown Office and that there will be further criminal inquiries.

Leading on from those matters, there was a murder in my constituency last year in which a young man called Mark Rennie—who was 24 years of age—was shot down in the street in broad daylight. Mark Rennie's crime was owing a local money lender £40. Mark was a drug addict who was probably involved in minor supplying. He was not a major criminal. Instead, he was an unfortunate young man who had become caught up in the seedy world of drug abuse. To keep his habit going, he had to borrow £40. Of course, he failed to pay back the £40. We know that £40 to a money lender is not actually £40 and can become many thousands of pounds of debt owed.

As I have said, Mark Rennie was gunned down in broad daylight. That was a warning to others in the community and not a punishment. Subsequently, three people were brought to trial for murder and for conspiring to murder. It was only because the people who witnessed the killing had had enough in the community and were brave enough to come forward that those who murdered Mark Rennie were dealt with. One Stuart Gillespie, who was accused of his murder, is now serving 25 years in prison.

During that trial my office saw at least a dozen people who were witnesses in the case. On two occasions, I had to have two of the witnesses taken into police custody. They were so frightened of what was happening to them that they were scared even to move out of my constituency office. They had been threatened with violence and their families had been threatened. In two separate cases, they had been told that either their mothers or their children would be shot if they did not desist in coming forward as witnesses.

A number of witnesses had to be removed from their communities and they are now in other places in the United Kingdom. Even I do not know where they are. It is a poor day when people who come forward to do the right thing have their lives wrecked and uprooted rather than those who carried out the crime in the first place. It is our job to ensure that that does not happen.

Despite what I have described, the witnesses refused to be intimidated despite all the threats against them. Attempts were made to bribe some of them up to the tune of £10,000. They came forward. Subsequently, Stuart Gillespie was convicted of the murder. I might add that that happened while he was wearing a security company jacket from the security company FCB, about which I first raised questions in the House two and a half years ago.

That trial would have failed without the assistance of the police, especially Tom Caldwell, commander of K division, Strathclyde police, and Chief Inspector Ronnie Beattie, who led the investigation into that crime. It almost failed when a number of witnesses saw their names in the local newspaper. I stress that the newspaper printed those names out of naivety, and not in an attempt to disrupt the trial. That put the investigations back by six weeks. Some witnesses were frightened off, but thankfully the majority were not, and the police got the result that they so richly deserved. Strathclyde police have been a tower of strength, especially the two officers to whom I referred, who gave assistance well beyond the call of duty. Without that, the trial would not have had such an outcome.

Even after such a trial and after people have been sent to prison where they belong, witnesses continue to be intimidated and continue to receive threats; all because their names were brought into the public domain. If their names had been left with the prosecution and the defence, the police would have known where to begin to look for the people who were responsible for that intimidation. If their names were not in the public domain, the people responsible would not have been able to say, "Anyone could have done it, because their names were printed in newspapers."

I am not happy about restricting the press, but if that is the only way to afford some protection to people who come forward at such trials, so be it. I believe that that is a small price to pay. The House must set an example, and encourage witnesses to come forward in major criminal trials, especially in drug-related trials which involve huge amounts of cash, so that people are able to pay others to intimidate or bribe witnesses. Otherwise, the witnesses the police need to tackle these vast problems will not come forward.

2.11 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham)

I shall be extremely brief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) for her work on witness protection, and for her obvious commitment to that concept. However, I am afraid that I strongly disagree with her Bill, because I do not believe that it is the best way to achieve what she rightly wants to achieve.

I disagree with the Bill for two reasons. First, the main problem with witness intimidation comes before a witness or victim enters the court room. In the majority of cases, the hon. Lady's Bill will not achieve its purpose. Secondly, the Bill would mean a major reduction in the press's freedom to report trials. It does not refer only to serious trials, but refers to all criminal trials. It provides a blanket ban with no possibility of exemption: it covers all witnesses and victims. As a result, newspapers would give up covering criminal cases almost entirely. They would have nothing to write about, and would not carry pictures of victims or witnesses, which is often beneficial.

This is a draconian step. Any small advantage that the Bill may bring for witness protection would be well outweighed by the restriction that it would place on the openness of justice, and on the free reporting of trials, which has a deterrent effect and is an important principle in criminal justice. I am in favour of witness protection, but I do not believe that this is the way to achieve it. Other important avenues should be pursued instead.

2.13 pm
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

I, too, will be brief because I hope that the Bill can make progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who spoke tellingly today because she spoke from experience—both her experience of dealing with individuals and the experience of her constituents. She may have been tempted to introduce a Bill on the regulation of the private security industry in view of one of the points she made. Such cases are the reason why we have said for a long time that there is a need for regulation of that industry and of those who run it, not just those who are employed in it. My hon. Friend made her remarks effectively.

I was disconcerted to hear earlier today that it is likely that the Home Office will not allow the Bill to proceed into Committee. When the Bill was published, the Home Office said that it would consider it, so the Minister of State should ensure that it receives proper scrutiny in Committee. If there are concerns such as those expressed by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), efforts should be made to try to get the balance right by amending the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that he is willing to do that, although we have seen no signs that that will happen. The Opposition are very willing to enter into discussions to see how we can make progress on the matter.

The protection and support of victims is extremely important. Victim Support has become increasingly thoughtful, positive and creative in suggesting ways in which the needs of victims can be met. I use the term "victims" deliberately. Often the victim is a witness and in the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North has mentioned, witnesses become victims too. Victim Support has argued that point, as has the royal commission on criminal justice chaired by Lord Runciman.

The commission made strong recommendations about the way in which victims should be "protected from intimidation". It said that everything possible should be done to ensure that in all other ways they are given the support and encouragement that many will need when undergoing the daunting and sometimes distressing experience of appearing in court. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North has stressed, the problem is not just the appearance in court, but everything that surrounds it. Witnesses may find the publicity, or threat of it, surrounding their appearance in the witness box a powerful disincentive to giving evidence. Those were the remarks made by Lord Runciman and his colleagues on the royal commission.

That disincentive is a great danger and led my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to publish "A quiet life". It contains suggestions, including a new community safety order, to address a problem that occurs not only in the extreme circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North, mentioned but, all too often, on housing estates where people's confidence in the protection they can receive has gone.

If people become worried about the protection that they will receive, there can be rapid and devastating effects on the community. If people feel that they will be unsafe if they contact the police and if they feel that they cannot have confidence in the criminal justice system to protect them, it is not only their individual cases, but the process of protecting the peace, and the liberty and safety of every member of the community that are undermined. That is why the Bill is so important and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North is right to promote it.

It is rather sad that the Government's victims charter, which makes some progress on the matter, has, under the title "Fear of Attack", very little that helps. It acknowledges the problem, but offers no real assurance or suggestions except that people should tell the police. The police need a context in which to operate and they need to be sure that they can have witnesses who feel confident about coming forward and giving evidence in court.

There may well be a need for safeguards. Evidence that might have been available if the names of victims and witnesses had been known in advance may become available only after the event. Those are problems that should be addressed in Committee rather than on Second Reading in an effort to kill off a Bill that addresses such an important issue.

The Minister should simply allow the Bill into Committee and bend his efforts to co-operating in improving the Bill in any way that it needs, through discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North. As I have said, I undertake to help that process.

It would be disgraceful for the Bill to be talked out today. There are few enough opportunities in this Session—which must be short even if the Government stagger on until May—to tackle problems that affect ordinary people. The Bill seeks to tackle a problem that affects ordinary individuals and communities and the House should give it a Second Reading.

2.20 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)

I thank the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) for introducing the Bill. The Government recognise and have great sympathy with the concerns that she seeks to address. I also pay tribute to her personal bravery and courage over the past few years in standing up to some of the drug barons who are making life a misery for her constituents in Paisley and surrounding areas.

On this, the bicentenary of Edmund Burke's death, I should like to open my remarks with one of the most famous sayings attributed to him: It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph. Nothing demonstrates the truth of that statement more powerfully than society's attitude towards crime.

Our criminal justice system is founded on the support and participation of the public. We rely on witnesses coming forward to report crimes, to help the police and to give evidence in court. Without their support, we could not hope to catch the number of criminals that we do.

Of course, we must not take the good will of the public for granted—and the Government do not do so. It is not enough just to sit back, adopt a neutral stance and hope that justice will flourish. We must create a climate in which law-abiding people feel that they will be supported and that criminals will be punished rather than the other way round.

We recognise, too, that some witnesses will be reluctant to tell the police and the courts what they have seen. They may fear for their own safety and that of their families, or worry that getting involved will result in too many demands on their time, or they may simply feel overwhelmed by the whole process and the unknown world of the court room. Such fears may be heightened in certain locations, for example on high-crime estates where the threat of reprisals may be greater. We heard a moving description of those circumstances from the hon. Lady.

Encouraging the participation of all witnesses—whether reluctant or not—is one of our priorities. It is a task that calls for a vigorous and comprehensive response and I believe that the Government can be proud of the measures that we have taken—both individually and in partnership with the police, courts and voluntary organisations—to improve the position of witnesses. It makes for an impressive record. In the context of today's debate, it would be useful if I spent a few minutes outlining some of those provisions before turning to the hon. Lady's Bill.

Tackling the problem of witness intimidation at source is a key part of our strategy. Those who intimidate or threaten witnesses must be punished severely. That is why we introduced a specific offence of intimidating or threatening a witness. Those convicted can be sentenced to up to five years' imprisonment. The provisions have been in force for two years and are used extensively—there were nearly 500 prosecutions in 1995 and significantly more in 1996.

We are taking those new measures a step further. From April this year, the courts will be able to quash an acquittal when a person is subsequently convicted of an intimidation offence that casts doubt on the outcome of the original trial. A retrial of the original offence can then be instigated by the prosecution. Those who would commit such crimes now know that not only will they face a heavy sentence, but their attempts to interfere with the course of justice will be frustrated.

Responsibility for the protection of witnesses rests with the police. When the police consider that there are serious risks to witnesses, they go to considerable lengths to protect them and their families. Identities can be changed and families relocated. Homes can be made secure through surveillance and the installation of alarms. The name and telephone number of a police contact can be provided to offer witnesses further reassurance. Of course, such measures can bring unwelcome disruption to the lives of witnesses, but the public can take comfort in the increased security that they bring.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean

The hon. Lady has introduced an important Bill and I must put the Government's position on record. I do not have much time.

Mr. Morris

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Maclean

I am sorry, but I have only six minutes left.

The police have built up considerable expertise in this field and provide a high-quality service. Good examples include the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Metropolitan police. The Strathclyde police, with whom the hon. Lady is of course familiar, are at the forefront of such work in Scotland, having launched a pilot witness protection scheme last August. Following on from that, funding of £210,000 is being provided by the Government over the next three years to support witness protection initiatives in Scotland.

Fortunately, only a minority of witnesses require a high level of police protection. In the vast majority of cases, a less disruptive response will be appropriate. A wide range of measures are available to cater for the needs that arise in individual cases.

Many witnesses have expressed unease at having their addresses given out in open court. It is no longer standard practice for that to happen. Judges have been advised that there is no need to ask for the address of a witness in open court, and addresses have been removed from witness statements. That simple step has greatly assisted witnesses without compromising the trial process.

The occasions on which prosecution witnesses will come face to face with the defendant and his family or friends have also been reduced. Wherever possible, courts provide separate waiting areas and facilities for prosecution and defence witnesses. We are implementing practical measures, such as changing the design of courts, to make things easier for witnesses.

Powers are available when a witness has concerns about giving evidence in open court. If a witness is unable to give oral evidence through fear, a written statement can be used instead. Alternatively, screens and voice distorters can be set up in the court room, so that the person's identity is not revealed. If there are national security considerations, witnesses' identities can be withheld from the defendant and the defendant's lawyers. Such powers are designed to protect the anonymity of witnesses. They are not used lightly by the courts. Judges need to weigh up the needs of the witness with the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Encouraging the public to act as witnesses is, however, not solely a matter of removing the scope for intimidation. For many people, attending court is a bewildering experience and scares them even if they are not being intimidated by some hoodlums or criminals. We have tried to make things easier for witnesses by publishing the "Statement of National Standards of Witness Care in the Criminal Justice System". All such measures are designed to make life easier for witnesses attending courts.

Returning to the Bill, I reiterate my sympathy for its sentiments. As I said, there is more to be done to protect witnesses. Despite the many provisions, some members of the public are still afraid of the consequences of telling the authorities what they have seen. We must do something to protect witnesses better in circumstances where—rightly or wrongly—they are terrified to come forward.

On the particulars of the Bill, I can see several merits in it. I can see potential advantages in prohibiting the media from publishing information that would identify witnesses to a crime. Perhaps most important, there may be occasions when intimidation of a witness would be prevented by such a ban. If those who carried out or threatened such cowardly attacks found out the address of a witness only through, say, the local press, a media blackout would cut off their source of information. Although it might often be true that retaliatory attacks will be inflicted by associates of the defendant, that need not always be so. I therefore accept that on occasions failure to publish the name might help the witness.

As well as preventing some intimidation of witnesses, the Bill could influence the public's perception of the threat of intimidation. The public might come to believe that, if they come forward, they will be protected in all cases. That might help to bring more witnesses forward, but we would have to ensure that the reality met the expectation.

The merits of witness anonymity of the type proposed in the Bill have already been recognised for victims of rape and other sexual offences. To encourage victims of those dreadful offences to report them to the police, it was decided that a ban on publicity was justified. Although such points are in favour of the Bill, I have some concerns about it.

First and foremost, I have some doubts on whether the proposed media ban will achieve the desired results. If the defendant or his associates are intent on threatening a witness, the chances are that they will already know his or her whereabouts without getting the information from the television or the wireless. On high-crime estates, for example, where we know that intimidation is a problem, the identity of witnesses will usually be common knowledge in the neighbourhood. If the prime aim of the media blackout is to protect witnesses from reprisals, the Bill will therefore prove ineffective. Indeed, as the Bill would not protect the witness's identity from the defendant, it could be said that its main purpose is largely defeated.

A related point is the impact on witness expectations. If the Bill of the hon. Member for Paisley, North was passed, and people came forward with a misplaced expectation that they would always have anonymity and not therefore suffer retaliation, there would be serious consequences when that turned out not to be so—as it often would.

I also have some difficulties with the duration of the news blackout. It would prevent media coverage as soon as the offence had been committed, which would seriously hamper police investigations. The police would, for example, no longer be able to appeal for a key witness to come forward or for information about a missing child, by broadcasting his details on television and in the press. Placing such shackles on the investigation of crime cannot be in the interests of justice. There are some good programmes on television that aim to bring witnesses forward and to help to solve crimes.

The Bill would also seriously curtail the freedom of the press. We have a tradition—whether we, as politicians, like it or not at times—of open justice, of which we are rightly proud. Conducting criminal proceedings in the open strengthens the operation of justice and increases public confidence that the system is working fairly. While placing restrictions on that freedom is justified on occasions, limiting media coverage to the extent proposed in the Bill seems to me to go too far. The ban would apply to all witnesses, whether prosecution or defence. Indeed, it would cover the defendant himself if he testified. The ban would last from the commission of the offence until the final determination by the court, and the Bill would provide no judicial discretion to lift the ban, whatever the circumstances of the case—unlike, for example, the anonymity provisions for rape victims.

I have other broad concerns—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 7 February.