§
Amendments made: No. 10, in page 74, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' in line 30 and insert—
'22.—(1) Section 51 (intimidation etc. of witnesses, jurors and others) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) to (3) (offences of intimidating, and of doing or threatening harm to, witnesses etc.)'.
§ No. 11, in page 75, line 9, at end insert—
§
'(3) In subsection (8) (presumption in proceedings for offence under subsection (2))—
(a) for "he did or threatened to do an act falling within paragraph (a) within the relevant period" substitute "within the relevant period—
and that he did the act, or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act,"; and(b) after "to have done the act" insert "or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
7.40 pm§ Mr. StrawI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill reflects our belief that the function of the criminal justice system goes far wider than reaching the right decision about a defendant's guilt or innocence and meteing out punishments to the guilty. Every part of that system has a role to play in reducing crime and the fear of crime. At the same time, the way in which the system deals with defendants, victims, witnesses and the wider community can help to foster a sense of a tolerant and just society, where rights and responsibilities are properly balanced.
The purpose of a trial is to reach a just conclusion on the defendant's guilt or innocence. In our jurisdiction, we use an adversarial system to achieve that aim. The Bill does not change that, but we must never forget that that system is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We should always keep open the way in which the forensic part of the system operates, aiming to improve its efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure, so far as humanly possible, not only that no innocent person is convicted, but that the guilty never go free and—it has been a defect in the system in the current century and in a good part of the previous one—that the individual victim and the community, which is always an indirect victim of crime, are given proper dignity and centrality at the heart of the criminal justice system.
1276 Part I further takes forward our pledges to reduce youth offending. As we said in greater detail at the beginning of today's proceedings, we do not believe that the courtroom and the drama that it creates, where the young defendant is often a spectator, is conducive to a full investigation of a young person's offending—once guilt has been admitted or, indeed, determined—or to a full investigation of the crime's underlying causes, which must involve the young person and must bring in his or her parents, the victims and the wider community.
Therefore, as we have discussed at some length, the Bill separates the determination of guilt and the sentencing process in that investigation. Sentencing will be conducted by way of referral to a youth offender panel, where we will aim—the experience of Scotland has well illustrated what can happen—to achieve the investigation of the young person's offending and its underlying causes without the direct involvement of lawyers.
That is not to besmirch the reputation of a fine profession, of which the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and many other hon. Members, including me, are proud to be members. Indeed, on some occasions, I think that membership of the legal profession might be a prior qualification for becoming an hon. Member.
§ Mr. StrawThere are never too many. I am glad to underline my affection for my profession. That said, there are jobs for which lawyers are well qualified, which are to do with the law and forensic examination of guilt or innocence, and jobs for which they are not particularly qualified and for which their qualifications may not be appropriate. They arise at the point where guilt has been determined and the issue is how to get the young offender to deal with his offending behaviour. It is interesting that, in Scotland, at that point, lawyers are not involved in Scotland's youth offender panels.
Part II of the Bill recognises the fact, which we sometimes forget, that the trial process involves more people than the defendant, and that trials could not proceed without witnesses, not least witnesses for the prosecution. However, for some witnesses the circumstances of the case, their own situation or the nature of their evidence makes the experience of giving evidence so difficult for them that their ability to provide that evidence, or their co-operation with a case, is affected. The intimidation of witnesses is a mounting problem in our society, not only in large and very serious cases, but in cases that the criminal calendar may regard as smaller cases involving relatively minor offences—which, nevertheless, are profoundly important to those who have been affected by them.
The Bill therefore provides practical measures to help such witnesses to come forward and give evidence at trial. Moreover, it implements our manifesto pledges to provide greater protection to victims in rape and sexual offence trials, and to all witnesses, whatever the nature of the trial, who are subject to intimidation. The Bill provides ways of protecting witnesses from some of the more distressing aspects of the trial process, while preserving defendants' rights.
1277 There has been much discussion about the balance of the provisions, particularly on protections in the reporting of cases involving juvenile defendants to age 18. There has also been very considerable discussion—I have no need detain the House—[Interruption.] I am very glad to have that approbation, from whichever quarter it came: I shall ask the Whip to take his or her name.
§ Mr. Bob RussellIt was the Whip.
§ Mr. StrawThe Whip is a non-lawyer. There was a time when Whips on the Treasury Bench understood their duty, which was to ensure that Ministers' wishes were complied with and, in return for a healthy salary, to keep quiet at all times.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have explained, restrictions on child victims and witnesses before trial will be implemented if, after Royal Assent, we continue to be as concerned as we are about children being damaged by the nature of the reporting. However, I have good reason to hope that our concerns may well be allayed. Although we shall continue to keep the matter under review, it will, regardless, be possible to implement the restrictions only after a debate and vote in their favour in both Houses.
I am very grateful for the level of consideration that the Bill has received, both in the other place and in this House. I should also like to express my appreciation for the positive and constructive contribution made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and his colleagues, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and his colleagues.
The Bill has, quite rightly, been subject to argument. However, we have always—certainly since I have been at the Home Office—sought to recognise that, although Ministers make propositions to this House and to the other place, it is rare for proposals to be incapable of improvement. They have been improved by the House and the Committee doing their job, and I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to that process.
The Bill is designed to deliver two key manifesto commitments: reduction in youth crime, and greater protection for sex-offence complainants and intimidated witnesses. Taken together with the rest of our crime-reduction programme, the Bill should help to rebuild the confidence that our citizens should have in the criminal justice system, which exists to serve them and exercise justice on their behalf.
§ Mr. GreenwayI am grateful for the Home Secretary's remarks about our approach to the Bill. We promised on Second Reading that we would give it constructive scrutiny. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his comment that our contribution has been constructive. I believe that we have also been comprehensive. We have managed to make speedy progress, but we have looked carefully at all aspects of the Bill, even though at times, as now, it has been something of a solo effort on my part.
The Home Secretary has clearly not acquainted himself with all the Committee Hansard reports, because his comments about lawyers are in stark contrast to what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East 1278 (Mr. Howarth), said in Committee. When we approached the more contentious and complex issues in part II relating to the conduct of rape trials, he agreed that not being a lawyer was an advantage. There is a reshuffle coming, but I felt that, for the benefit of all of us who are not lawyers, I ought to remind the Home Secretary that we can make a valid and important contribution, as I believe that we have done.
We broadly support the Bill and agree with its objectives but we have some concerns, which have been well rehearsed in Committee and today. There is a lack of flexibility on youth justice, but we shall see how matters progress. We also have concerns about the Bill's impact on the immediate problem of youth offending in our communities. Like the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the youth justice provisions in the Bill will be subject to extensive piloting. No one is saying that making sure that they get it right is not the way for the Government to proceed, but they must accept that that approach means that there is little immediate relief in prospect for communities throughout Britain blighted by the petty crime, vandalism and rowdy behaviour of youngsters. Even where the plans are piloted, only first-time offenders who plead guilty will be sent to a youth offender panel.
It is clear from other exchanges that we have had—not on this Bill—that there is still scant evidence that the Government's other measures are having much impact on persistent young offenders. I am sure that the Home Secretary expects me to tell him that we shall make sure that when, in the usual fanfare of publicity, the Government announce the pilot areas for the youth offender panel reforms, we shall make sure that the rest of the country is aware that, for all the Government's talk about getting tough on the young thugs who terrorise housing estates and the wider community, the Government's plans are for the very long term and there is very little prospect of immediate relief. If our roles were reversed I am sure that the Home Secretary would be assuring me of the same.
We welcome the provisions on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and we remain profoundly committed to a criminal justice system that encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes and enables them to give evidence easily and without intimidation. Although we have some questions about whether it was right to remove all discretion from the court on unrepresented defendants, we believe that it is right to protect victims, particularly victims of rape, from cross-examination by the defendant.
On evidence of previous sexual behaviour, we agree that some changes in this area were long overdue, and that questions that were merely designed to embarrass, humiliate or blacken the complainant in the eyes of the jury should not be permitted.
We have residual concerns—as will have been evident from the debate on new clause 2—about the clause 44 reporting restrictions. That is one element of the Bill about which I hope we have heard the last, and we hope that the order never sees the light of day. I still think that the Bill is deficient in that regard, but no matter. There is at least a mechanism within the Bill to give some comfort to the media. I hope that their confidence in that does not turn out to be misplaced.
§ Mr. BeithWe support the Bill, and we have long campaigned for a fundamental reform of the youth justice system. We think that the Bill is an important step in that direction. Seventy per cent. of adults with a conviction started offending as young offenders. We have to address that problem of young offenders, and the Bill—particularly in its attempts to deal with first offenders among young offenders—is a valuable step in that direction.
We welcome the second part of the Bill, particularly the proposals on complainants and witnesses in sexual offence cases. I strongly welcome the clauses that provide that defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences who choose to conduct their own defence, as is their right, may not cross-examine the alleged victim. Recent cases have made it clear that that provision was necessary, and I strongly welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
The only aspect of the Bill about which we had serious doubts was the third part, dealing with reporting. The Government responded to our concerns and those of others, but they have taken what we considered to be a blunt instrument to be used against responsible sections of the press as well as irresponsible sections and, instead of refining it, have put it in a cupboard. It can be got out when they want it, but it is still a blunt instrument. If the Government attempt to bring in the orders, it will be unsatisfactory, as we will not be able to amend the provisions—it will be take it or leave it. That is the weakest feature of the Bill, and I hope that we will not see those powers brought in. That is one drawback in a Bill that we generally welcome and that we will support.
§ Caroline FlintMay I say how much I and my colleagues welcome the Bill, which is historic and is about progress?
We welcomed the assurances given in Committee, as well as the further support to be given to victims of domestic violence and adults with learning disabilities—something that has not been discussed this afternoon.
Legislation is only as good as those who implement it. The Bill came about because the provisions that were made the last time the matter was discussed were not being implemented in the spirit in which they were discussed. We have been tackling that, and I was pleased to receive assurances from Ministers on that.
In Committee, we received two assurances. The first was that we must give training to those judges who are in charge of implementing the legislation. The other was that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, there will be effective monitoring and evaluation of the law. We do not want to wait three or four years to call for a review, and we must make sure that the law is monitored and evaluated as it is implemented. In that way, we can make sure that there is good law.
I thank the ministerial team for the way in which they have presented the Bill and worked with Committee members.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.