Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill

HC Deb 25 July 2000 vol 354 cc1006-22

Not amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Garnier

The Act would say: (1) The court shall consider whether the offence ought to be tried summarily or on indictment. (2) For the purpose of subsection (I) above the court shall consider—

1. (a) the nature of the case;
2. (b) any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused) which appears to the court to be relevant; and
3. (c) whether, having regard to the matters to be considered under paragraph (b), the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power to impose for the offence would be adequate.

We ask that there should be a further paragraph (d) which reads: whether in all circumstances of the case a denial of jury trial would impinge upon the rights not only of the accused but also of the community at large to have the matter considered and adjudicated by a jury.

I make it clear at the outset that my arguments, and those of my party, against the Bill as a whole do not depend on attacking or denigrating the lay magistracy. Magistrates do a magnificent job, for no pay and mean expenses. Over 90 per cent. of all cases that fall within the criminal or quasi-criminal jurisdiction go before magistrates. That includes parking and motoring matters, licensing applications and cases that we would all recognise as criminal. Magistrates form a vital part of the jigsaw of local justice, which the official Opposition want to strengthen and enhance. Our argument is not that magistrates cannot do the job that the Bill gives them, but that, as a matter of justice and fairness, they should not have to.

The right to jury trial has always been regarded as central to our system of criminal justice. That is because the system, unlike many others, is adversarial. Serious criminal cases brought by the state should not be tried by the state's appointees, but should be tried by fellow citizens drawn at random. That has always been regarded as particularly important to defend the rights of minorities and dissidents who are likely to be, or could be, unpopular with judges and appointed magistrates.

The truth of that proposition—I should have thought that the contrary was unarguable—has been tested in a great many cases throughout history, but I just want to refer to two examples, in relatively recent times.

In 1975, a young, former South African, active campaigner against apartheid was charged with theft from a bank. There remains considerable suspicion that the case was a set-up by the South African security services. The case was vigorously prosecuted, but the jury at the central criminal court in London would have none of it, and the defendant was properly acquitted. He is now a Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Under the terms of the Bill, there is a near certainty that he would now be denied jury trial.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock)

rose—

Mr. Garnier

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish the paragraph?

The second example that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that of Clive Ponting, who was tried at the central criminal court, just after the Falklands war was completed, for leaking Government documents relating to the Belgrano. Despite directions from the trial judge, in effect to—

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ponting did not leak those documents. He sent them to me, and I treated them as a proceeding in Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not given way. Mr. Edward Garnier.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Belgrano.

Mr. Garnier

Let me—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order

Mr. Garnier

Let me accept, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, that what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said is perfectly right, but I am aware of the way in which time is marching on and I do not consider that the fact that that particular detail was not included in my remarks alters the thrust of what I am attempting to say. Undeniably, the hon. Gentleman knows more about the facts of the Clive Ponting case than most of us, but the point is that Clive Ponting was acquitted despite the vigorous directions of the judge.

A further reason why we submit that paragraph (d) should be added to the section is that the ethnic minority communities, or a large number of members of those communities, have a perception that they do not receive equal treatment in front of the magistrates. No one suggests that that is a universal practice, but it is a strongly held perception in such groups.

The right to elect trial is the most valuable method of curing problems—both real and perceived. I make that point as a public supporter of the lay magistracy—I made that clear earlier—and even though I do not share the perception of ethnic minority communities that they do not receive equal treatment before lay magistrates. Magistrates will decide whether a case should remain with them or go to the Crown court. Unless they bear in mind such considerations, and bear in mind the rights of the accused and the rights of the community at large, who both have an interest in seeing that justice is done, they will arrive at what will be seen as unfair decisions.

Any number of bodies interested in criminal justice—they range from the Criminal Bar Association to the Society of Labour Lawyers—find this Bill wholly objectionable. To a small extent, their concerns might be mitigated were paragraph (d) in amendment No. 19 to be inserted into the Bill. Of more importance than the concerns of the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council, the Society of Labour Lawyers, the Society of Liberal Democrat Lawyers or, indeed, the Society of Conservative Lawyers are the concerns of the Society of Black Lawyers. When such a body, speaking out of genuine interest and genuine knowledge of the fears of its community, expresses doubts about the wisdom of the Bill, the House should pay careful attention. In making those remarks, I remind the House and, in particular, this Home Secretary of the concerns of Mr. Imran Khan, the solicitor instructed on behalf of the Lawrence family to appear for them at the Macpherson inquiry.

I also remind the House of the words of Mr. Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers. He said that it feared that the Bill, without the corrections that we seek to make to it, would add to the loss of confidence in the summary justice system that many of its clients already have.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It would greatly assist the House, and certainly my hon. and learned Friend's colleagues, if he would tell us what his opinion of the Bill would be if the Government accepted amendment No. 15, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and which would include the reputation and livelihood tests. Although 1 am against the Bill, if Ministers were to accept that amendment, I would regard the Bill as greatly improved to the point that I would probably withhold my opposition to it on Third Reading. It would help if my hon. and learned Friend would tell us the view that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen take of amendment No. 15.

Mr. Garnier

I am happy to do that. In my view, the Bill is fundamentally flawed from top to bottom and I do not believe that the House should give it passage. I am not as charitable as my right hon. and learned Friend in thinking that even an amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) would cure the fundamental objections that the official Opposition have to the Bill. I made my views on what the future of the Bill should be clear on Second Reading. I have heard and learned nothing from the Government to persuade me that the view that I took then was wrong. The principle that I supported on Second Reading in opposition to the Bill is one that should honourably be maintained. I am not persuaded that any tinkering—even if it might mitigate some of the worst effects of this bad Bill—would overcome my overall principled objections.

Mr. Charles Clarke

This point is similar to that made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Am I correct in my understanding that the Opposition Front-Bench position will not change, whatever amendments we may pass this evening?

Mr. Garnier

The position is entirely clear—this is a bad Bill in principle. We spoke and voted against it on Second Reading. Although I understand the practicalities of the voting arithmetic and I know that the Bill will move to another place, I am happy to say that this is a bicameral Parliament and it is up to the other House to add their views to those of this House before the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Leigh

The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is very important. Towards the end of the Committee proceedings, it was clear to me that the Government were considering making a concession on this point. I see the Minister nodding. I hope that further discussions can take place on amendment No. 15, which is vital because it would greatly improve the Bill if magistrates could take into account someone's good character.

Mr. Garnier

Further discussions may well take place, but I will not negotiate with the Government across the Dispatch Box. I repeat that this is a bad Bill in principle, and, as the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to argue—cogently, I hope, and with some persuasion—against the principle. I think that I have the support of the Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats.

If the Government want to table amendments, we will consider them. As I said a moment ago, I cannot control the destiny of the Bill. The Government have the majority, and we are merely interested bystanders.

Mr. Hogg

Participating bystanders.

Mr. Garnier

We are interested and participating bystanders, but, to the extent that this is a joint enterprise in the sense of the criminal law, I can acquit myself of having been guilty of supporting the Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Minister's questions are rather strange? Either the Bill will be improved by such an amendment, and the Minister thinks so, or it will not be. If it will be improved, the Minister should be ready to accept that without giving the impression that it is a concession in return for something else.

Mr. Garnier

That is a fair point and it was well made. If the Government want to make the Bill less bad, let them do so—they have the power to do so—but it is not my job, on behalf of the official Opposition, to tear up my principles and my principled objection to the Bill simply because the Minister and the Home Secretary have been embarrassed this afternoon. I am sure that Liberal Democrat Members agree.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I certainly associate myself with that view. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we were to introduce a means to decide the venue by requiring the defendant to provide information on his antecedents, there would be greater prejudice against someone with a criminal history, even though that history might be irrelevant to the offence that they had been charged with?

Mr. Garnier

The Government have introduced into this debate and earlier debates many points that do not address the serious problems that we are having to face as a consequence of the Bill's introduction. If the Government want to make suggestions about how they can mitigate the Bill's worst consequences, that is a matter for them. I am not prepared to allow them to amend the Bill on the hoof this evening.

I shall conclude because I know that other Members want to contribute to our limited discussions. I have made the point about the ethnic minority communities, and there is a valid point that the public interest would be served if the interests of the community at large could be considered by the court in deciding venue. I hope that the House will agree.

The criminal justice system is largely consensual. We do not have—I know from experience as a recorder—armed guards and prisoners in shackles, restrained in the dock. Indeed, a number of defendants in court before me have sat not in the dock, but in the lawyers' seats just a little way from the judge's bench. The reason why defendants are left in court by themselves almost, on trust, is that, guilty men are sentenced—perhaps unfortunately, from their point of view, to a long term of imprisonment—knowing that they have been justly convicted by their fellow citizens who have heard the evidence during a trial.

The Government are putting in danger the consensual nature of our criminal justice system. It is all the more important that the consensual issue is reflected through the addition of amendment No. 19. I appreciate that my overriding objection to the Bill is one of principle, of which I spoke on Second Reading. Nothing that the Government have said or done since has tempted me to move from that position. If we are to have an appalling Bill, let us do our best to mitigate its appalling consequences

10.15pm

Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West)

I speak as someone who has grave reservations about the wisdom of proceeding with the Bill, especially in the light of the fact that the Auld commission has been charged with the task of comprehensively reviewing the criminal justice system. Incidentally, I also speak as a member of the Bar.

I tend to support the Government on the amendments. Although many hon. Members have raised valid points concerning the reputation clause, I take the view that, logically, it is right, in order to avoid the possible charge that a reputation clause is socially divisive, for the Government to have moved—they take the view that the venue should be determined judicially and not left to the defendant—to a neutral position on the antecedents of the defendant, having clearly been stung by criticism levelled against the Bill in the other place.

I see the force in the argument that allowing weight to be given to reputation and antecedents would create the danger of a socially divisive system—a Rolls-Royce system for those with an unblemished character and a summary trial system for those, perhaps including very many members of ethnic communities, who have records.

Mr. Hogg

It is difficult for the court to form a view of whether punishment would be adequate, as it is directed to do under proposed new section 19(2)(c), without knowing the antecedents of the accused. In the absence of knowledge, it is difficult to determine an appropriate penalty.

Mr. Thomas

I take on board what has been said. Although I have made broadly positive comments about the clause, the Government should address the following point. Does not common sense suggest that a bench of magistrates will, one way or another, want to take into account the character of a defendant? Even if magistrates do not want to do so, is it not true, given what some uncharitably call the intellectual dishonesty of this country's higher judiciary and others call their simple ingenuity, that a body of precedent will develop on appeal—the principle of interlocutory appeal is embedded in the legislation—which will in some way or another bring into play the question of character?

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has told us that the previous Lord Chief Justice pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect decision makers not to take into account a defendant's character in some way, so how confident can the Government be that antecedents will not come into play at the end of the day?

Mr. Leigh

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he is being fair to the Government, because the Bill is absolutely clear. New section 19(2)(b) states that the court can consider any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused)… Therefore, no case law can develop because the magistrates court will not be able to consider the circumstances of the accused. Considering antecedents is not socially divisive: men and women of good character can come from any social background.

Mr. Thomas

Given that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Bar, I am surprised that he underestimates the courts' ingenuity in getting around such provisions. I draw his attention to new section 19(2)(a), which states that the court can take into account circumstances including the nature of the case. I have a bald question for my hon. Friend the Minister to answer, if he can. Is it his understanding that a case that lawyers might describe as "a typical shoplifting case", in which the only issue is dishonesty and the defendant is of previous good character, would have to remain in the magistrates court? To what extent is that a realistic assessment, given that, as we know, the previous Lord Chief Justice is not alone in taking the view that common sense suggests that character must be taken into account?

I sense that the Government are ambivalent about the issue. It is clear that they were stung by the arguments advanced in the other place that the first Bill would have been socially divisive. However, in view of the throwaway remark that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier tonight, that the Government were prepared to "do business" on the question of the reputation clause, I wonder whether they know what they want to do in that respect. Given that others want to participate in this debate, I conclude my remarks on that note.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)

I rise to commend amendment No. 15. First, however, I should make it clear that I regard the Bill as fundamentally unsound and I do not believe that the requests for a bargain made by Home Secretary and the Minister of State are appropriate. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and then to try to improve a Bill if they can. The Bill is a bad one, but it would be less bad if my amendment were made.

Amendment No. 15 would ensure that, in deciding where trial shall take place, the court shall be entitled to take into account all the circumstances, both of the offence and of the accused. The Lord Chief Justice—who supported the first Bill, which I did not—recommended that provision, and the Home Secretary knew that when he introduced the current Bill; regrettably, however, the right hon. Gentleman left the impression that the Lord Chief Justice supported the Bill as it stood. The Bill would be a better Bill if it were amended as I propose.

I tabled an amendment similar to amendment No. 19 in Committee, and I should like to speak in support of it now. When we are considering jury trial, it is not only the rights of an accused to be tried by jury that should be taken into account. There are the rights also of the citizens of this country as a whole, expressed through each little parliament which a jury constitutes, to set the standards of criminal justice. It is one of the great linchpins of our democracy.

This is nothing theoretical. I can say as a former Attorney-General that when we—the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, or other senior prosecutors—came to discuss cases and questions of prosecution, one of the matters that was always considered was whether a jury would be likely to convict in the circumstances of the case. That is a salutary consideration for those who have the honour to govern the country from time to time. It is not the Government who decide the criminal prosecution system. The Attorney-General and the Law Officers as a whole are Her Majesty's Law Officers and they stand independently in a quasi-judicial position. It is salutary that they should consider the views of ordinary people.

Mr. Grieve

It is all the more remarkable that little parliaments exist to deal with matters that the Government consider so trivial that they do not wish a person to have that protection.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

That is why the Government are deeply mistaken in their view. As my hon. Friend says, one of the great benefits of our system of justice is that it is largely consensual. One of the reasons for that is the huge spectrum of either-way cases where people have a right at present to choose trial by jury. If they want trial by jury, they choose it. If they do not, they accept the system. Either way, and even if they plead guilty later, they are confident and comfortable with the system of justice which we in England and Wales are proud to have and regard as second to none.

Mr. Hogg

On amendment No. 19, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are cases where the prosecution might be deemed oppressive or the procedures adopted by the prosecution authorities might be deemed unreasonable? In such cases, the jury might refuse to convict. The refusal of the jury is a proper constraint on the ability of the prosecution to prosecute, or on the ability of the police to prosecute in the way that they did.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is a protection against tyranny; it would be a fundamental mistake to seek to remove it.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews

I say somewhat unwillingly that I cannot support the amendments, which would effectively reintroduce the livelihood and reputation clause. As much of the debate has been spent by the occupants of the Government Front Bench telling those of us who fought against the clause, "There you are, it is all your fault", perhaps I might go into a little history, which will take not very long.

Jury trial has long been in the sights of a number of people, not a million miles away from the Treasury, who believe that people going to it who are not charged with terribly serious offences are getting Rolls-Royce treatment which they do not deserve. It has long been the idea that that treatment should be taken away from them. They hit what appeared to be the immovable rock that, for some people with great reputations, livelihoods and jobs—not necessarily posh people or rich people, but people who have fought against the system and managed against all the odds to make themselves respectable and to have jobs—the loss of livelihood is far more important than it is for many others who are charged with much more serious crimes.

Thus there was a problem. It was overcome by the Runciman commission, which introduced the reputation solution. Thereafter, it was enthusiastically endorsed by a number of others. I quote: There will be safeguards, including a requirement on magistrates to consider the effect of conviction on a defendant's reputation and livelihood when considering the mode of trial. That was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the beginning of the Bill's consideration. He was speaking not to the House, because the Bill was not announced in the House. It was announced at the Police Federation, at which my right hon. Friend made a speech indicating how central and important "reputation and livelihood" were if unfairness was not to be created. Of course, the Home Secretary missed the point, which was well set out in the House of Lords—that a safeguard is created for one class and immediately removed from another, creating partial justice.

What is partial justice? Is it worse than justice given to a few? The Government's solution was to take justice away from everybody. Nobody could have it. That was the result. Now, reputation cannot be taken into account at all. The crass absurdity of that position is emphasised time and again by anybody who knows anything about the criminal justice system. It will give rise to massive injustice and cause huge delay.

10.30 pm

The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) was absolutely right. Shoplifting offenders are now out of the system. They will not be able to have jury trial at all.

The position is worse than that. The example was given of Mr. Peter Hain, as he then was, before he became Minister of State. I can tell the House that his chances of getting a jury trial under the Bill would be very small, if not non-existent. Moreover, if he had been tried in front of a stipendiary magistrate in the south-western magistrates court, in the atmosphere prevailing when the antiapartheid movement was active, his chances of acquittal would have been zero.

If that is what those on the Front Bench want to impose on people in this country, I am extremely surprised. It comes from a Government who we always believed would uphold the traditions of civil liberty.

Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire):

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. No doubt he would agree that reputation and livelihood can be central issues, but is it not the case that many offences are at present summary only, and that the charge could damage the reputation and livelihood of the accused? I cite as an example indecent exposure by a minister of religion.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews

That is right, and a line must be drawn somewhere. That line should be very low; it is probably drawn too high at present. However, it should not be extended to offences of dishonesty, which can ruin and destroy reputations and are much more prevalent than the type of offences cited by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hogg

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is opposing amendment No. 15 on the ground that it induces two classes of justice. I think that he would agree that, when it comes to sentencing, there are by his own criteria already two classes of justice, because the court, when determining whether to send to the Crown court for sentence, will necessarily have regard to the antecedents of the accused appearing before that court.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews

That is because the magistrates' powers are limited. It is not merely a question of their wanting to go further on a sliding scale. If they want to impose a sentence of more than six or 12 months, or whatever the limit is, they must commit. Before that, under the present system, they would not know about the antecedents. The explanation is perfectly reasonable.

I maintain my opposition, which is based on the partiality of justice. The Bill is rotten at its core. Everybody who practises in the criminal justice system, outside the Magistrates Association and the Police Federation, knows it in his heart. I implore the Government, while there is still time, to rethink the legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I add my support, along the lines of the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The amendments in the present group do not solve the difficulties of the Bill. They do not make a bad Bill a good Bill.

There is one amendment in the group that has the joint support of those on the Conservative Front Bench and my hon. Friends and me. It seeks to make sure that there is a consideration of the wider public interest. That was well expressed, if I may say so, by the former Attorney-General. The central argument for jury trial is that it is the people, not the establishment, who make the decision, whereas it is, by definition, somebody on behalf of the state who makes the decision to prosecute, so the functions must be separated. Therefore, the wider interest needs to be represented.

According to the Government's figures, we are talking about never more than 5 per cent. of the cases in the past five years ending up in the Crown court, and sometimes less.

The Government put in the reputation clause, which was rightly rejected in the other place, principally because it created a two-tier system of justice. An obvious example is a that of a head teacher who would be thought to be at greater risk of damage to his or her reputation than an unemployed person entering adulthood. That is clearly discriminatory, and, on that basis, the Lords rightly threw it out. The Government were then completely stuck about what to do.

The revealing correspondence between the Home Secretary and the former Lord Chief Justice, recently retired, shows that the Government do not have a position of principle. The Government seek to take away the option of jury trial for everyone who has that option but for no other principle than that there is some vague benefit, arguably, that the resulting justice will be more efficient and cost less. There is no principle there.

The strongest argument in practice for not going into the prehistory is that, if antecedents were allowed—the circumstances of the accused—then, by definition, the person with a record would be less likely to be looked on favourably by the court. The court is more likely to think that it can try the case. However, there is a paradox, which has been well put by Justice, which says: The controversial provision for the court to consider reputation and livelihood, which discriminated in favour of those with apparently good character has been removed; but this is likely to lead to more cases being retained by magistrates. It should be also noted that the new criteria are likely to lead to a new, and diametrically opposite, discrimination. Sentences are likely to be higher in respect of people with previous criminal convictions, who may therefore be outside the court's sentencing powers. The courts discover that someone has previous convictions and so think that they have too little power to sentence them, so they are sent to the higher court for a trial by jury—

Mr. Hogg

For sentence.

Mr. Hughes

For sentence—and those with previously good character will be more likely to be tried summarily. One old discrimination, namely, reputation, is being substituted for a new discrimination, and neither is a satisfactory resolution. That compares with the old and present alternative, which is that the defendant makes the choice, and has to be accountable only to himself for the choice that he makes.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in the debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill last week, we had a similar discussion about the role of people's past records in deciding what sort of justice would be available to them—in that case, for a police officer. Does the amendment that the hon. Gentleman supports mean that any examination of people's previous records could not be taken into account in deciding whether they had a right to a jury trial?

Mr. Hughes

Liberal Democrats support only amendment No. 19. We do not believe that there should be a revelation of antecedents, and so on. The circumstances of the accused should not come into consideration at the beginning, only the circumstances of the offence; otherwise those with previous convictions are bound to be discriminated against.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)

Is it not the nature of the Government's proposal that we are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils?

Mr. Hughes

That is exactly the issue. We have a perfectly good, workable system, with fewer and fewer people choosing to go to the Crown court, with lower costs and fewer delays, and we are being offered two definitely less advantageous and less libertarian alternatives. Both alternatives prejudice the defendant. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we should reject both. Let us stand firm; we should not believe that the Bill can be remedied by the first five amendments in the group.

Mr. Hogg

I want to comment briefly on amendments Nos. 15 and 19. I adopt the same position as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The Bill is a bad measure, but the question is whether we should accept amendment No. 15. We should not make a bargain because the Bill is bad. However, the measure would be much less bad if amendment No. 15 were incorporated in it.

I accept that there is a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion; I understand that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) take a different view, but I feel strongly that justice requires the courts, when determining venue, to have regard to character and antecedents. I therefore urge the Government, in the interests of making a bad Bill less bad, to accept amendment No. 15, or a similar proposal.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) spoke to amendment No. 19, and I strongly endorse his comments. There is a class of prosecutions which can reasonably be deemed oppressive—or, alternatively, in which the investigation or prosecution process prior to trial has been oppressive. The right of a jury to throw out a case that it believes should not have been brought, because it is oppressive or has been badly handled, is an important safeguard of citizens' liberty.

We would not need amendment No. 19 if we were not embarking on the Bill. However, as we are embarking on it, we need a safeguard that is the same as, or similar to, that advocated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I therefore commend amendment No. 19 to the House. I fear that we will not divide on it, but I commend it to those on the Government Front Bench in the hope that Ministers may take the spirit of the amendment on board.

Mr. Clappison

I should have liked to speak for longer, but time moves on quickly, and Government Front-Bench Members need to deal with several matters.

I agree with the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Government's proposal is wrong in principle, and they have found the worst way in which to implement it. The Bill is a bad measure.

Mr. Leigh

It is obvious from my remarks in Committee, and earlier this evening, that I have considerable sympathy with the Government's objective. I know that some of my hon. Friends, Liberal Democrat Members and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) rightly take a purist line about the Bill. I understand their view, but we must be aware of the general public's opinion, the cost to the criminal justice system and the widespread view that people who have criminal antecedents abuse that system. That may not be a popular view; hon. Members tend, rightly, to put civil liberties to the fore. Those who argue the case that I am putting do not always express the opinion of many Back Benchers, who take a purist view. The Government are right to take the action that they propose.

None the less, the Government must listen carefully to the debate. The current Home Office team does that, and its members are generally concerned about the criminal justice system. I hope that Ministers will take away from the debate the clear view from all parties that, whether we are opposed in principle to the Bill or whether we simply seek to amend it, we believe that proposals such as those in amendments Nos. 6 and 15 would considerably improve it. That is a perfectly sustainable argument.

10.45 pm

There is widespread concern that being charged with a small offence such as shoplifting could affect a person's livelihood. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and is trying to find a way forward. I support the amendments, but the hon. and learned Member for Medway eloquently put the alternative view that they would create two classes of justice—and that point was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In a sense, they are right. Two classes of justice would be created, as a person without antecedents would have the absolute right to elect for trial by jury and receive gold-plated treatment, while those with antecedents would not have that right. However, we must accept that. In a world that is never ideal, surely it would be better to have justice for some people.

Mr. David Taylor

The hon. Gentleman talks about gold-plated justice. Can he make more explicit his apparent belief that the justice afforded in magistrates courts, whether by lay magistrates or stipendiaries, is substantially inferior to that afforded by the jury system? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Leigh

The hon. Gentleman and I had that debate in Committee. He has a long and distinguished record of service as a magistrate and is rightly convinced, as are all of us who have appeared in magistrates courts, that magistrates are fully equipped to deal carefully with the evidence. They represent the local community, just as juries do, and I recognise where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. He is committed to the magistrates courts system. However, in the previous Parliament a Member, in a fit of absent-mindedness, walked out of the Army and Navy Stores carrying a couple of books. The case went to a summary trial and he was found guilty, but he insisted on trial by jury and appealed to the Crown court. Eventually, he was found not guilty.

Would any Member of Parliament accused of such an offence, which would finish his career, prefer not to go to the Crown court? Let us be honest with ourselves. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) points to himself and says that he would rather go in front of the beak—the London stipendiary magistrate. He would rather appear before my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), but, with respect, I would rather appear before a jury—not case-hardened individuals like my hon. Friend, but people with a fresh insight on the criminal system. That is why this issue is so important to so many people. To dismiss it out of hand by saying that the amendments must be thrown out, and that the Bill is rubbish because we cannot get it absolutely right, is not the right way to proceed.

There is a middle way, which is to proceed, but only after adopting the amendments. They would protect the person of good character who came before the criminal justice system, perhaps for the first time, and allow him to insist on trial by jury. That is an essential compromise. The Government may be unable to accept the amendments tonight, but when they are confronted by the other place—an independent House where they do not have an overwhelming majority, whose members do not come in to vote for whatever is placed before them by the Whips—I hope that they will accept similar proposals.

Mr. Charles Clarke

In the time available to me, I shall make two points. In answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—yes, as a Member of Parliament and as an individual, I would be happy to be tried by magistrates. I have great confidence in magistrates. A lack of confidence in them has Iain beneath a great deal of the debate. It was put most clearly by the hon. Gentleman, who said in Committee: That leads to the question whether we trust magistrates more than judges. I shall not beat around the bush: I trust a judge and jury more than I trust the Bench.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 May 2000; c. 35.] He later said that he stood by what he had said. That is at the core of much of the opposition to the Bill. My answer to that is to improve the magistrates system if it needs improving, but to have confidence in it and to promote it.

Secondly, in answer to the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I shall list the offences that are currently dealt with directly by the magistrates without defendants having a choice, although they relate to reputation and dishonesty: assault on a constable, keeping a brothel, cruelty to animals, cruelty or neglect of children, night poaching, stealing, unauthorised taking of a conveyance—

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 199.

Division No. 291]	[10.51 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ainger, Nick	Benton, Joe
Allen, Graham	Berry, Roger
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Betts, Clive
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Blackman, Liz
Ashton, Joe	Blears, Ms Hazel
Atherton, Ms Candy	Blizzard, Bob
Atkins, Charlotte	Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Austin, John	Borrow, David
Banks, Tony	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Barron, Kevin	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Bayley, Hugh	Bradshaw, Ben
Beard, Nigel	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Buck, Ms Karen
Begg, Miss Anne	Burden, Richard

Burgon, Colin	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Butler, Mrs Christine	Hepburn, Stephen
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Heppell, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hesford, Stephen
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hill, Keith
Caplin, Ivor	Hinchliffe, David
Casale, Roger	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Caton, Martin	Hoey, Kate
Cawsey, Ian	Home Robertson, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Chaytor, David	Hope, Phil
Chisholm, Malcolm	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hoyle, Lindsay
	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Humble, Mrs Joan
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hutton, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Clelland, David	Illsley, Eric
Clwyd, Ann	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Coaker, Vernon	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Coleman, Iain	Jamieson, David
Colman, Tony	Jenkins, Brian
Connarty, Michael	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Corbett, Robin	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Corston, Jean	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Crausby, David	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Cummings, John	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Keeble, Ms Sally
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Darvill, Keith	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Dawson, Hilton	Khabra, Piara S
Dean, Mrs Janet	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Denham, John	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Dismore, Andrew	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dobbin, Jim	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Laxton, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H	Lepper, David
Doran, Frank	Leslie, Christopher
Dowd, Jim	Levitt, Tom
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Edwards, Huw	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Efford, Clive	Linton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ennis, Jeff	Lock, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Love, Andrew
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	McAvoy, Thomas
Flint, Caroline	McCabe, Steve
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McDonagh, Siobhain
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Macdonald, Calum
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Foulkes, George	McIsaac, Shona
Fyfe, Maria	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	McNulty, Tony
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	MacShane, Denis
Godsiff, Roger	Mactaggart, Fiona
Goggins, Paul	Mallaber, Judy
Golding, Mrs Llin	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Martlew, Eric
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Meale, Alan
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Merron, Gillian
Grogan, John	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Miller, Andrew
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Moffatt, Laura
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hanson, David	Moran, Ms Margaret
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Healey, John	Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B' ham Yardley)	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Snape, Peter
	Soley, Clive
Mountford, Kali	Southworth, Ms Helen
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie	Spellar, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Steinberg, Gerry
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Stevenson, George
Norris, Dan	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
O'Hara, Eddie	Stinchcombe, Paul
Olner, Bill	Stoate, Dr Howard
Organ, Mrs Diana	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Palmer, Dr Nick	Stringer, Graham
Pearson, Ian	Stuart, Ms Gisela Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Perham, Ms Linda
Pickthall, Colin	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pike, Peter L	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Plaskitt, James	Temple-Morris, Peter
Pollard, Kerry	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pond, Chris	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pope, Greg	Timms, Stephen
Pound, Stephen	Tipping, Paddy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Todd, Mark
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Touhig, Don
Primarolo, Dawn	Trickett, Jon
Prosser, Gwyn	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Purchase, Ken	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Quinn, Lawrie	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Tynan, Bill
Rapson, Syd	Vis, Dr Rudi
Raynsford, Nick	Walley, Ms Joan
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Watts, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Wicks, Malcolm
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Rooney, Terry	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Rowlands, Ted	Wills, Michael
Roy, Frank	Wilson, Brian
Ruane, Chris	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Ruddock, Joan	Woodward, Shaun
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Woolas, Phil
Salter, Martin	Worthington, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad	Wray, James
Savidge, Malcolm	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Sawford, Phil	Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brand, Dr Peter
Allan, Richard	Brazier, Julian
Amess, David	Breed, Colin
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Browning, Mrs Angela
Baldry, Tony	Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Ballard, Jackie	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Barnes, Harry	Burnett, John
Beggs, Roy	Burns, Simon
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Burstow, Paul
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Butterfill, John
Bennett, Andrew F	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Bercow, John
Bereslord, Sir Paul	Cash, William
Blunt, Crispin	Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Clappison, James
Brady, Graham
Brake, Tom

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hague, Rt Hon William
	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Harris, Dr Evan
Cohen, Harry	Harvey, Nick
Collins, Tim	Hawkins, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hayes, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Heald, Oliver
Cotter, Brian	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Cran, James	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Curry, Rt Hon David	Hopkins, Kelvin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Horam, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
	Hurst, Alan
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Jenkin, Bernard
Evans, Nigel	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Faber, David
Fabricant, Michael	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Fallon, Michael	Keetch, Paul
Fearn, Ronnie	Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Fisher, Mark
Flight, Howard	Key, Robert
Flynn, Paul	Kidney, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Foster, Don (Bath)	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Kirkwood, Archy
Fox, Dr Liam	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Fraser, Christopher	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Gale, Roger	Lansley, Andrew
Garnier, Edward	Leigh, Edward
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Letwin, Oliver
Gerrard, Neil	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Gibb, Nick	Lidington, David
Gidley, Sandra	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher	Livsey, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Gorrie, Donald	Loughton, Tim
Gray, James	Luff, Peter
Green, Damian	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Grieve, Dominic	McDonnell, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Skinner, Dennis
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Spicer, Sir Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick	Spring, Richard
McNamara, Kevin	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Madel, Sir David	Steen, Anthony
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Streeter, Gary
Malins, Humfrey	Swayne, Desmond
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Syms, Robert
Maude, Rt Hon Francis	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
May, Mrs Theresa	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Moore, Michael	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion).
Moss, Malcolm	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Nicholls, Patrick	Townend, John
Oaten, Mark	Tredinnick, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Trend, Michael
Öpik, Lembit	Tyler, Paul
Ottaway, Richard	Tyrie, Andrew
Paterson, Owen	Viggers, Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Wareing, Robert N
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Waterson, Nigel
Prior, David	Webb, Steve
Randall, John	Wells, Bowen
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Rendel, David	Whittingdale, John
Robathan, Andrew	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Robertson, Laurence	Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Willis, Phil
Ruffley, David	Wilshire, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
St Aubyn, Nick	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Sanders, Adrian	Yeo, Tim
Sedgemore, Brian	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian	Tellers for the Noes:
Shepherd, Richard	Mr. Peter Atkinson and
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.