Orders of the Day — Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 8 July 1999.

REFERRAL OF YOUNG OFFENDERS TO YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

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

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out Clauses 1 and 2. No. 12, in page 1, line 16, at end insert— '(d) the court is not proposing to impose a conditional discharge.'.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Part I introduces a new sentence for young offenders of referral to a youth offender panel. Panels will be established by the youth offender teams which owe their existence to the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The purpose of the panel is to draw up a programme of reparation, rehabilitation and, where appropriate, reintegration, aimed at addressing the young person's offending behaviour with a view to preventing him or her from reoffending in future. I am glad to see the Home Secretary here. We support the concept of the referral order and believe that, properly resourced and constituted, youth offender panels have the potential to provide a more structured and coherent programme of support and reparation for a young offender than has been the usual experience with the generality of community sentences. In Committee we highlighted some important elements where we have some disagreement with the Government about the way in which the new sentencing option is being introduced. New clause 1 offers a better framework and structure for the introduction of this important initiative, the genesis for which lies in much of the work of the last Government and taken forward by this Government, than the Government scheme. In addition and so that we can get the maximum out of this afternoon's debate, new clause 1 addresses all the important elements that were debated in Committee on which there was some disagreement. The first concern that we addressed was whether this new option should be available only in youth and magistrates courts. We probed the Government to find out why the referral order was not apparently available to the Crown courts. The Government's view is that the number of occasions when a young offender might be dealt with by a Crown court in the circumstances which would allow or might require a referral order are sufficiently few to leave it to the magistrates or youth court to make the referral. A Crown court can send a young offender back to a youth court for that purpose, as required. Although we still believe that this is an unnecessary complication, it is not a key issue for us, so new clause 1 incorporates in the first line the same wording as in the Government scheme, restricting the power to youth and magistrates courts. We are happy to accept and reflect the Government's view on that. Our most fundamental disagreement remains with the Government's insistence that the referral order should be mandatory, certainly in the first instance, for a first time offender who pleads guilty. We shall come on to the plea of guilty aspect later. We think that it is a mistake for the referral order to be mandatory. The House will be aware that in another place the mandatory nature of the referral order was changed to provide the court with discretion. In Committee that change was reversed to reinstate the mandatory nature of the referral order. We find it slightly surprising that in the other place Liberal Democrat Members supported the amendment of my noble Friend Lord Windlesham whereas in Committee the Liberal Democrat Member voted against his noble Friends and in support of the Government. We note with some enthusiasm that as in Committee when the Liberal Democrats tabled one amendment, so on Report they have tabled one amendment. As will be clear from new clause 1 we agree that the availability of a conditional discharge to the court in the circumstances would be welcome. We remain of the view that to make the referral mandatory for first time young offenders is a mistake because these are not the group of offenders for whom mandatory sentences should be thought appropriate. Notwithstanding the fact that these are pilot arrangements, so are capable of adaptation and adjustment in the light of experience, we envisage that a court will frequently have to make a referral order against its better judgment. In all sincerity I suggest to the Home Secretary that that has the prospect of undermining confidence in the scheme. To allow the court virtually no discretion for first-time offenders is bad law and will lead to rough justice and inconsistency. Even if one accepts the principle of a mandatory referral order, it is questionable whether the conditions which trigger an automatic referral are the right ones or whether they require further thought and adjustment. The key purpose of new clause 1 is to suggest to the Government why we believe that those conditions need some changes in a number of respects. The changes that we think would be appropriate are set out in the new clause. 2.15 pm First and in many respects most importantly, we need to question the range of offences which a young offender may have committed which would justify a mandatory requirement for the young person to work with a youth offender panel to address his offending behaviour and make reparation. As drafted, the Bill regards any offence as deserving such treatment. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has had time to study the Hansard reports of the Committee which was good natured. Although we had some disagreements it was not one of those Committees where we fought to the wire on many issues. When I pointed out that some offences were less serious and sufficiently minor not to justify a referral, I was asked to suggest one. I outlined the case of a 17-year-old motorist, perhaps about to go to university, of previous good character who drove through a red traffic light or was caught speeding. In a number of circumstances such a young motorist, like any other motorist stopped by the police and told of his transgression, might be given a fixed penalty ticket. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), has recently expressed concern about a particularly prevalent minor offence that youngsters are wont to commit, which is cycling on the pavement. I must confess that that offence did not cross my mind. Yesterday, the Minister tabled a statutory instrument, which provides for an on-the-spot fine or fixed penalty notice for the offence of cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. The Minister and the House will know from early-day motion 766 that not all his hon. Friends—indeed, not all of mine either—consider cycling on the pavement to be a punishable offence, let alone punishable with on-the-spot fines. There are as many as 27 signatures to that early-day motion. If we pray against that statutory instrument and there is a vote on it, it will be interesting to see how many of the Minister's hon. Friends vote against it and in support of that early-day motion. This is good-natured banter, but cycling on the pavement is illegal, and can be dangerous. In response to my suggestion that someone going through a red traffic light should be considered a danger to the rest of society, the Minister said that he could introduce me to the parents of children who had been maimed as a result of such behaviour. I fully accept that, but the House should also reflect on the fact that there is an equal prospect of some young tearaway who cycles on the pavement posing a similar danger. Although some people approve of cycling on the pavement as it is safer for the cyclist, given the state of the traffic on the roads, it can be dangerous for the people on the pavement. I have no qualms about the Minister's intention to give the police an additional power to take action if they think it is required. Whether the offence is going through a red traffic light, speeding or cycling on the pavement, as the Bill is construed a young offender will pay a fine if the police choose to give him a fixed penalty notice, whereas another offender who commits an identical offence will be summoned to appear in court, whereupon, having pleaded guilty, the magistrate will, under the Bill, have no option but to refer him to a youth offender panel. To use the expression that an enraged mother in a queue at a passport office used when talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) last week, that is completely barmy. How could anyone explain the logic of the system to a young person whose mate gets an on-the-spot fine, whereas for exactly the same offence he is referred for three months to a youth offender panel? In fairness, under the Bill the court has an alternative: it could grant an absolute discharge. Some magistrates may be persuaded that that is a preferable option. Either way, it will lead to inconsistency in the sentencing of young people. Inconsistency in the administration of justice to young people is, in my experience, the harbinger of grievance, and the harbinger of grievance is the parent of alienation. That is the opposite of what the Government are sensibly trying to do in the Bill, which is to bring young people up short when they have offended. The sentence that they are given for their offence must be appropriate in the circumstances and relevant to their situation.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I am following my hon. Friend's argument with some interest, because this is not a matter in which I have participated closely in the past. Does he agree that, if persons who have committed the same offence are given different punishments, that could give rise to a potentially objectionable situation under the European convention on human rights?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We debated this issue at some length in Committee. I can only pass on to him the Government's reassurance, which, in all fairness, we are happy to accept, that the Bill complies with all elements of the European convention on human rights. He is right: people have in the past sought redress in the European Court if our law has created an injustice which our courts are unable to address. They will be able to go to our courts when the human rights legislation that the House has passed is fully implemented. I do not want to labour the point, except to say that it is extraordinary for the Government to expect the House to understand and agree with a sentence for a misdemeanour—not a high crime or serious offence—which will depend on how the young offender is prosecuted. In most cases, the police will not have the slightest idea of the young person's background and whether he is a known troublemaker or has never been in any trouble before. It is ludicrous to propose that if a young person gets a fixed penalty notice, he must pay an on-the-spot fine, but if, for the same offence, he is required to appear in court, he must be referred to a youth offender panel to address his offending behaviour. In new clause 1, we provide two entirely sensible solutions. The first is to establish which offences should trigger an automatic referral to a youth offender panel, and which offences could be regarded as less serious. As I said to the Home Secretary, we agree with this disposal. He will remember that, in the debate on Second Reading, I told him that I had visited Boston, Massachusetts with the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee looked into the imaginative way in which they deal with young offenders in Boston, and it was then that I first understood the power and good sense of subjecting young delinquents to a structured programme of reparation and rehabilitation. We are fully on side in that objective. However, if we have to accept, given the Government's majority, that the referral will change back from a discretionary to a mandatory requirement, we have a right and a responsibility to ask the Home Secretary to think again about what offences will justify a mandatory referral. 2.30 pm We think that the Government's policy is really about dealing with offences that are dishonest, violent or involve other criminal conduct. That is why, in line two of new clause 1, we introduce the phrase an offence for which a custodial sentence is available". The aim is not just to highlight the need for offences to be serious, but to indicate clearly that the breadth of criminal activity, of vandalism and of violence, which we know that the Government are seeking to address, would carry the option of a custodial sentence. There would be an automatic referral to a youth offender panel where a young offender pleaded guilty on his first appearance in court. In Committee, we debated the issue of seriousness in some detail. The theft of a pint of a milk was an offence that the Committee thought serious enough to warrant a referral order. Such an offence would be covered. That does not have to mean that someone who admits in his first appearance in court to theft of anything will automatically get a prison sentence, but the offence to which that person has pleaded guilty, including theft of a pint of milk, would carry a prison sentence as an option, so it would be covered, as would malicious damage, vandalism and any assault. The petty crime that concerns local communities and characterises the behaviour of youngsters who are out of control and need their offending behaviour addressed would therefore be covered by the alternative proposal. However, serious motoring offences would also be covered. A 17-year-old driving under the influence of drugs or drink, or causing death by dangerous driving, would come within the category where a custodial sentence is an option. No one—I agree with the spirit of what the Minister of State was saying in Committee—could possibly argue that a young person who had pleaded guilty to such a serious offence would not be in need of a programme of rehabilitation, reparation and remedial action to address his offending behaviour, but our proposal would also leave courts free to continue to dispose of less serious summary offences, which I have already described as misdemeanours, with a fine, or courts could impose a conditional discharge. Nevertheless, it is not our intention that the restriction of offences for which a referral order is encouraged for the more serious crimes and the imposition of a fine or conditional discharge should be regarded as exclusive alternatives. Both have their place in a sensible sentencing strategy. Even if the offence involved criminality, there would be occasions where the option of a fine or conditional discharge would be an important discretion for the court to have at its disposal. What if, for example, a 16 or 17-year-old, perhaps out with his girlfriend and not looking for trouble, is attacked by other youngsters and, in defending himself, assaults his assailants or causes damage? He may have had no intention to do so, but the action is likely to be considered reckless by the court. It happens. I am glad to note that the Home Secretary agrees. It would be ludicrous to say in such circumstances that there is no option but to refer that person to a youth offender panel and to argue that that would be the most appropriate outcome. Clearly, it would not. The court must have the discretion to impose an alternative. A fine, or, indeed, in those circumstances, a conditional discharge, which is far more powerful than the absolute discharge, which is the only thing available under the Government's proposals, would be more appropriate. More important, to have such a restricted sentencing option would lead to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. The failure of the Government's proposals to provide for such a sensible outcome will affect the way in which youth and magistrates courts deal with young people. That will lead to the sort of controversy and anger that we saw in response to some of the proposals in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In Committee, we commented on that point. On previous occasions, the Home Secretary has described me as an old lag because of all the long service I have done in various criminal justice Bill Standing Committees. In the Committee that considered the 1991 Act, several of us had some misgivings about unit fines, but I say in all sincerity that he is going down the same road with the current proposal. He is producing an inflexible structure that will lead to anger and controversy. Our worry is that what is a sensible initiative will be brought into disrepute even during the early years of the pilot schemes because of that inflexibility. The Government must think again.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I ask the hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, to consider whether he has missed the crucial point about the provision: it is about restorative justice, introducing meaning to the process involving young people and tackling issues at the crucial moment of that first appearance in court.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

If I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps he will have an argument with the Minister of State. We heard all that claptrap in Committee. We are not missing the point at all. We are fully seized of the point. We are saying that the referral order must be appropriate to the young person in question. The Government are introducing a scheme where some referral orders will be wholly inappropriate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was not listening, but what could be more inappropriate than to say to one young offender, "You have been cycling on the footway. Here is a fine," and to say to another, "By the way, because we did not catch you, but we know who you are, you have been summoned to the court, you will go to court and plead guilty"? The Home Secretary must accept that, under the Bill, the court would have no option but to refer that person to a youth offender panel. I cannot for the life of me see the logic of such a situation. Where is the reparation? Where is the reintegration into society in those circumstances? It is complete nonsense to have such a conflict between two alternative disposals for precisely the same offence, depending entirely on how the young person is prosecuted. We have made our point. I can tell from the noises behind me and the nods that I see when I look around from time to time that, thankfully, some hon. Members in the Chamber agree with me. Two other aspects of new clause 1 differ from the Government's structure. If we accept the logic of the mandatory referral for a plea of guilty, it will be hard to see the logic of giving the court any discretion if a young person pleads guilty to one offence, but not guilty to another. The Home Secretary will remember that, on Second Reading, we expressed the concern that, perversely, youngsters might be tempted to plead not guilty to avoid the youth offender panel. Bearing in mind that our proposal would restrict the referral order to more serious offences and provide the option for a fine, we think it would probably be more straightforward if the referral order were mandatory for all pleas of guilty. The Government's case is that a guilty plea is essential to the young offender being prepared to accept that he has done wrong. If he has pleaded guilty to one offence, even if he has pleaded not guilty to another, that is an admission of guilt for the youth offender panel to work on. The new clause incorporates all the powers that the Home Secretary thinks appropriate to extend the provisions of the referral order to other offenders. On Second Reading and in Committee, we certainly supported the concept of making referral orders appropriate and available for dealing with more persistent offenders. However, we should have preferred that persistent young offenders were brought within the scheme's provisions immediately. If and when other than first-time offenders are brought within the scheme's provisions, we think that courts must have regard to whether such youngsters have previously been subject to a referral order. As we debated and agreed in Committee, the Government's wording technically provides for that. Nevertheless, we still feel that a requirement to have regard to whether a young offender has previously been subject to a young offender order is sufficiently important to be included in the Bill. Although we support the idea of referral orders to youth offender panels, we disagree with the conditions in which courts will be able to pass such a sentence. The provisions are riddled with illogicality. The argument that the provisions are a completely new and radical approach to dealing with first-time young offenders does not justify the blanket provision, in every case, of referral orders. Therefore, I ask the House to support new clause 1.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

It is with regret that I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), as I fully realise that, throughout our consideration of the Bill, he has pursued his case with sincerity, great knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, I think that he has totally missed the point on the radical nature of the proposals—which are not at all intended to reflect a youth justice system that has become discredited among not only young people but those who have felt its inadequacies, whether as victims or those who work within that system. The Bill offers an approach that is absolutely trying to deal with young people at the crucial moment—when they first appear in court. Far from being inflexible, the approach offers the supreme flexibility of providing young people with an opportunity, over a significant period of between three and 12 months, to sit with a panel that would include their parents, representatives from various agencies, people from the community and possibly victims of their offences; to use that opportunity to be confronted with the reality of their offending; and to have the underlying and overt reasons for their offending uncovered, analysed and challenged. They would also have the opportunity to make reparation to an individual victim or, perhaps more likely, to the wider community. The Bill offers a wholly different approach from the current one, in which, very perfunctorily, young people appear in court under the influence of various messages about what the experience is supposed to be about. They endure an occasion in court that is probably meaningless for them: get the whole thing done, dusted and out of the way as quickly as possible; and then go on. 2.45 pm In Committee, the hon. Member for Ryedale raised the issue of young people who are apprehended for going through a red traffic light. I told him then, and I tell him now, that I could today put together a programme for a young person who had been convicted of such an offence—which is a very serious one indeed—involving the auspices of other groups in the community, that would shake that young person to the core about what happens when one speeds in a motorcar. Does anyone think that that is less worthwhile than a young person appearing in court and receiving a fine that may be paid by his or her parents?

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

Is my hon. Friend aware of a cutting-edge young offenders programme that is being operated at Buckley Hall prison by the prisoners themselves? The programme—which is receiving accreditation—is being operated just as my hon. Friend has described, by talking about people who have thrown away their lives by using cars to do things that they have come to regret. Additionally, the programme is thought to be so worthwhile that the people behind it are giving presentations to magistrates across the north-west region.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I am not aware of that project, it is a perfect example of what I am talking about—a programme devised by those who have been through experiences that have meaning for offenders and to which offenders are able to respond. I regret to say that the out-of-date approach to youth justice being advocated by the Opposition threatens to undermine the Bill's entire purpose. If we were to allow crucial get-outs, such as opportunities for young people to be dealt with in a conditional discharge and a fine, we should miss the crucially important moment—the first appearance in court—and that crucial chance to influence behaviour at that level. As one who worked in the youth justice system for some years, I tell the hon. Member for Ryedale that one of the system's greatest failings was that, in far too many cases, by the time we got to the young people for whom we were trying to develop programmes as alternatives to custodial sentences—they had all the cautions, court appearances, fines, conditional discharges, and attendance and supervision orders behind them—they were lost to us. The moment had gone. The Bill creates the opportunity to use the crucial moment. It brings a radical approach to justice that is meaningful to the young person and to the community, restores to the community what it has lost to offending, and gives young people an opportunity to move on and face what they have done. The approach is novel, and it builds on good experience from around the world. It is what we need in the new youth justice system, and I hope that all hon. Members will wholeheartedly support it.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Liberal Democrat Members strongly support the creation of youth offender panels, which are based on experience from not only around the world, but across the border. Some elements of Scotland's children's panels and children's hearings, which have worked well in Scotland, have been incorporated in the proposed process. We hope that the panels will provide the basis of a new approach to youth offending, and offer a more constructive response to young offenders that is based on examining the causes and consequences of their behaviour. We also hope that the proposals will inspire a bit more confidence in victims that the young people concerned are being confronted with the consequences of their actions. We often forget how, often, victims feel that current court procedures offer absolutely nothing to them, leaving them feeling as if they would just like to get hold of the person who perpetrated the crime and give them a good talking to about what it means to be a victim and the adverse effects of their crime. Our amendment No. 12, which is in this group, is a modest amendment that would introduce a little more flexibility to the system created by the Bill. The court will not currently have to refer first-time offenders who plead guilty to a youth offender panel if it is proposing to impose a custodial sentence or an unconditional discharge—decisions that fall at opposite ends of the scale. If neither course of action is proposed, referral to a youth offender panel will be required. The amendment would give the court the further option of a conditional discharge. We support the Government's view that when the conditions are met, referral to a youth offender panel should be mandatory. For the new system of youth justice to be proved effective, it needs to be widely used. In the Scottish system, if guilt is accepted the children's hearing is automatic. We agree that that principle should apply. Over time we want it to be broadened beyond first-time offenders. As we gain more experience, we would like the provision to be available for a wider range of offenders. However, we believe that giving magistrates complete discretion—which we normally favour—runs the risk of limiting the effect of that useful development in youth justice at a time when it needs to be given a fair, broad trial over a lot of cases. There is a strong case for allowing the court an extra option before the referral becomes automatic. Unless the Government accept the amendment, they will effectively abolish the conditional discharge for first-time offenders who plead guilty. They may be the most likely to respond to a conditional discharge. In some cases it would be the most effective response to the crime and it would not be sensible to drain the limited resources of the youth offender panels, so there is merit in a modicum of additional discretion. At the moment, absolute discharge is rarely used compared with conditional discharge. Courts can impose a condition of non-offending behaviour for a year or more, so we think that it would be a useful way of avoiding clogging the new youth offender panels with minor offenders. The Government's objection to similar amendments in this House and the other place seems to have been that they do not like conditional discharges because they send the wrong message. Are they saying that they no longer see any use in conditional discharges for first-time young offenders who plead guilty? Are they saying that they are no use for young offenders? Are they sure that the new youth offender panels will have the resources to deal with all who may currently receive a conditional discharge? Our proposal has gained considerable support since it was first put forward in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia. It was proposed in the Standing Committee with the support of the three Opposition parties represented there. The Conservative new clause on the new power of referral to a youth offender panel has been explained to us exhaustively. The aim of the new clause is to rewrite the relevant clauses in the Bill. It would meet our request by allowing conditional discharge as an option. It would also go further by allowing a fine. We understand that argument, but we do not think that the Government will be persuaded of it. Our concern about the new clause is that it would limit the use of referral to only those first-time offenders who plead guilty to an offence for which a custodial sentence is available. We are not convinced that referrals should be limited in that way. The new system of youth offender panels could respond effectively to offences for which there is no custodial sentence available. We prefer the Government's wording. The panel's contracts will be a new form of community sentence. Although the new clause has other merits, it imposes too great a restriction and we do not support it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am glad to play a small part at this stage. The new clause gives us another opportunity to think about a sensible part of the Bill that has a flaw. Referral orders are an idea whose time has come. I congratulate the Government—I did not take part on Second Reading—on picking up those ideas and running with them. I went to see Charles Pollard and his practical efforts in Aylesbury before the election, and very impressive they were. I sat at the back of the room and watched a meeting at which parents, young offenders and victims were present and the whole issue was talked through. It was superbly managed by a young woman police officer. Clause 1 or the new clause would implement that. The fundamental difference between clause 1 and the new clause is that the new clause would give more flexibility. There is a case for more flexibility. This is the point at which one becomes a little frustrated about coming in late to take part in the parliamentary minuet. The Home Secretary should have accepted the Lords amendment to introduce the word "may" instead of "shall". I apologise to him for not having heard his reasons for throwing it out. I sit as a recorder. I listen to the gossip at lunch and go to the many training sessions that the Lord Chancellor rightly requires recorders to attend. We rightly required them to attend such sessions when we were in government. Complaints consistently come from experienced judges—Lord Justices, recorders and assistant recorders with huge experience and Crown court judges with the widest experience of all—about Parliament setting a provision in stone or steel and requiring them to operate it. They are willing and anxious to operate it, but they have to see the individual circumstances. They may say, "Look, this is basically a very good idea, but in this particular example it is damned silly and it will waste the referral committee's time." My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was right to draw attention to a mistake that we made in government. This Government have been in power for such a short time that they have not made any mistakes, but that may change. I know that irony is the most dangerous political weapon, because when people read comments they tend to take them at face value. It could come out over the airwaves that the former Attorney-General has said that the Government have made no mistakes and it would be quoted back to me. We made a mistake with unit fines. There was some merit in the idea, but it was barmy. I was Solicitor-General when the policy was slipping through. It shows how little we know of what goes on in other Departments. I confess—in Latin if necessary—that the unit fines system slipped through and it was intolerable. I have far too much respect for the Home Secretary to want to see him make a similar mistake. It would not be as bad, because the worst consequence would probably be to waste the time of referral committees. That is a pity, because they need to be labour-intensive. That is why I commend them so strongly. We have to spend a great deal of time on youth justice, particularly with people in the early stages of offending. Time, effort and expertise are well used at that stage in a person's career of potential wrongdoing. 3 pm A resource, such as those committees, should not have its time wasted, and the elaborations of the court should not be made necessary by inflexibility in the structure of the Act, as it will be. That is why I support the new clause. I do so honestly, although I do not think that the new clause is the perfect answer as it also uses the word "shall". However, it gives more options before we reach compulsory referral. There is little opportunity left for the Home Secretary, as we are getting to Third Reading today. However, I beg him to try to find a way to allow the court honest flexibility. He may say that there is a certain flexibility because courts can always impose a fine.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

That is the whole point—the courts cannot impose a fine. However, there will be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to think again. If he gets his way, and neither the new clause nor the Liberal Democrat amendment is accepted, the Bill will go back to the other place with the measure reversed. The Home Secretary's noble colleagues will then have to explain why.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to get back to the sensible position suggested by their Lordships in a thoroughly constructive amendment to this otherwise thoroughly sensible proposal by the Government. Our suggestion—that a fine or conditional discharge would provide more flexibility—is a second-best, but a useful second-best. I ask the House to think seriously about supporting the new clause. The Home Secretary must not think it necessary to force these referral committees to take every case. They will be extremely enthusiastic to take up the right kind of case, and they will need no forcing. I have long experience of working with magistrates at every level, publicly and privately, and my impression is that they cry out for new measures, which they welcome with open arms when they are flexible. They will welcome the proposal with open arms, but it would be much more useful to them if the flexibility that was wisely proposed by the Lords—it is not a slap in the face for the Government, but a sensible suggestion—could be restored.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I have every sympathy for the Bill, and this part in particular, but I agree with the thrust of the new clause. The basic problem that we have faced—it was raised time and again in Committee—is the inflexibility of this clause. I hope that Labour Members will not say that I have misunderstood it. I have 25 years' experience as an advocate, and I have a limited ability to understand legislation. The new approach is, of course, welcome, and it gives an opportunity to avoid criminalising a young person who may, early on, be put back on the rails. It is a good investment of time and resources. For every reason, it is a good idea. However, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire on the question of flexibility, which is the key issue. Before I address that matter, there are one or two points about new clause 1 that I cannot quite accept, such as the precondition that a custodial sentence must be available. Many serious offences do not carry a custodial sentence, and that is a slight concern. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has worked extremely hard on this Bill, but I disagree with one of his points in relation to people electing trial to the Crown court. With some judges that I know—present company excepted—one would be better advised not to do that. One could end up with a right old tanning in some of the places where I used to practise. I agree that bringing in the conditional discharge—referred to by both the hon. Member for Ryedale and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—is a proper and sensible approach. The inflexibility of the mandatory approach is most unfortunate. I plead guilty to having introduced the subject of the milk bottle into the Committee's deliberations. I was probably subliminally concerned about the dairy industry. However, I ask the House to consider this example. At a temporary traffic light system where one can see from one end to the other, a young person sees that nothing is coming and drives through. He should not have done it—we all know that. That offence is not endorsable. However, under the Bill, that young person might well have to spend 12 months in a multidisciplinary panel approach because of that one transgression, which is not even endorsable. I am sure that there are many other examples. I am not trying to clever—I am making a point about the inflexibility of the Government's mandatory approach. There are huge resource implications. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) may disagree. No doubt he will say that I have misunderstood the matter. I agree with the thrust of the Bill, and I am not arguing about the theory behind it or the practice of it. However, I am saying that it will not be appropriate for all offences.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I believe sincerely that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This not a 12-month sentence to anything. This is an opportunity for a panel to be almost infinitely flexible and to address that young person's behaviour in a variety of ways.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

What variety of ways are needed over a period of between three and 12 months to address the offending behaviour to which I referred? What possible expert or authority could be involved? What can be done with that type of person? These are just words. With respect, that is a complete nonsense.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the example he has given, that young person has demonstrated a serious miscalculation of risk to himself or herself and to others, and that while nothing untoward may have occurred on that occasion, it is an important moment to get that young person to address that risk-taking to ensure that it does not escalate?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Lady makes a good point, forcefully. I accept what she says in that instance, and the point has been made. She has a valid point, and I do not profess to have the monopoly of wisdom. My main concern is the mandatory form—the inflexibility. There are two main ways of making bad law. One is to rush it and to repent at leisure. The second is to introduce something that is inflexible. One of the worst-ever pieces of legislation passed by this House concerned the Child Support Agency, and we are still grappling with it. That was so inflexible, it did not work. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the unit fines system. I was in daily practice at that time, and the number of injustices that poured out of magistrates courts, day in, day out, was an absolute disgrace. That was again because of inflexibility. The poll tax is another example. I note that the Home Secretary is laughing loudly. I am pleased that he is enjoying himself. I fully endorse the drift of the provision and agree with the new penalty, which will help young people in many cases; but there will be huge resource implications. Perhaps the Home Secretary does not realise how much it will cost. In some parts of north Wales and Merseyside it already takes up to six or seven weeks to get a probation report. The system will be clogged up with new referrals. I hope that the resources and expertise will be in place. I wish the system well but I foresee problems arising from its mandatory nature.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I gather that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State described my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) as an old lag in these matters. I plead guilty to being a first offender. It is not an area in which I spend much time. I have spent a great deal of time on other legislation, from the safest of all possible positions, as a lay legislator, not a legally qualified one. I am very much in sympathy with what my hon. Friend and others have said today, above all about the need for flexibility. I want to cite an example from completely outwith the Home Office. Recent protracted experience of the national minimum wage legislation encouraged us, in Committee, despite our opposition to the principle, to offer the Government the opportunity for flexibility in the drafting, giving them what one might loosely call a get-out clause: if something had been overlooked or got wrong, it would be possible to amend it to take account of the particular circumstances of a case. Almost immediately, such an opportunity arose in respect of au pairs. The legislation was unsatisfactory, as it would have brought to an end the ability of the majority of the people who employ au pairs to continue to do so. The Government had to strain legal language to the uttermost to get round inflexible legislation that was set in stone, redefining not the workers who were excluded but the work, in a way that I, as a lay person, find legally implausible. I suspect that it would have been easier to sustain the concept behind unit fines, which is not a bad one, had magistrates been able to vary their operation when they deemed that appropriate in the interests of justice or in the light of all the circumstances of a case. 3.15 pm We have here a piece of machinery conceived for the best possible reasons, which I support in general—I have no argument with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on that—but if we say that we must tie it down in every single case because we cannot trust those who operate it to make a judgment, we start giving rise to trouble. If one is buying into the European convention, it is important that any punishment should be appropriate to the circumstances, not disproportionate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) cited the example of someone driving through a red light wrongly but not endorsably. It is not at all clear that the procedure would be appropriate in that case. I am not saying that the Home Secretary would not win in court if there were a challenge, but he would have to go to court to prove the point, which is unfortunate. I am much more concerned with the lay sanctions in two respects. One of the Government's characteristics is a careful following of the tabloid press. If we say that referral to a youth offender panel must take place in all cases, a case is bound to arise in which it is darn silly to do it. The magistrates and the Home Secretary will be unable to do anything about it and it will appear in the press in a way that discredits the system. The press will ask how any sensible group of legislators could get themselves into such a situation. The second area of discredit, which I find equally disturbing, concerns the young offenders themselves. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was absolutely right to ask what the panel would offer a young person in the circumstances that he described. We are talking not about a pattern of offending leading to a first appearance in court—I am at one with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre in that respect—but about a person who has behaved in a stupid and irresponsible way once. The very fact that the person has been apprehended, resulting eventually in a court appearance, is probably sufficient in itself. Going through the elaborate rigmarole of a youth offender panel may well not meet the case. It might in some cases; that is not the issue. The issue is whether there should be discretion to waive the process when appropriate. The provisions sit extremely ill with legislation that the Home Office introduced only yesterday in relation to spot fines. In that case, the police officer will have discretion: he may or may not decide to proceed. We are saying that police officers can have flexibility and discretion, but magistrates cannot. If the system is set up to allow a silly result, there has to be a safety valve at the end of the case. I predict what the safety valve will be: the case will be referred to the youth offender panel, with much cost and complication; the panel will meet and it will come up with what I will frankly call a Noddy solution—one that does not address the one—off offence, but is a fiction. That adds a further element of discredit, because it takes the emphasis away from the experience of cases in which the new system is applied sensibly and appropriately and puts it on cases in which the system should never have been considered. It is the sign of a mature Government not to say that they do not trust those who take decisions in the courts based on the legislation that they have passed. We should offer some flexibility. As a constituency Member who is concerned about young people, I have no problem with the concept of the system, but I am concerned that it may be discredited by being applied inappropriately and in a way that will attract opprobrium and hole it below the water line, when in fact we want it to succeed.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I begin with an apology to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), as a constituency matter meant that I missed the beginning of his remarks. However, I caught the flavour of them at the end, and his sensible points about the need for flexibility have been adopted in subsequent contributions. I also wish to declare that I am a member of the Bar. Ministers must listen carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in favour of more flexibility. Labour Members have made some good contributions to the debate, but they are making slightly heavy weather of the issues. There is no need to go over the arguments about restorative justice and referral to youth panels, as there is wide agreement in the House on them. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said in support of the new clause did not contradict the general principle of restorative justice, and it cannot be said that the need for restorative justice disposes of the new clause as the administration of restorative justice requires flexibility. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy practised for 25 years in youth courts and has much greater experience than either I or the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). However, the Government must consider very carefully the arguments of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about flexibility—which I shall turn to in a moment—and about the availability of referral to a youth offender panel in cases where a custodial sentence is not available. The Bill restricts referral to cases punishable with imprisonment. That is one of the conditions. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked about those offences that are not punishable with imprisonment but which magistrates think might be dealt with appropriately by referral to a young offender panel. That is an important question, but the Minister of State looks puzzled.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

It is a Conservative new clause.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

That just shows how important flexibility is. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made another important point in favour of flexibility when he said that magistrates will decide such cases. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said in an intervention that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy did not get the point because the youth offender panel could administer justice in a wide variety of ways and that it had a lot of flexibility. I see that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre agrees that that was his point, but magistrates will know the youth offender panel's capabilities and they may think that a more appropriate way to deal with a case is by means of conditional discharge or a fine.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the youth offender panel will be able to discuss such matters in depth and to examine a range of different ways to deal with offending behaviour and the underlying problems that become evident? The panel will be able to make decisions on the basis of knowledge that simply is not available to a youth court.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I appreciate that, but such decisions come after magistrates have heard the facts of a case and representations from both sides. One of the conditions for referral is that the court does not intend to impose a custodial sentence. After hearing the facts of a case, the court therefore will have to consider whether to impose a custodial sentence. That is a very important question. The hon. Gentleman's experience will tell him that the courts will want to think carefully about that. They will want to avoid imposing a custodial sentence if to do so would be unduly harsh, but they will also want to be certain that a case is not so serious that a custodial sentence is justified. The magistrates will also know what is available under a youth offender panel and might conclude that a case is best dealt with by means of conditional discharge or a fine. It has been suggested that this rather modest new clause will undermine the edifice of restorative justice, but that is not the intention. It would give flexibility and discretion to the courts, and we should trust the magistrates. I share the very high opinion of lay magistrates expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). Lay magistrates are very conscientious and perform an important function, and Ministers would do well to take on board what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He performed an elegant parliamentary minuet and handed a bouquet to Ministers when he commended the ideas of restorative justice and of referral to youth offender panels. Bouquets, as opposed to brickbats, are not often given to Governments by Oppositions—it certainly did not happen much before May 1997. Ministers must now think about the desirability of flexibility. A warning should be taken from the recent past. I was not in the House when the Criminal Justice Act 1990 was passed—although I was a Conservative supporter then—so I have no expert knowledge about whether the Labour Opposition at the time were especially astute when it came to uncovering the inadequacies of that measure. I see the Minister of State smiling in a puzzled way, but we still use the framework of the 1990 Act for sentencing in criminal courts. In their amended form, the provisions have proved durable and I am not aware of any clamour for their repeal. Before the 1990 Act was amended to take account of problems with unit costs and courts' inability to take previous convictions into account, it gave rise to great concerns among practitioners, who shared their unease with Members of Parliament at constituency surgeries. The Act was subsequently amended to render it more sensible and flexible. Ministers must listen to what has been said about flexibility and avoid tying the hands of the courts. Magistrates and judges dislike nothing more than being forced by law to take a certain course when the facts of the case suggest that a different course would be appropriate.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Another aspect of flexibility is worth mentioning. Has my hon. Friend noticed that the new clause also gives the Home Secretary flexibility to widen slightly the ambit of referral, which need not apply solely to the absolute first-time offender? I fully understand the Home Office's anxiety not to have too many such referrals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions of the new clause would be valuable in many cases involving young people under 18 who are not absolutely first-time offenders? Would not the Home Secretary be wise to consider that aspect of the new clause as well?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has gone on too long.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

My right hon. and learned Friend sensibly pressed the point that we should leave it to the courts to choose horses for courses. If they are dealing with a young person, perhaps one with a previous conviction, they should have the flexibility to deal with that person as they see fit. I prefer to trust the courts with a measure of discretion within a sound legislative framework. The courts should have available all the powers that they need, and it should be up to them to use them as they wish. We do not know the facts of individual cases, but magistrates hear the facts and the representations. Their experience and training give them discretion on how best to deal with particular cases. I do not agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but the Home Secretary should deal with two of the points that he made. First, victims should feel that they have a say in sentencing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Committee for which I had the privilege of serving on, set up the advisory panel. We said that it should include representatives of victims organisations, and we received certain general assurances from the Government. I should be happy if the Home Secretary would write to tell me what voice victims will have on the panel. Does anyone on the panel represent victims organisations? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also feared that the Bill spread resources too widely. It may be that resources will be inappropriately used because of the Bill's inflexibility. What are the implications for the probation service? We need flexibility, and Ministers should trust the courts. The Government are making slightly heavy weather of the Bill. I cannot see why they put up such fierce resistance to a sensible amendment that has won support on both sides of the House and in the other place. It would be in the spirit of criminal justice legislation if the Government showed some flexibility and listened to representations, even by those who essentially agree with them.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

My only qualification for speaking is that I have no qualifications. By definition, I also have no interests to declare. I have never served as a Home Office Minister, perhaps partly because my father once did, and I felt that one member of a family in two generations in the Home Office was an adequate discharge of duty for a single human group. Nor am I a lawyer, although my younger brother is. He is, in fact, the first member of the family in several generations to have been a lawyer. I once heard him at a local government wards inquiry, but I have never attended upon a court in which he was appearing. I have been a juror only once, when I heard a case involving a kebab house that was operating without a licence. The case took four days, but it was not enough on which to build an understanding of the entire legal system. Neville Cardus once said that, even if all other batsmen in the world were destroyed in a holocaust, but Tom Graveney remained, we could reconstruct the total art of batsmanship. A wise lady scholar once said that we could construct the entire administration of the Roman empire from the construction of ut with the subjunctive. However, I defy anyone to construct the full majesty of the legal system on a single case involving a kebab house. When I accepted an invitation to attend West London magistrates court's open day in May—the Lord Chancellor had encouraged them to hold it, and I think the practice extremely good—I did not know that I would be speaking in this debate. Indeed, it would not be dishonest to disclose that I did not know that I would speak in this debate until 2.15 pm today. I come to the Chamber with a mind of molten wax on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has most eloquently inscribed my education in these matters. Had I known that I would speak today, I should have paid even closer attention than I did to what I was told at the West London magistrates court. I enjoyed that visit very much, not least because of a wholly admirable dramatic scenario—it ran all day, but I heard only part of it—in the youth court, in which contemporary cases, written up and prepared in advance in line with present practice, were acted out with splendid realism. That demonstrated how valuable the open days are. It was standing room only for the general public who attended the open day. I have not yet heard the Government's case on new clause 1—indeed, I am preventing the Home Secretary from offering it. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and I felt that there was nothing between the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman on the virtues of the proposed procedure. The real test of the issue is whether the harness in which the magistrates will work should be the leather harness commended by the great Duke of Wellington or the iron harness on which the great Napoleon Bonaparte always relied. Bonaparte's dying words may well have been, "We have enlarged the borders of glory", but it was the leather harness that did for him at the battle of Waterloo. During the last Parliament, a leader in The Daily Telegraph rebuked me for speaking in gentle opposition to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—then the Home Secretary—on the subject of mandatory sentences. I forget the position then taken by the present Home Secretary, and I do not seek to provoke him into telling me, but I opposed mandatory sentences on the a priori grounds that it was a mistake for judges and the Executive to be in conflict. It was especially so when the Executive in conflict with the judiciary was a Conservative one. Despite The Daily Telegraph, I remain of the same view today. We should trust magistrates, rather than making up their minds for them.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

It is a privilege to speak to these amendments. The House is broadly agreed about the principles in this part of the Bill, although there are substantial disagreements about how the proposals might operate in practice. One of the few benefits of being in opposition—there were very few, and I do not recommend it—was that one was able to think about particular institutions in greater depth than one can manage when in government. Along with right hon. and hon. Friends and people outside the House, I paid particular attention to the profound defects of the youth justice system. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) have referred to the current arrangements for dealing with young offenders. To call those arrangements a system is to offer them greater dignity than they deserve. The system is inadequate. It lacks coherence, speed and a connection between the commission of an offence and the correction and punishment that would make it clear to the young offender that the offence should not have been committed and secure some possibility that reoffending would be avoided. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the Scottish example. The Scottish children's panels have been operating for about three decades. They are criticised within Scotland more than they are admired outside—that is always the case. None the less, when I visited Glasgow to look at the operation of the panels, everyone to whom I spoke was in favour of the system. When I consulted my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party on that matter, I wrote to all of them asking—without leading the answers—what they thought about the youth justice system. It was significant that all the replies of Members representing Scottish constituencies supported the principle of children's panels. Those Members pointed out that some changes might be made, but that the principle was sound and it was working. However, every Labour Member representing an English or Welsh constituency said that those youth justice arrangements were not working and needed to be changed. We considered Scotland, and some of my colleagues travelled to New Zealand to examine its arrangements for family conferencing. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) mentioned, several of us have studied carefully the considerable innovations in the Thames Valley police district, under the leadership of the chief constable, Charles Pollard. We tried to distil that experience to ensure that we developed it against the background of the operation of the English and Welsh legal system, and in order to introduce proposals that would bring into the law those principles of restorative justice—they are contained in part I of the Bill. I will deal with the specific criticisms that the scheme is too inflexible. I do not think that it is, but I shall answer the point. We are not dealing merely with yet another disposal for the existing youth justice courts; we are dealing with a wholly new approach to young offenders. Although I hope to convince the House, especially sceptical Opposition Members, that the disposal has inherent flexibility, it is inappropriate merely to offer this disposal on a menu of others—alongside fines, conditional discharges or anything else. We want to change the way in which youth offending is corrected, which brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Those Members of the House who have had experience of working in the youth courts—as I did many years ago—or of observing the youth courts, as I did much more recently, will realise that the most disturbing fact about the current operation is that the young offender is, at best, a spectator in a theatre where other people are the actors. At worst, the young offender is wholly detached and contemptuous of what is going on. We have had a high-flown debate. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) speaking in Brechtian terms of alienation. He was right to do so, because that is exactly what we witness in the theatre of the youth courts. I have been in youth courts where the young offender was talked at, talked across and talked about, but never talked to. The young offender was never asked to engage his or her brain as to what he or she had done, or why—and, above all, why he or she hurt the victim of that crime. Indeed, under the current system, after the young offender has heard everyone else talk about him or her, he or she might be forgiven for thinking that there is only one victim—the young offender. Often, his or her sense of injustice at being caught and at appearing before the court is reinforced by the excuses that are trotted out on his or her behalf.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It worries me that what happens in court under the system that will be produced by the Bill will not be so very different from what happens at present. I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's comments on that matter. The young offender will be engaged—rightly so—on the occasion when the restorative aspects of the Bill come into effect. After pleading guilty, the young offender will be sent off to the panel and the panel will then engage him. However, the Home Secretary seems to be confusing those two aspects—I am sorry to use such a harsh word as "confusing". We want to make the point that although restorative justice is extremely valuable, it is too valuable to be used in every case; the courts should be allowed to decide.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I do not accept that. I shall deal with the inherent flexibility of the system in a moment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had his way, he would be correct in saying that the court procedures, prior to the transfer to the panel, would be similar to current arrangements. The similarity would reside in the fact that, in every case, the court would have to go through the often time-consuming and, in many cases, unnecessary process of seeking a pre-sentence report. That takes up time and, I regret, does not necessarily leave the court any the wiser. Under the Bill, where other conditions are satisfied and the court decides that neither an absolute discharge nor a sentence of immediate custody are appropriate—or that in some cases, as I shall explain, even if the offence is an imprisonable one, a sentence of immediate custody is not available because of the operation of other provisions—clause 1 will operate automatically to secure a transfer to the panel if the offender pleads guilty. That will help to reduce the time taken in the theatre of the court. An inherent feature of the arrangements is the long-standing policy of successive Governments and courts of encouraging those who are guilty to plead guilty. To conclude the formal part of the court process by a reference to the panel should act as further encouragement. Opposition Members have questioned the flexibility of the proposed scheme. I accept what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have said about the inflexibility of the unit fine arrangements introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Indeed, other parts of that Act were inflexible. Extraordinarily, I did not protest at the time, although I was doing other things as a member of the Opposition Front Bench. However, I should have protested had I noticed the extraordinary inclusion in the 1991 Act that previous convictions should not be taken into account. It would have been eccentric for even an old Labour Government to introduce such a measure, but, given that the original policy was published when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, I feel that it should be regarded as an abberation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As the former Solicitor-General, he may have been the author of that abberation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. My intervention will be very brief. I am certainly not the author of the abberation. I am afraid that it was deep within the psyche of the Home Office at the time. The judges then construed it in a way that saddened many of us, and they did not get the Home Office out of its hole; in fact, they dug it into a deeper hole, and we had to get it out of the hole later.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

That may or may not be the case, but I do not recall seeing a Home Office civil servant moving the Second Reading of the legislation that began as the Criminal Justice Bill in 1990. My former constituency neighbour, now Lord Waddington—who was not seen as being on the soft side of the Tory party—was the Home Secretary of the day. Wherever the idea came from, Ministers had clearly discussed it collectively at some length, and had agreed on it. It was not a minor matter. It was not an issue like that involving the Passport Agency, which Home Secretaries may be forgiven for thinking has operated reasonably well for some time—while it is operating well, that is; not otherwise. However, we will not pursue that little excursion. The circumstances with which the Bill deals are very different from those provided for by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in regard to unit fines. Flexibility is inherent in the Bill in its present form. Referral will be automatic when there is no absolute discharge or immediate custody. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 8. There is considerable flexibility in what is actually contained in the contract of a young offender. It certainly does not say, "The case will be transferred to the panel, and this or that must happen." Subsection (2) states: The terms of the programme may"— not "shall"— include provision for any of the following". The subsection makes provision for the offender to make financial or other reparation to any person who appears to the panel to be a victim of, or otherwise affected by, the offence". That amounts to a financial penalty, which the panel can impose, while taking more account of the resources of the young person involved than a court might. The clause requires offenders to attend mediation sessions with any such victim or other person". It requires offenders to carry out unpaid work or service … the offender to be at home at times specified in or determined under the programme"— that means a curfew. It requires attendance by the offender at a school … the offender to participate in specified activities … the offender to present himself to specified persons … to stay away from specified places or persons and so forth. If offenders refuse to comply with any of the provisions in the contracts that they have signed, they must go back to court and they will be sentenced for their original offence. That is the first part of the flexibility mechanism that has been introduced.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Home Secretary has explained the provision clearly. Is it not the case, however, that, because the referral is mandatory, it will be a prerequisite for the panel to meet and draw up a contract in each case, even in cases in which—as Conservative Members have tended to argue—referral is inappropriate, and the drawing up of a contract may well be not just otiose but inimical to the cause of preparation?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

With great respect, I simply do not accept that.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

When I mentioned resource implications earlier, the Home Secretary shook his head vigorously. Is he now saying that clause 8 has no resource implications?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

No, I am not saying that. Most measures that are presented to the House have resource consequences. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 211 of the explanatory notes? I do not suggest that he has them to hand, but they contain details of the Bill's financial effects. They state—of course, these are estimates—that referrals to youth offender panels will save the probation service around £5.1 million, but will impose costs of about half a million pounds, given the revenue required for fines. Clause 6 will require some increased recruitment for training, which will be met by the comprehensive spending review settlement for pilot youth justice schemes in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Part of the purpose of the pilot scheme is to ensure not just that the scheme works, but that we have clear estimates of its total costs. I cannot say this for certain, but I believe that, if it operates efficiently it will save court costs. It ought to save on legal aid as well. Of course, there will be expenditure on the part of the youth offender panels, but I do not think that the Bill will lead to a great increase in spending overall.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I must make progress, but I will take one last intervention from the former Solicitor-General.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am extremely grateful. May I ask the Home Secretary about his most recent answer to a question about clause 8? Is he not making the mistake of drawing a parallel with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969? Is it not the case that, according to the Home Secretary's view of the Bill, the courts cannot be trusted to make disposals? I am talking about the inflexibility that means that unless someone is locked up as a result of a custodial sentence, or receives an absolute discharge, the courts have no discretion—the discretion is handed over to the panel. Is that not a big mistake?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I do not accept that. It is not a question of trusting the courts; it is a question of whether the magistrates court is the appropriate forum to determine the content of the programme under the referral order. In many cases, experienced youth justice magistrates will be members of the panels.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I must get on with my speech. In Scotland, issues of guilt and innocence are dealt with by the sheriff—a paid judicial office-holder—rather than by magistrates. The Scottish system has moved away from the idea of magistrates courts dealing with issues involving not just the sentence and disposal of young offenders, but their guilt. Our proposals require people to be experienced and professional. I have a high regard for lay magistrates: I think they recognise that dealing with young offenders requires considerable professionalism and training. Indeed, it is possible that members of the proposed panels might have to be magistrates. The Opposition asked whether other disposals should be available. First, let me deal with the issue of conditional discharge. It is my judgment—I make no apology for it—that conditional discharge is a hopeless disposal for young people, many of whom will have received a number of conditional discharges, or their equivalent, before even going to court. Unless a grave offence is involved, for which a conditional discharge is not appropriate anyway—I mean a serious offence; I do not mean a grave offence within the meaning of clause 53—the police will have already issued warnings and cautions. When I visited youth courts, I took exception to the fact that, in some cases, half the disposals were conditional discharges. Those of us who have practised in such courts know all too well that young offenders regard conditional discharges as a case of, "I got away with it again." In section 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we made it impossible for a conditional discharge to be issued by a youth court if a final warning had been issued within the previous two years. In most cases, it would not in any sense be available. 4 pm There are currently severe problems with the collection of fines, even against adults—so much so that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are extremely concerned. In far too many courts throughout the country, far too many fines are remitted—in other words, cancelled—when defaulters wilfully refuse to pay. Except for a small minority—the older age group—the offenders with which this Bill deals will not have resources of their own, so the idea that a fine would be an appropriate penalty is not realistic. There has been a great deal of discussion of the case of the young person who goes through a red light, so let us deal with it. Statistically, the most numerous group of young offenders who transgress the red light will be aged less than 17: they cannot have a driving licence because they are under age, so they will be literally driving while disqualified from driving. It is probable that they will also be committing many other offences as well. If they have nicked a car or are driving without a licence, it is a serious offence, not a trivial one. Therefore, even if they happen to jump a red light, it is likely that they have committed other, more serious offences. There will be a small group of red light offenders aged 17 to 18 who have a driving licence—those who, because one has to wait a bit before getting a licence, are in the last nine months of their 17th year. Because gravity factors are already laid down for dealing with offences, most offenders from that small group who jump a light will get a police reprimand or a final warning under our scheme. They might get a fixed penalty: if they accept it, that is the end of the matter and the new arrangements are not triggered. Also, if they object to the fixed penalty, go to court and plead not guilty, the new arrangements are not triggered because they have pleaded not guilty. The circumstances in which a young offender has jumped a light and the arrangements are then triggered will be few and far between. My judgment is that, in those circumstances, it may well be appropriate to send the youngster to the youth panel. Youngsters in the 17 to 20 age range can commit extremely reckless driving offences. We know that roughly a quarter of all driving offences are committed by those aged between 17 and 24. In many parts of the United States—a country with which we compete for the best road safety record—if youngsters offend against traffic regulations, they are made the subject of the sort of intervention that we seek, rather than being fined or having their offence treated as a trivial matter. I hope that it is recognised that, in the few circumstances in which the new arrangements are triggered, they are appropriate. I have one final point on the issue of flexibility. I accept—although I doubt it—that the pilots might disclose that there are inflexibilities unanticipated by the House, or the prospect of which has so far been resisted by the Government. For that reason, clause 2(3) provides: The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section"— the one that lays down the triggers— as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the compulsory referral conditions or the discretionary referral conditions fall to be satisfied for purposes of section 1(2) or (3) (as the case may be). Therefore, that flexibility is written into the Bill. The Government have no more interest than the Opposition in ending up with a scheme that is brought into disrepute because of inflexibility at the margin, so we shall watch the pilots carefully. My final comments relate to the provision in the Opposition new clause that would extend the conditions which have to be satisfied before there can be a referral. It contains the phrase: for which a custodial sentence is available". I occupied the Opposition Front Bench for almost 17 years, and it was always irritating to me when clever-dick Ministers stood up and said that an amendment was "technically defective". None the less, although the Government resist the principle behind the new clause, that phrase itself is so seriously technically defective that, even if that were our only objection to the new clause—of course, it is not—it would be sufficient to make us reject it. The phrase describes not an offence that is imprisonable for an adult, but an offence in which a custodial sentence is available for the offender before the court. Any imprisonable offence for adults is also an offence for which custody is available for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds; but, leaving aside grave offences, custody is available for 12, 13 and 14-year olds only if the offender has previously been convicted of at least two other similar offences and has breached a supervision order in respect of one of them. If the new clause were accepted as drafted, we could end up with the curious situation in which, having decided that custody was not going to be used, a court could not use the transfer referral order to the panel because custody was not available for that offender, and therefore had to impose a fine or a conditional discharge. The extent to which the provision is defective and would hobble the court is obvious. I hope that the House accepts that I have tried to answer, as fully as I can, the points raised by Opposition Members. The provisions are extremely important. If they are successfully piloted, as I believe they will be, and with the backing of the House and the other place, we shall in years to come be able to look back on this period—indeed, on today—as an occasion on which we began the most major reform since the war of the way in which we deal with young offenders.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's tutorial on life on the Opposition Front Bench. We have no intention of spending anything like as long on the Opposition Benches before returning to the Benches that his party currently occupies. None the less, we are grateful for the manner in which he has responded to our arguments. Modesty forbids my revealing the source of the phrase that he has just described as technically inaccurate and defective. However, our intention in tabling new clause 1 is to make a fundamental point, which is why I shall shortly invite the House to express its view in the Lobby. I am also grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke in support of the general principle of flexibility. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) failed to explain the Liberal Democrats change of heart on a provision of discretion that his noble Friends in the other place thought so important as to be persuaded to vote in favour of amending a fundamental aspect of clause 1—the "shall" to "may" amendment, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred. The Liberal Democrats in the other place supported that amendment, yet, not only did the Liberal Democrat Members in this place vote in Committee against the decision of their noble Friends, but they now speak in favour of the Government's position. We shall be fascinated to see what the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friends make of that when the Bill returns to the other place. I have an inkling that the question of discretion will come up again when, as seems certain, the other place is asked to consider whether the Government's scheme is correct. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke in favour of the general principle of additional flexibility. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that I am glad that we tabled the new clause, not least because of the amusing and enlightening contribution that it enabled him to make. My right hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—who, not so long ago, moved from shadowing this Department to shadowing education and speaks from considerable experience and knowledge of the Bill—all spoke in favour of a degree of flexibility. With no disrespect to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall, in the final analysis, rely more on the contribution of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has 25 years' experience as a criminal barrister. Although he has difficulty with one or two elements of the new clause, I am sure that he will understand—as I am sure the Home Secretary does—the intricacies of ensuring that we have before us proposals that have not been debated in Committee. It is therefore in order for us to debate those proposals today, and we bore that in mind when drafting new clause 1. In Committee and in the debate today, the hon. Gentleman spoke from experience and pointed out that there is a lack of flexibility in the Bill which will lead to inconsistency, a sense of injustice and, in time, discrediting of the Government's proposals. There was nothing in the Home Secretary's remarks that responded to the issue, which I addressed in some depth, of on-the-spot fines for young offenders. By delving into clause 8, he served only to heighten our concerns. He effectively concluded that the courts cannot be trusted, a point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire made in an extremely good intervention. The more one considers the scheme, the more one sees the clear discrepancy between what would be included in a youth offender contract and the way in which that young person would be disposed of, for the same offence, if he or she were given an on-the-spot fine or fixed penalty notice. I find it extraordinary that, knowing that we were likely to have this debate today, the Minister of State found it timely yesterday to table the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Get off.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Get off', but in no way have his remarks addressed the point that we have made throughout the debate. If a policeman decides to give a 16 or 17-year-old tearaway a fixed penalty notice, that is the end of it, but the court cannot have the same discretion. What is more, if the case ends up going to court, the same circumstances will result in a referral to a youth offender panel, where within the menu of the contract there is nothing available to the panel that is comparable to a fixed penalty notice. In addition, the panels are likely to prescribe a different course of action in the contracts that they draw up. There will be a huge variation in those contracts, compared with those of other panels, for precisely the same offence. That, too, is an inconsistency that will be the harbinger of resentment, which leads to alienation and is the very opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve. 4.15 pm The Government could, particularly in Committee, have accepted that their clause is too narrowly drawn. I thought that at the very end of his remarks, the Home Secretary almost admitted that the power that he has under clause 2—which is, in any case, incorporated into our new clause—to vary all the provisions in the light of experience means that perhaps the Government have not got this right and will have to return to it in the future. The Government will, in any case, run into choppy waters in the other place over this issue. It is disappointing that they have not felt able at least to admit that a tiny degree of extra flexibility ought to be incorporated into the Bill. On Report, we discuss new clauses and amendments tabled by the Opposition to make a point about the Government's Bill, and those new clauses and amendments are bound, on occasion, not to have been drafted entirely correctly—but I do not believe that that should dissuade Opposition Members from pressing the point. We invite the House to support new clause 1 in the Lobbies because we genuinely believe that the Government are making an error of judgment. When that error comes to light, we shall at least have the satisfaction of being able to point to our attitude to the Bill, and, in years to come, the opportunity in government of putting it right.

YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS: FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS

CONDITIONS FOR MAKING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 44(5)

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As I did in Committee, I remind the House that I have an interest as a consultant to ITV Network Ltd., but none of the matters that we are to debate this afternoon are of concern to the broadcast media. Indeed, as I said in Committee, it is the printed media rather than the broadcast media that have residual concerns about the provisions of clause 44. Clause 44, which was previously clause 43, seeks to clarify the law on press reporting restrictions on the identification of children and young persons under the age of 18, who may have been involved in criminal offences. The proposals as originally drafted, before the Bill began its passage through the other place, gave rise to huge anxiety and concern that they were too far-reaching and would seriously inhibit media, particularly local and regional newspapers, from reporting criminal incidents of a more or less general nature. Several well-known crimes were cited as events that the press would have been restricted in reporting. The appalling murder of James Bulger was one. Another was the horrific tragedy at Dunblane. The Bill does not apply to Scotland, but had such an incident occurred in England, it would have been subject to the provisions. Perhaps the most accurate example was the attack on a school playground in Wolverhampton, in which a number of children were injured and considerable bravery was displayed by a teacher, Lisa Potts. Arising from those concerns, changes were introduced in the other place, including some important defences to publication. One such defence would be that permission had been granted by the parents or guardians. Another would be that the criminal investigation in respect of the incident had not begun, although we still are not clear how wide or narrow that window is likely to be in practice. A third would be the inadvertent reporting of the identity of a young person. The final such case would be one in which the reporting could be considered to be in the public interest, as defined by the open reporting of crime. Those changes were welcome and we supported them, but the position was still not satisfactory. Many right hon. and hon. Members have been contacted by their local newspapers with expressions of concern about the implications of the restrictions for the reporting of relatively routine incidents. In particular, it was stressed that the local press often play an important and beneficial role—for example, when an incident such as a kidnapping has occurred—in helping the police to trace the whereabouts of the people concerned. Such an incident occurred recently in the Home Secretary's constituency, Blackburn. As a result of co-operation between the police and local media, the young person, who sadly had fallen into the control of a known sex offender, was located and taken back to his home and to safety. There is no doubt that the press often report such incidents responsibly and constructively, with beneficial consequences for the criminal process.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we are discussing circumstances in which young people under the age of 18 are the victims of crime, not the possible perpetrators of the crime?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters. It will become clear that there is a differentiation along the lines that she suggests. That is the essence of our concern and the point of the new clause. In Committee, in response to the anxieties that I have outlined, the Government tabled an amendment that limited the effect of the immediate prohibition on reporting to the identification of young persons under the age of 18 who were likely to be the accused or the defendant in a criminal case. With regard to victims or witnesses to a criminal incident, the provision will have effect only if the Secretary of State has laid an order that is debated and approved subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses. We must consider whether there is a case for a wider prohibition than is currently enshrined in our law in respect of a young person who may be a defendant or an accused in a criminal court. Having given the matter a great deal of thought, Conservative Members have accepted, as I told the Minister in Committee, that perhaps there is such a case. Perhaps the most celebrated example of the type of abuse that the Bill would now prevent was that of Mr. Adam Dent, an extremely bright 15-year-old who was already an undergraduate. He was falsely accused of rape and his academic career was ruined as a consequence of the publicity. He was not only not convicted but never charged. I have done a little research since the Bill was in Committee and I understand that that case took place when the previous Government introduced the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Some consideration was given to whether a prohibition such as that which the Government are introducing in the Bill might have been appropriate to that legislation, but one could not be incorporated because the content of the Bill restricted the actions of the then Government and they could not make such an amendment. Although we are prepared to accept that there is a case for strengthening the law further to protect young persons who have been accused of a crime, some concern remains. The Minister will be aware of a case that has been cited in the general discussion about the provisions. A 16-year-old girl was arrested as she emerged from a tunnel from which she had been protesting about a road development and a picture of her beaming face appeared across the top of the front page of The Times; I am told that the photograph is still on its website. She was identified by every national newspaper except one. She was never prosecuted. Clearly, if such an incident arose again, national newspapers would have to rely on some of the other defences and it remains to be seen whether those defences will prove adequate. In spite of our agreement that there is a case in principle for further change, it is likely that the new provisions—even in respect of young persons who are defendants—will cause some difficulty and in due course will test the Home Secretary's willingness to work with the Press Complaints Commission to discuss and review the best long-term approach to these matters. I hope that those remarks are helpful to the Minister. We come now to the nub of the current continuing difficulty. The Government provided some relief for victims and witnesses and for local newspaper editors by deciding, with the support of the PCC, to incorporate in the Bill the requirement that those prohibitions will not apply to a young person who is a victim or a witness unless and until the House and the other place agree an affirmative resolution in respect of an order to be laid by the Secretary of State. I challenged the Minister in Committee by suggesting that that was an apparent climbdown. I use the word "apparent" advisedly, because we still do not know the Government's long-term intentions. I tried to test the Minister on that issue in Committee, but his answer was not entirely reassuring. I have revisited what he said. I am not in any way challenging the sincerity of his remarks; I am simply drawing attention to their inadequacy in respect of providing reassurance for the print media. He said the provisions should not be implemented after Royal Assent unless there has been a further debate in both Houses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 June 1999; c. 232.] He gave no indication of what the time scale for such a course of events might be. He also said that the Government did not intend the proposals to have the force of law unless the Secretary of State brought forward an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, to the effect that the provisions be enacted. There was no suggestion of the timetable.

Peter Viggers (Conservative, Gosport)

I am confused about this matter and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. Does he anticipate that the order made by the Secretary of State will be general, allowing the provision to be implemented in all cases, or will it relate to specific individuals and specific offences?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I anticipate that it will be general. As I understand the scheme that the Government have agreed with the PCC and my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, the provision will not be implemented unless and until an order is made to implement it and both Houses will have the opportunity to hold a debate on the affirmative procedure to say whether they approve of it. We are not clear about the Government's long-term intentions. Although there is now a sense of relief and they are off the hook because they have accepted an amendment, we are left with the prospect of the provision, which has caused such concern to regional and local newspapers in particular, lying on the statute book waiting for the day when the Home Secretary gets up one morning, decides to lay the order and asks both Houses to approve it in a week or two. I may have exaggerated what might happen, but that is where we stand. We need more clarification of the Government's long-term intentions. Are they in favour of or against implementing the provision? If they have decided that it is not such a good idea, why incorporate it in the Bill in the first place? What is the point? Why was it not agreed before we began Committee proceedings that there should be a prohibition in respect of persons under 18 who are likely to be the accused in a criminal trial? The witnesses and victims could have been left out of that altogether. But no, the provision remains in the Bill and we have simply this order-making power. Given that the provision has been incorporated, one can assume only that the Government want to retain the opportunity in case at some future date they are minded to implement it. Today we need to know what the circumstances are which would prompt the Government to implement this provision through the order-making power. I put that question to the Minister in Committee but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) will agree, answer came there none. That is why we are seeking further answer today. Furthermore, the correspondence between the Home Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, which the Minister kindly placed in the Library and I have now had the opportunity to review, makes it clear that in any event the PCC has agreed that there will be a review of the code of practice which relates to the protection of children who might be harmed by publicity in relation to a crime in which they were involved. That encourages me to return to my earlier point: in such circumstances if the PCC is undertaking its review, surely it would be better to remove the victim and witness provision from the Bill and await the outcome of the review. Sadly, that is neither the Government's choice, nor the option before us today. We tabled new clause 3 with three clear objectives. When the Minister responds I hope that he will treat them in the spirit in which they have been proposed and try to give not just us but a lot of worried editors in local newspapers some greater reassurance. Our first objective is to have that greater reassurance about the circumstances which might persuade the Home Secretary to make an order under this provision. What do the Government have in mind that makes them want to keep the provision in the Bill? The second objective is to give voice to the anxieties of local newspaper editors who, from all our experience, generally take a responsible attitude to reporting incidents involving young children. I know that point is of concern to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who raised it in Committee. The third objective is to impose a better framework for the order-making power, should the Home Secretary decide that it were appropriate to implement it. In the spirit of the reassurances already given, one assumes by implication that the Government are not currently minded to implement these provisions, but we have to accept that the circumstances could change. If they do and the Home Secretary decides to implement this, he would have nothing to fear from a requirement, such as that in the new clause, to announce an intention to bring forward the order and state his reasons. In all respects this first element of new clause 3 is entirely unexceptional and unobjectionable. It simply requires the Secretary of State to state that he intends to make an order and to give his reasons for doing so. The second element is that the Secretary of State, having made his announcement, should consult. This might occur several years hence when there might be a different Home Secretary and, with any luck, a different Government. Surely consultation would be appropriate. It is unthinkable that the Home Secretary would feel it unnecessary to discuss the issue again with print and broadcast media. It is entirely likely that local newspapers would want to talk to their local Members of Parliament about their concerns about what the Government have in mind. Indeed, if the check of an affirmative resolution of both Houses is to have any value, right hon. and hon. Members will need to know how they are to use their vote. If there is to be no consultation and they are simply to be whipped through the Lobby in five seconds flat because the order has been laid and they have been told to vote for it, that provides no protection whatever. Therefore, we need consultation so that right hon. and hon. Members will know how to vote or, if they are being told to vote for it, at least they will have discussed the matter with their local newspaper and will understand the implications of it for that paper. Furthermore, there must be consultation to take account of the implications of an order for all aspects of self-regulation of the press and the review of the code of conduct, which the PCC is undertaking and which has been published in the letters that have been laid in the House. It is entirely reasonable to have consultation on a proposal to lay an order. Subsection (2) of new clause 3 would require a six month delay. Surely time for reflection on the introduction and imposition of such a draconian press reporting prohibition would not be a bad idea. We often talk about the need to avoid knee-jerk legislation. Such a reaction is a bad idea, but it takes five or six months to get primary legislation through the House, unless there is agreement on a fast track approach. An order-making power that is subject only to affirmative resolution could be through the House in two or three weeks. What is wrong with requiring a six-month delay before making an order? We should resist the temptation to make an order as a knee-jerk reaction to a gross abuse committed by one element of the tabloid press. The best response is to give time for reflection. The local and regional press may have acted responsibly following the enactment of this legislation. They should not be penalised because of the wrongdoing of one tabloid newspaper, which committed such a gross abuse that everyone said something must be done about it. People may say, "The order-making power is already in the Bill, so what's the reason for delay? Let's get on with it." However, we think that it would be no bad thing to have a six-month delay. If the Government, on reflection, have decided that they will not implement this provision for the time being, and are persuaded by the argument that it will, hopefully, not be necessary, what is wrong with incorporating a six-month delay as a safeguard? Those are reasonable safeguards and make better sense of the Government's position. They do not inhibit the power to impose the restriction, but they would enable local newspapers and other responsible media to ask the Home Secretary to think again if he were minded to make an order under clause 44(5). Most important of all, it would give right hon. and hon. Members the chance to reflect on and understand the implications and consequences of a decision to restrict press freedom in an important area of public life if the public have a genuine right to know. The new clause is the very minimum that the House should expect and insist on from a Government who preach the doctrine of freedom of information, and I commend it to the House.

Peter Viggers (Conservative, Gosport)

As I have not previously spoken on the Bill, may I say that I welcome it in general terms? Some of us occasionally go out with our local police force and see the behaviour of young people late at night, and we have all heard about young people committing burglary offences. Whatever the crime, the gap between the commission of the alleged offence and the bringing of the offender to trial must be kept as short as possible. That is the main thrust of the Bill, and I very much welcome it. The detail is important, and we are discussing a particular point about publicity. The courts in England and Wales operate on the principle that court business should be conducted openly. That is an important part of our justice system. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the court may, in certain circumstances, prohibit the name and address of an individual being revealed. As the law currently stands, there are also important provisions protecting young people, specifically section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which allows a court to prohibit the reporting of the name, address, school or other particulars that identify children and young persons under the age of 17. 5 pm I come to my first question to the Minister. I have not taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill, so I would be interested to know why the Government propose to restrict reporting of young people under the age of 18, rather than 17. The age at which restrictions may be imposed is being increased, whereas in most other sectors—I think particularly of homosexual law so-called reform—the age is being reduced. I should be grateful if the Minister would remind hon. Members why, in the case of reporting restrictions, the age is being increased, so that people under the age of 18, rather than 17, are protected. I welcome the fact that the clause relates not only to England and Wales, but to Northern Ireland and to courts-martial. I am always vigilant to see where legislation shall apply. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, it seemed strange that, frequently, I had to come to the House to introduce legislation relating to Northern Ireland that replicated legislation that had been introduced for England and Wales. In so far as it is possible, legislation that applies to the entire United Kingdom should be introduced. Similarly, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence on two of the past three sessions when it has considered the Armed Forces Bill—the Bill to change armed forces legislation specifically relating to courts-martial and other matters—I welcome the fact that courts-martial are specifically referred to in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. Again, wearing my hat as Chairman of the Select Committee, it seemed strange that courts-martial should be subject to separate legislation. Again, one would like legislation to be applied to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and courts-martial. The central point of the new clause is to ask whether the Government have decided to implement clause 44(5). I was surprised when I read how broadly it was drafted. It simply says that subsection (4)(b), which restricts publication in cases of witnesses, or those who have been victims of crime, will apply on or after such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. It does not say whether the Secretary of State must introduce an order to implement the whole of subsection (4)(b); I should like to know the answer to that question. Will the Government introduce a broad order that will implement all of paragraph (b), or will it be open to the Government to decide, for example, that that paragraph will apply only to witnesses? Will they perhaps introduce legislation by affirmative resolution to ensure that subsection (4)(b) will apply only to individuals against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed? The provision is extremely broad and confirms the view that I have had for a number of years that amendments to existing legislation and legislation brought in rapidly tend not to be good legislation. It would be far better if the Government, having not made up their mind on the point and having left it wide open, subject only to affirmative resolution, left the matter and decided that, if they wished to implement the necessary legislation, they would introduce primary legislation. The manner in which the House is treated by the Government means that we are not overtaxed in terms of legislation. The House could discuss matters of great note for a longer time. The terms of the Bill are far too loose, wide and arbitrary. Knee-jerk reaction to events in the tabloid press can often lead the Government to introduce bad legislation. Do I hear the words, "dangerous dogs"? I ask the House to support the entirely reasonable new clause, which has been effectively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does the Minister recall the Standing Committee's first sitting, on 25 May, when I mentioned that there would be disagreement about the Bill's reporting provisions? I went on to say: I urge the Government to think seriously about the media's reservations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 May 1999; c. 5.] Does he agree that that one sentence, on which the Government acted, did more to alter the Bill's course than the hours of waffle that we have heard from the hon. Member for Lymeswold—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)? In a previous career, I was a court reporter, and I am approaching the issue from that perspective. Will the Minister tell us why, if there had been so much discussion and liaison with the media, the draconian ban on reporting was proposed initially? I suggest that, far from encouraging less court reporting—especially in the weekly and provincial media—we should be encouraging greater coverage of court cases. Since the Government's amendments were tabled in Committee, what further representations have Minsters received from the Newspaper Society and the Guild of Editors—who represent those working in the real newspaper world, and have experience of producing weekly and evening newspapers? In Committee, the Minister gave the impression that everyone in the newspaper world believed that the Government's amendments would resolve the problem. However, they do not believe that. In an ideal world—as hon. Members have already said—the provision would be withdrawn and proposed again later, so that it might be debated fully. Presumably, however, we are simply being asked to accept the lesser of two evils. The vast majority of cases involving young children that are reported are reported in the weekly and provincial press. Newspapers are wedded to their communities—to which they have a responsibility—and, indeed, behave responsibly. I again ask the Minister to give an assurance that the one or perhaps two occasions on which a national tabloid newspaper has gone over the top will not be used as an excuse for a blanket ban on the weekly press. I received a letter from the editor-in-chief of Essex County Newspapers—which produces two evening newspapers and various weekly newspapers in the county of Essex—in which she states: Editors and media experts fear that"— the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill— will prevent publication of matters of legitimate public interest … The Bill will make it an offence for the media to identify under 18-year-olds who might be victims, witnesses or the perpetrators of crimes under investigation. The ban will last until legal proceedings (if any) commence or the young person reaches the age of 18. The provision is a threat to freedom of the press. It would prevent the media from carrying a great deal of inoffensive and unharmful material. Indeed, many items that serve the public interest, by highlighting the effect of crime, would be banned. A newspaper would be barred, for example, from publishing a report about a 17-year-old pop singer who had a precious gold record stolen. It could also prevent a newspaper from printing an interview with a 17-year-old student who saw a fight break out on a football terrace—which is not something that ever happens in Colchester, although it does happen elsewhere. It is true that an editor could escape prosecution by pleading before magistrates either that the material was in the public interest or that the parties, or their guardians, had given written consent. However, the presumption against publication would serve to discourage the media from pursuing such stories. Protecting young offenders is not the point of the provision, as they are already provided with anonymity under current legislation. Neither is the point to protect victims of sex offenders, as they, too, are already provided with anonymity. Irene Kettle, the editor-in-chief, continues: My concern is that the media will find itself unable to properly report a wide range of events if everyone under 18 who is either a victim of any crime or a witness must be anonymous … It is unclear when the ban would become active. Would, for example, a young accident victim or missing child have to stay anonymous because of police involvement and the possibility of a prosecution? She later says: The public interest defence is unsatisfactory. It would place editors in the position of having to second guess a court's attitude. The new clause relates to the Government amendments moved in Committee in response to the criticisms of the original draft of the Bill on reporting restrictions. We welcome the Government's movement on the issue, but it is only one step and many more are required. The Government amendments were designed to ensure that the reporting restrictions in the Bill relating to young victims and witnesses could be implemented only if a draft order to that effect was approved by affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Following widespread criticism of the proposals, the Government have chosen to suspend the implementation of the reporting restrictions and have said that they want regulation to work. We all hope that it will. In Committee, the Minister said: Given the reach of clause 43's restrictions and the number of reports that they might affect, and given the possibility that our aims might be achievable through other means, it is right that the provision should not be implemented after Royal Assent unless there has been further debate in both Houses. If the amendments are accepted, we"— the Government— are bound to undertake to keep the case for implementation under regular review, and I am happy to give such an undertaking."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 June 1999; c. 232.] We have said all along that we understand and share the Government's aim to provide greater protection for the privacy of young victims and witnesses. However, the Government seemed to get into a mess with their original proposals—otherwise why the rushed amendments? It became clear that the scope of the restrictions and the practicalities were not thought through—again, otherwise why the Government amendments? The new clause would ensure that should the Government—or a future Government—decide to go ahead with the proposals, an order would have to be placed before Parliament for approval and the Government would be required to consult representatives of the media—more than just Lord Wakeham. A delay of six months before implementation would also be imposed. We appreciate the thinking behind that. It seems clear that consultation was non-existent or substandard before the Bill was published and it is understandable following that failure that we should want to impose a requirement for consultation in future. The Newspaper Society has welcomed the Government's amendments in Committee, but it feels that the proposals are still hanging over the newspapers. That is particularly true of the weekly and provincial press. I should be happy if the Minister could divide the proposed ban—if it ever came in—to put the national press in a separate category from the responsible provincial weekly press. The new clause would mean that at least representatives of the media would be guaranteed further consultation if any Government decided to go ahead with the proposals. We support the new clause and we invite the Conservatives to press it to a vote.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I do not really have an interest to declare, but before I became a Member of Parliament I earned my living as a journalist on a national daily newspaper. It could be said that the interests of my former colleagues give me a specific interest in the debate, but I do not have a financial interest. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We are concerned because of the original proposal. The fact that the Government entered the debate by suggesting a blanket ban on the reporting of any person under 18 who was involved in any way—as the accused or the victim—in a potential criminal offence leads us to have suspicions about their motives. 5.15 pm It is right and proper that the Government have climbed down by taking on board the legitimate concerns of the press. However, the fact that they started with a draconian ban—which would have been unworkable and unacceptable causes us concern. I therefore support our aim to restrict the Government's ability to introduce a ban in this area. The use of affirmative resolutions may be dangerous, as major changes to public policy must be made by the proper legislative procedures. They must go through both Houses of Parliament and all stages. There should not be a one-off vote late at night, when many of us may not be totally aware of what is proposed. The proposal must be in the Bill and not in the small print, waiting for a moment when the Government think that they can get away with it. The new clause must be considered; a resolution could not be pushed through as a result of the six-month consultation period. There would be no question of the Government bouncing the proposal through on the back of disinterest, lack of understanding or potential emotion following an incident that has caused public anxiety. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked why we are now talking about the age of 18 for reporting restrictions, when many other activities are licensed at 16 or 17. The extension of the protection of anonymity to the age of 18 seems intriguing. For victims, or the accused, at risk of potential embarrassment by being named in court—I am thinking of rape victims—there is anonymity. However, we are concerned that the Government are proposing to give anonymity in matters that go beyond sexual offences. We do not know whether the Government are proposing a blanket ban on naming all victims of criminal offences under the age of 18, or a specific ban in certain circumstances. For example, would it have been possible, desirable or rational to try to introduce a ban on the reporting of what happened at Dunblane? The Scottish example is inappropriate, because Scotland has a different criminal law. Sadly, however, such an event could happen anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is simply not reasonable that the British public should not be informed. The press may have behaved badly at Dunblane, and I do not wish to defend some of the actions of my former colleagues. There may have been painful intrusion into the parents' bereavement, but it is not right to restrict the ability of the press to report an incident such as Dunblane. A road accident might lead to a criminal investigation. A group of young people died in a bus in my constituency. If a criminal investigation had resulted, perhaps because of the involvement of a drunk driver, would the national or local press have been banned from reporting the accident, which of course was a matter of huge public concern in my constituency and beyond? What do the Government have in mind? Sadly, young people are sometimes kidnapped by paedophiles for their sexual gratification. Surely the press should be able to report that. The police say that the evidence that they get from the public in the first few days of an investigation, when the incident gets into the press and causes a sensation, often helps them to put together a picture of the offender. I cannot believe that the Government intend to block that. In all the instances that I have mentioned, the public interest is hugely served by the press being able to report. The Government are setting out to protect the victims, but often they are protected by the facts becoming known. The press should not have to worry about a public interest defence and obtaining consent for publication. The parents in a kidnapping, for example, would be totally traumatised and incapable of a rational decision. What circumstances could possibly arise in which the Government would want to give anonymity to victims under 18? Do they intend a blanket or a specific ban? If they intend a specific ban on a named individual, how can they hope to legislate through Parliament quickly enough to stop the press publishing? The House, I am pleased to say, does not sit seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. I can only assume that the Government intend a blanket ban. I fail to understand how they will be able to take account of the circumstances that I have described. Will the Minister give us a very concrete, albeit hypothetical, example of circumstances in which he would use the provision and explain why it would protect the victim under the age of 18? Why should the House give the Government a legislative vehicle to introduce what would, in my view, be an unacceptable restriction on press freedom?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I shall make a brief contribution. It is saddening and unfortunate that so few Conservative Members recognise the crucial element of this matter. They have spoken—rightly—about press freedom and the public interest, about the need to know and about the rights of the press in a free society to report news, but they have not mentioned the interests of children. The Government's approach is balanced, proper and responsible. I hope that Conservative Members will consider the coverage of children and childhood that appears in the local press, as well as in the national tabloids. I contend that the press does not understand children and the reality that they face in this country, nor that childhood is a time for exploration, growth and development. What are the Government's reasons for proposing this measure? That question has been asked rhetorically, but I shall answer it. The proposals are necessary precisely because the years before 18 are the time of childhood. Young people below 18 have no vote and play very little part in civic society. They have few forms of redress, and they lack the confidence to engage with their local press.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

If things are so bad in the weekly provincial press, why have the Government agreed to defer implementation of the proposal?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I think that that deferral stems from the balanced approach that the Government have adopted. The solution lies with the responsible press and with Conservative Members. In Committee, I wondered why editors and journalists, both locally and nationally, do not talk to young people about the coverage that they are given. That is a serious point. What are the perceptions of young people's organisations of the way in which young people are treated?

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The proposal is to ban items in the press covering possible criminal offences whose victims are under 18. Will the hon. Gentleman give a specific example of when such a ban would be right?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I was about to give an example of detrimental coverage, which involved a young victim of sexual abuse—one of the most serious crimes conceivable. The crime was reported in the local newspaper. The victim's relative was taken to court, and neither perpetrator nor victim was identified. However, the headlines were excruciating. The treatment of the story was grossly insensitive. Nothing in the paper said who that young person was or where she lived, but she knew who she was, and she was mortified by the reports of her case. 5.30 pm The Government are trying to reflect the fact that even when serious offences are quite properly reported, the press should be far more sensitive to the experience of victims, especially children and adolescents who face a mixture of dilemmas, confusions and difficulties.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

The hon. Gentleman's example would not be covered by the Government's proposals as it is already covered by restrictions on identifying victims of rape. A blanket ban on identifying people under 18 would make no difference. Press coverage would be even more general if it were restricted as the Government propose.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I do not agree. My point is more wide ranging and subtle than that. Opposition Members are being complacent, and they should recognise the problem. Neither in Committee nor today have I heard any Opposition Member recognise insensitive press reporting of children. Children are routinely described as being the root of problems. Children in care—about whom I may feel unusually sensitive—are routinely described either as villains or, in the most saccharine and cloying terms, as victims.

Peter Viggers (Conservative, Gosport)

The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned about reporting of the cases of young people under the existing law. Does he favour implementing subsection 4(b), and if so, why not now?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The Government are wise to strike a balance and to give the media an opportunity to reflect, as all of us should, on its attitudes towards young people. We should listen more to children and take more account of what they say. If the media could do that, we might resolve some of the problems with which the Bill is intended to deal.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I regret to say that I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) rather patronising. He implied that Opposition Members have no regard for the rights of children, and I am sure that I speak for all of us in disagreeing with him. I am vice-chairman of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Wales, and I have consistently advocated the rights of children since I was elected to Parliament. I shall continue to do so. My commitment does not undermine my need to examine legislation. If I thought that the Government's proposal would further the interests of children in any way, I would not speak against it, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would not adopt such a patronising stance. Speaking as a father, I can say that we all respect children.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

May I make it clear that I did not intend to be patronising? I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to children's rights, and am glad to hear him express it.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that acknowledgement and for putting the record straight. This part of the Bill will have huge repercussions. Earlier, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) used the word "draconian"; that might be an understatement. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) described the offence that would be created. The only way to avoid the risk of prosecution is for editors to apply to a court to lift the ban when it is in place. There are other concerns about the procedure. The Home Office suggests that the police will decide when the ban is triggered, and that the police will be the first to apply for a court order in such cases. In relation to free speech, are we happy for the police to acquire even greater influence over what can or cannot be published before legal proceedings? Will there be a risk of public prosecution if editors publish uncontroversial stories that magistrates do not like? I too have seen disgraceful reports, but they are not the general rule; they are very much the exception. By and large, our regional press are extremely good; they serve the interests of the public and of politicians. They do a darn good job. We should not tar them all with the same brush because of the one or two instances of indefensible behaviour to which reference has rightly been made. A ridiculous situation is envisaged in the measure: that if a group of youngsters were to be named, it would be possible to ask for permission beforehand. That is rather cumbersome. The veto would further complicate matters; it could be manipulated to avoid publicity—for example, where a parent might be in dispute with a local authority as to the standard of its care of his or her child. Even a technical objection would neither give nor veto consent. The public interest defence to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred is not a catch-all to meet concerns. Day in and day out, editors will no doubt be at risk of committing a criminal offence for routine reporting. Of course, the type of reporting to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred should be criminal behaviour. However, such reporting does not occur often, thank heavens. By and large, we have a responsible press. Like all hon. Members, I receive letters from the regional press. I refer especially to the Western Mail and the Daily Post—the daily newspapers that serve Wales. Those papers do a good job, although they do not report enough of my party's doings—I shall not go into that now. [Interruption.] However, to be serious, they do a reasonable job. I have been reading those newspapers for about 30 years and, with hand on heart, I can say that I have never seen a report of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. No doubt, he was talking about a tabloid report. We must try to put the matter into context. Do we really want editors to be constantly looking over their shoulders, having to second-guess whether a court would decide that a public interest defence will succeed or fail? That is not healthy for any kind of press. It is not healthy for freedom of speech—as was pointed out earlier. The measure is astonishing from a Government who are talking about freedom of information. Editors would be able to plead public interest or written consent in defence before a magistrates court. However, if the Crown Prosecution Service decided to prosecute for the identification of witnesses, the only defence would be that the editor did not know that the ban had been triggered and that the material published identified the young person concerned. It is a tenuous and unsatisfactory matter. The Government have not proved the need for automatic restrictions—especially on the identification of young witnesses. That is not justified. It is questionable, at least, whether the Bill conforms with article 10 of the European charter relating to freedom of expression. Apart from the uncertainty about when the ban is triggered, there are problems over the written-consent defence, and the reasons why a public-interest defence application for the ban to be listed for the sake of justice might not well apply to many uncontroversial stories. Of course, the papers can go to the trouble of finding a magistrate or instructing a lawyer, but that is not really practicable, especially in the case of the regional press. I feel that a rather large sledgehammer is being taken to crack a rather small perceived nut. Let me again refer to the section 39 orders, which apply to the identification of youngsters. Evidence suggests that magistrates will be restricted, and that cannot be good for free speech. Finally, let me say that the absence of a requirement for the Attorney-General's fiat for prosecutions deprives the media of a safeguard, in the form of consistency in prosecution policy. I consider that to be a public-interest matter, and a very important one. I have the greatest possible regard for children's rights, and if I thought they were being infringed I would not be speaking in this way. I sincerely believe, however, that this part of the Bill is wrong in principle, and may well lead to a denial of free speech. That cannot be good for any of us.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Let me reassure the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that I am not implacably opposed to the Bill, or to clause 44. I mention the hon. Gentleman because something that he said underlines my reason for wishing to speak. If I remember correctly, he said that the media did not understand children. My guess is that huge numbers of editors, sub-editors, photographers, reporters et al are parents, and sweeping generalisations are at the heart of my concerns and, I think, those of others. It is very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction. It is a pleasure to ask this Minister questions, and I know that he will respond to them fully. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Bill seeks to achieve, and, in principle, I do not oppose the powers that are being sought in clause 44. Of course abuses are taking place, and harm is being done to some young people; but—and it is on the "but" that I think we should focus—censoring the media, for whatever reason, should not be undertaken lightly. However sensible the motive may be, it is still censorship of the media. Let me make a confession. I am one of those people who, every so often, have an overwhelming desire to censor the media. It usually takes me late at night, when I have stopped thinking too clearly. When, on the following morning, I muse on my thoughts of the night before, a little mature reflection reminds me of the inherent dangers of what I advocated the night before. Even when my motives of the night before were good, I realise the following day that reflection pays. I feel that a little mature reflection this afternoon, and a little mature reflection before these powers are used, is needed now. I did not serve on the Standing Committee, and I have not heard all that has been said about the Bill; but I understand that, according to the procedures of the House, if a Bill comes to us on Report it means that someone—presumably the Speaker—has decided that an issue has not been debated or has not been debated fully, or that there are other reasons for bringing the Bill back to the House. I submit that there is a good reason for us to debate the Bill this afternoon, and I urge the Minister to explain again why he wants the powers that clause 44 would enable him to exercise. Surely there can be some occasions when publication is in the public interest, and even in the interests of the victims themselves. The Government are seeking significant powers of censorship, so I believe that we are right to debate them this afternoon and to require full explanation and justification of the proposals. 5.45 pm More significant is the need for a spot of mature reflection before the powers, if they are approved by the House, are used, and that is the purpose of the new clause. It would defend the Government of the day, whatever their political persuasion, from the late-night, snap decision forced through the House when perhaps people like me are not thinking as clearly as we might and a bit of time for consideration would not come amiss. When I look back on some of my instantaneous judgments, I often realise that my motives, the research that was carried out, the analysis I made of the issues and amount of time I spent consulting other people and listening to them were somewhat lacking. I have a sense that the same would be true of any Government that instantly decided to introduce a ban. Just as I try to test my motives the next day, the Government must provide the opportunity for the public at large, the affected media and the House to test their motives, test their logic, listen to their justifications and ensure that they have consulted and arrived at sensible conclusions. That is why I support new clause 3: all it does is protect the Home Secretary of the day from getting it wrong by indulging in knee-jerk reactions. It simply requires the Home Secretary, before he uses the powers in clause 44, to give notice that he is going to do so—instead of just instantly doing it, he announces that that is what he intends to do. He is then given the opportunity to consult before using the powers. Consulting and listening never did anyone any harm, and the more serious the powers in question, the greater the need for consultation. The new clause would also make a provision, currently lacking in the Bill, requiring the Home Secretary to explain exactly what he is doing, and why, to the House of Commons. If any institution in this country is the guardian of the rights of individuals, it is this House, so when the rights of individuals are taken away—censorship does take away rights—there has to be an adequate explanation of which the House approves. I would be perfectly prepared to vote with the Minister if his explanation were adequate, so I do not think that he need be frightened of new clause 3. New clause 3 does not strike at the purpose of the Bill, nor would it remove any powers from the Home Secretary. All it does is improve the decision-making process by allowing time for mature reflection. Thinking about what reply I might receive, I concluded that I shall be told that I am overly worried, that the Government have no intention of doing what I do late at night, and that, since they are such a sensible Government, they do not need protection from themselves. The reply will be put more politely than I have put it—

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

It depends on how long he goes on.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If the hon. Gentleman is not in a good mood, I might go on even longer, and he will have even more to explain. If he is tempted to tell the House that he has absolutely no intention of acting instantaneously, he will take away the only reason that he has for opposing the new clause.

Peter Viggers (Conservative, Gosport)

I remind my hon. Friend that the Government have so far not lost a Division, and all that is required is that the Home Secretary snap his fingers, and the terracotta warriors will wander through the Lobbies and the Bill will be passed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am incredibly tempted by that course of action, but I have been trying to be helpful and friendly and not too aggressive to Labour Members, so I shall resist that temptation, although I agree with my hon. Friend. All I am saying to Ministers is that if they have no intention of acting instantaneously, the new clause will in no way mess up their Bill. If they intend to take a decent amount of time to make proposals, consult, listen and seek our approval, no harm whatsoever will come from accepting the new clause. Knowing the Minister of State to be a kind, reasonable man who wants to be generous on a Thursday afternoon, I am sure that he will support the new clause.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I shall be brief because I know that the Minister is anxious to respond to the many excellent points made by Conservative Members during the debate. I entirely accept the points made by those who have said that they do not question the Government's motivations. I am sure that the Government did not get up in the morning thinking, "How can we penalise the media?" They are genuinely motivated by a wish to protect children, as are Conservative Members, but we happen to think that the Government are not going about that in a terribly effective way. Some in the media do, perhaps, question the motivations of a Home Office that, it will be remembered, not too long ago sought an injunction to prevent the publication of a report that turned out to have been leaked by the Home Office. None the less, I shall pass over that point. I shall concentrate my remarks on comments made to me by Mr. Mike Glover, the editor of the Westmorland Gazette in my constituency. It is a fine newspaper, which is very well dug in with its local community but which none the less has serious concerns about these issues. Mr. Glover's first point is that the problem with any such legislation, whether or not it comes into effect after the Government have made welcome concessions, is that if we prevent the press from publishing accurate information, we do not stop inaccurate information circulating elsewhere. There will still be gossip and people will retail versions of stories in pubs, on street corners and over their neighbour's fence. If we do not publish the accurate information, we may end up damaging children and causing them more difficulty than if we had allowed the press to report the facts straightforwardly and immediately. Mr. Glover's second point is that the Westmorland Gazette is a fine newspaper and very successful in its area, but it does not have the largest circulation and it is not the best-known publication in the United Kingdom.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to change that.

Tim Collins (Conservative, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am, as the Minister says, doing my best. It follows that that newspaper, like many other regional and local weekly newspapers, does not have at its disposal a large and well-financed legal department that is able to offer the editor a great deal of well-researched legal advice on these very difficult decisions. The restrictions could therefore be particularly onerous for local and regional newspapers—national newspapers probably have large legal departments and do not run the risk of editors being caught out. I might add that since the debate has so far concentrated on the print media, it is worth noting that we are dealing with measures that will also relate to the broadcast media. A station such as Border Television—the smallest ITV station—in my constituency does not have a large legal department. The pressures on editors that we have described are even more acute for television stations because the time between a story breaking and the time when the broadcast media would expect to put it out could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, be a matter of mere minutes. How can stations make accurate decisions on such matters so swiftly? Mr. Glover's third and final point, which is important, is that the Home Office proposals, which would be aided by new clause 3, would break into the important co-operative relationship between local police forces and local newspapers. A senior police officer, from outside the immediate area covered by a local journalist or a local newspaper, might go to court to seek an injunction to provide a ban, thus souring relationships that had been built up over many years between a local beat journalist and local beat police officers. If co-operation between the local media and the local police is broken down, the police may run the risk of losing one of their very important assets in the fight against crime. The Government should use the opportunity granted them under new clause 3 for further reflection to think about that, because some local police officers in my constituency do not think that it is necessarily a terribly good idea to put them in an adversarial relationship with their local media. I now come to my final point, which I do not believe has been made in the debate. In the age of the internet and the ever greater dissemination of information, successive Governments have found that many of their attempts to impose restrictions on the free flow of information are probably doomed to failure. That problem, encountered by the previous Government, is increasing. When I said that if accurate information was suppressed, inaccurate information would be circulated by other means, I also said that at the moment such information was probably spread by people talking to each another over the garden fence. In future years, increasingly, even local stories will be posted on the internet. One will never, realistically, be able to stop that. Between 10 and 20 years ago, the "Spycatcher" case showed that it was impossible to stop information being published outside the geographical jurisdiction of a court or a nation. If the Bill passes unamended by new clause 3, there is a risk that such information could be posted on the internet. Even if it is posted simply between Kendal and Ambleside in my constituency, it could go via a server in the United States, be bounced around Australia and then return to the United Kingdom. Legislation of the type that the Bill represents must take account of these things. My concern is that if one prevents the publication of accurate stories by the practitioners of professional, researched journalism, a bulge of inaccurate information will erupt elsewhere, which may in time come to be more damaging to children and young people than the accurate stories would have been. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity granted them in new clause 3 to think further about these matters.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

This has been a good debate, in which we have given this subject the considered and careful reflection that it deserves. To that extent, it mirrors our debates on this and other subjects in Committee. The new clause provides for the Secretary of State to give notice of his intentions to make an order to activate the provisions of clause 44 in relation to child victims and witnesses; to publish his reasons for reaching his decision so to do; and to consult the media in whichever way he chooses. It then requires the Secretary of State to wait a further six months before making the order even if, in the interim, Parliament has debated the issue in both Houses and has agreed to the order being made. That is rather unusual. It is an odd and, in our view, unnecessary way of proceeding. I well understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) moved the new clause, but we need to get real. It has been suggested by the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in their careful and considered interventions—later I shall discuss in more detail the arguments made by the hon. Member for Gosport—that the Secretary of State for the Home Department might wake up one morning and, on a whim, bring these provisions into force. That, from two parliamentarians who, with the greatest respect, have been around a bit, demonstrates an ignorance—I believe, a wilful ignorance to enable them to make what they regarded as a good debating point—of the way in which the House works.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Not at the moment. The hon. Member for Ryedale knows that one cannot arrange a debate on a draft order in both Houses instantly. The order must be drafted, and then parliamentary time in each House must be arranged—all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, know the difficulties involved in that. Each House must positively resolve in favour of the draft order. Then, and only then, can the order be made. In the event of the procedure being brought into effect by affirmative order, there would be ample opportunity for discussion, for soundings to be taken and for representations to be made. 6 pm We value enormously the representations that were made by the media in the course of discussion around the clauses. Representations were made through letters from individual Members responding to quite proper communication with their local editors, through national representative bodies, and by individual editors and the Guild of Editors. I can assure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who brings to our debate a wealth of experience from the front line, that we have taken on board the concerns and the representations made by the provincial media, which play an enormously important part that I do not underestimate in the local dispensation of justice. They have an interest, which needs to be protected, and their views have been taken into account. I must not give in to the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale and others to accept the new clause if, by so doing, I would be fettering the discretion of future Ministers by binding them to any particular course of action. That is why I cannot respond as the hon. Members for Rye dale and for Colchester would have me do, by indicating what they described as our long-term intentions. As we made clear upstairs—I am glad to affirm it on the Floor of the House today—our intentions are to proceed by recognising the potential of self-regulation to address the issue, as has been demonstrated during the discussion of the clauses. The issue is a serious one—the welfare of children. I listened with close attention to the contributions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). As a professional solicitor and a social worker working with children, they bring their experience to bear. I hear them both. I do not believe that there is any great gulf between them. It is a question of tactics, rather than objective. The objective that we all have in common is to protect children. After much deliberation and consultation, to which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other child protection organisations made an important contribution, that objective led us to go down the road set out in clause 44. We went down that road because of a number of cases that raised concerns about the impact of publicity on children, whether as victims or witnesses—for example, the difficulty for a child of facing his classmates when he has been publicly identified in the local or national press as the son of a wife-beater or baby-killer; or, if he walks to school, the difficulty of having to pass hoardings that identify him publicly with such a tragedy; or the difficulty of being identified as belonging to a family of thieves or drug dealers, even if the investigation did not lead to any charges. That would certainly merit the editor of a local newspaper taking care to consider the consequences of a careless press report. The hon. Members for Colchester and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) will recognise that that is already the case in terms of the code of practice laid down by the PCC. We are not giving the Executive powers to ban the publication of particular material; we are making sure that the best standards of self-regulation are applied. As several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester, have said, the best standards are already being applied by the press and we are ensuring that they will be upheld and become more firmly entrenched in the general approach of the media—the broadcast media, national tabloid and broadsheet newspapers and local media—at all levels. We have to get the balance right, and I do not intend to make a distinction between the tabloids and local newspapers, which is the path down which he tempts me. It is important to make sure that standards are maintained and developed by all, and I cannot and will not fetter the discretion of future Ministers in that regard. We are debating a requirement under clause 64(3)(a) for the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the order before both Houses. The order cannot be made unless the draft is approved by a resolution of each House. Obviously, the Home Secretary of the day will take into account all the circumstances, not just a cause celebre, before determining so to do. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members. It is important to recognise that those recommendations, which were published in June 1998, came from "Speaking Up for Justice". They have been the subject of considerable consultation. I want to deal briefly with a number of points that were raised. The hon. Members for Gosport and for Bromsgrove asked why 18 was chosen. I understand their question. Our law—be it the Children Act 1989, the Bill or a range of measures concerning the age of consent, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—varies enormously for reasons of history, of vulnerability and of consistency within a particular area. It also refers to various ages, for example 16, 17 and 18. We chose 18 because it reflects the current limit in the youth court and the current limit in respect of court reporting restrictions. It would not have made sense to have chosen a lower age. There is a debate to be had about the wider issues and, when hon. Members consider this matter, they need always to have in mind our determination to ensure—

RESTRICTION ON REPORTS ABOUT PERSONS ACCUSED OR SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A SEXUAL OFFENCE

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Previously, whenever the House debated a criminal justice Bill—certainly once in each Parliament—we debated the death penalty. Those days have gone, but I have an inkling that, in future, whenever we debate criminal justice matters, particularly Bills that refer to sex offences, we are likely to discuss the offence of rape, the structure of that offence and the way in which rape trials are conducted. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the Bill introduces changes that, as the Minister knows, are controversial. We had several constructive debates about them in Committee. In addition, the Home Office is undertaking a detailed research study into the offence of rape, entitled "Question of evidence?: investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s". Earlier this week, some hon. Members who are in the Chamber attended a seminar that the Minister kindly arranged to discuss some of the review's objectives. I make a suggestion to the Minister: will he consider extending that review so that it considers the anonymity of defendants in sex offence cases, particularly those accused of rape? I make the suggestion for several reasons. The first is that the Bill proposes important changes that are clearly designed to protect victims. Clause 34, in particular, provides for an absolute ban on defendants in rape cases cross-examining rape victims. We appreciate why the Government propose making that provision. We also know from our debates in Committee, and from representations that all hon. Members have received, that the legal profession is divided on the provision. Some lawyers have said that the Government should go further, whereas others—including the Law Society, in stating the official view—have said that it is entirely the wrong thing to do. I dare say that in this debate we shall discover that divisions on the issue are not between, but within, political parties. Victims' interests are unquestionably being provided for in the Bill. I am happy about that, as the case for such provision has been well made. However, what are the consequences of that provision for the interests of defendants? Secondly, although the Home Office review will consider all of the issues relating to sex offences, it makes some basic assumptions. I want to deal with one specific assumption, which is that any application of the criminal law must be fair, necessary and proportionate. On the basis of that principle, I want to question whether there is a case for the House again to consider whether, in the interests of fairness and justice, there should be a restoration of defendants' anonymity—particularly in rape cases, but also in cases involving other sexual offences. The history of the matter is that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 amended the law on anonymity for complainants in rape cases so that anonymity commences when an allegation of rape is made to police and not—as provided in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976—when a defendant is formally accused. The 1988 Act also removed the anonymity of defendants in rape cases. Subsequently, in 1994 there was a review of the anonymity provision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in answer to a written question, confirmed that he was satisfied that the present law, which affords anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases, but offers no special protection for defendants, strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice on the one hand and the need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to come forward on the other."—[Official Report, 18 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 1029.] The history of the matter is important to our consideration of the provision for two reasons. First, one of the justifications for the changes in the Bill to the conduct of rape trials is that they will encourage more rape victims to come forward—rather than being discouraged from doing so because of the publicity given to one or two notorious cases in which victims were cross-examined, ruthlessly and without any protection from the court, by the alleged assailant. However, since my right hon. and learned Friend answered that written question, several incidents have caused concern and they prompted me to table the new clause to give the House an opportunity to consider whether we should restore the anonymity of defendants in the interests of fairness and natural justice and to restore the balance that the Bill is disturbing. 6.30 pm In April 1995, Mark Jackson, a 21-year-old chef, hanged himself. He had been accused of rape by a former girl friend. The Crown court jury at Exeter acquitted him, but the story had reached his home town of Wigan 250 miles away, where the local newspaper headline screamed: Jilted man, 21, raped ex-girlfriend". Mark was named and identified for all to see. He could not bear the shame and on the morning of Sunday 9 April his mother found him hanging from the staircase. Before Christmas 1996, a young man of 25, Dennis Proudfoot, gassed himself in his car. He had been charged with rape and was terrified of the effect of the publicity on him and his family. A few days after his death his parents received a letter from the girl admitting that he had not raped her. Those are just two of a catalogue of tragic cases that have occurred in the past few years—since my right hon. and learned Friend last reviewed the issue as Home Secretary—in which accusations that were malicious or that, even if they had substance, ended in acquittal resulted in a defendant's life being ruined. We have been right to explore giving greater protection to victims, but we should also take this opportunity to give consideration to the innocent defendants of rape allegations whose lives and whose families' lives have been ruined by the glare of publicity. One could take up more time with other cases, but I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak and we are time limited. This is not just about men accused of rape seeking some justice through anonymity unless or until they are convicted. Sadly, there are also cases involving women. I understand that on 7 February 1997 the General Medical Council found a female doctor not guilty of indecently assaulting a woman patient. She was subjected to the glare of publicity and her career and personal life have never recovered. I accept that the procedures of the GMC are different from those of the courts, but the principles are the same. Therefore, I felt it right to bring the issue before the House again. I have one further important point for the Minister. Clearly, this is an exploratory debate, and we do not intend to press the matter to a vote. However, I want the Minister to consider extending the review of how rape and sex offences are investigated and prosecuted, and I would like the anonymity issue to be brought within the purview of the review. I wish to refer to the incident that prompted me to propose this as a matter for discussion. We have just discussed the reporting of criminal incidents involving young persons under 18 and I have referred to the case of Adam Dent, a 15-year-old who was accused of rape and identified in the press, but not subsequently charged. That case is one of the reasons why the Opposition have agreed to accept the Government's proposal for further curbs on press reporting of criminal incidents to protect the identity of the defendant. If it is right to give protection and anonymity to a teenager falsely or maliciously accused of rape—as is proposed in clause 44—what is the case for restricting that prohibition only to young men under 18? An accused person aged 17 would be protected, but someone aged 18 would not. Is that a fair, just, balanced or logical conclusion? I am not sure that it is, as is made clear by the two or three cases that I cited which involved young men—maybe a little older than Adam Dent—in similar circumstances. I wish to drawn the House's attention to the potential scale of the difficulty. In the preamble to the Home Office research study paper, there is an analysis of the attrition process in rape complaints. Although there has been a marked reduction in the number of rape complaints where the cases were subsequently not recorded as crimes, some 25 per cent. of rape allegations are still not recorded as crimes. The most common reason for that is that the complaint was believed to be false or malicious. In over one third of such cases, the complainant withdrew the allegation. It is perfectly feasible that, in each of those cases, the identity of the persons accused would have been revealed to the press. There could have been some lurid press coverage, with all the consequences of that for that person and his family. We cannot conclude that this is just a tiny problem. It is a significant difficulty and one to which the House—and the Minister—should give serious consideration.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

We support the aim of the new clause. On Second Reading I asked the Government to consider the issue of anonymity for those accused of sexual offences. Complainants rightly have anonymity. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, it encourages the continuance of a case in an area where there is considerable fall-off, for the understandable reason that it is an extremely harrowing business to add to the awful experience of rape all the trials and tribulations that attend on pursuing a court case. The case for anonymity of the accused is strong. There are two main reasons for granting it. First, the anonymity of the victim can be undermined when the defendant is known. It is also extremely common in rape cases for it to be possible to deduce who the victim is from other extraneous circumstances, such as the location. Lack of anonymity for the defendant undermines our ability to protect the complainant. Secondly, the social stigma of a rape accusation is very great and may long survive an acquittal. Reputations can be ruined and marriages destroyed simply by allegations. In cases where the allegation is false and malicious, the accuser has the protection of anonymity, so it is reasonable that in those circumstances, which are different from those in other cases, the defendant should have the same right. Of course, the anonymity would disappear on conviction. The hon. Member for Ryedale spoke of people who were so traumatised by the allegation that they took their own life, even though it subsequently emerged that no rape had occurred. It is clear that people in such cases are under extreme pressure. When the Crime and Disorder Bill was in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Goodhart tabled an amendment to restore the anonymity of defendants in rape cases, which was part of our law for a considerable time. The then Solicitor-General, Lord Falconer, accepted that there was high social stigma and that other problems existed but did not in the end accept the argument. He relied on the fact that openness is a fundamental principle in our justice system and said that as defendants are generally named, there was no reason why those in rape cases should receive special protection. We do not believe that his arguments counter the strong arguments that I have set out. I hope that the Government will re-examine the issue carefully. There are good reasons for surrounding rape cases with special provisions, because if we did not it would be impossible for many guilty people to be brought to justice, but we are left with a problem about those who are falsely or maliciously accused. Given all the other protections that exist, it would be appropriate to restore the anonymity that our law once provided for defendants in such cases.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The law as it stands offers anonymity for complainants in sexual offences, but it offers no specific protection for adult defendants. Anonymity for defendants in rape cases was originally introduced in 1976—by a Labour Government, as it happens—and was repealed in 1988—by a Conservative Government, as it happens—following a recommendation by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. However, this is not a matter for party politics. It is a very difficult and complex issue that goes to the heart of the wider public interest in court proceedings. In an earlier debate, reference was made to the literal meaning of the term "public interest", and to the public interest in having freedom of information about what goes on in court. 6.45 pm The Criminal Law Revision Committee took the view that people accused of rape should not be singled out for special protection while other defendants could be identified. The Government in 1988 agreed. They were not convinced that rape defendants should be treated differently from defendants against whom a different but equally serious offence is alleged. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 therefore repealed the relevant measure. I listened with interest to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Greenway). They said that rape carries a special stigma, but people charged with an offence of dishonesty at work or in connection with their business, for example, and who are subsequently acquitted would say that that charge carried both a stigma and a consequence that could threaten their livelihood. Balancing stigma and post-acquittal consequences involves arguments that are by no means clear-cut. Should people charged with an offence of dishonesty in connection with their business also have protection? The consequences could be just as severe, and the stigma just as great. If they are not to have such protection, why not? Those who propose a return to the law as it was before 1988 must have a convincing response to that dilemma. I am not entirely certain that that has been demonstrated by those who have argued this evening that the 1988 repeal should at least be explored.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I remind the Minister that rape differs from other offences in that, in rape cases, anonymity is given to the complainant, which increases the possibility of a false and malicious allegation. The innocent defendant in such a case will ask how it can be right that the person making the allegation can have anonymity, whereas the defendant cannot. In that sense, rape is different from other offences. Also, I meant to point out that the new clause would allow the court to break anonymity where the interests of justice required it.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I shall come in due course to the powers that the court, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction, already has in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman maintains that one anonymity should be balanced with another, but the contrary argument has been aired in debates throughout the afternoon, and it is that the public have a right, and an interest, in knowing what goes on in court. That argument must be addressed in determining where the balance of public interest lies. We are satisfied that the present law strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice, in which the public has the wider interest, and the very important need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to report such crimes. We are not convinced that there is a special case for infringing the principle of open justice regarding defendants in sexual offences cases. I have nothing but sympathy for the relatives of those in the cases offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale who were driven to suicide by their sense of shame and stigma at the allegations to which they were subject. There is genuine concern that defendants will be deeply distressed by being publicly named in connection with a sexual offence. Even if subsequently found not guilty, people may suffer great distress because of publicity given to their case. Sexual offences cases are particularly heinous, and proceedings inevitably attract much public interest. However, the same can be said of other serious crimes, such as murder, in which defendants may be acquitted. Allegations of indecent assault or gross indecency can carry enormous stigma. Do those who make the case for change suggest that defendants accused of those offences ought to be protected by the cloak of anonymity? Though the suggestion is well intentioned, to offer anonymity to defendants in sex cases would encourage others facing serious charges to argue—with some legitimacy—that they face embarrassment and distress and should be protected from press and public attention. We must ensure equality of treatment among defendants. New clause 2 refers to a person neither accused nor suspected of having committed an offence. After acquittal, a person is neither accused nor suspected, and the new clause would not achieve what the hon. Member for Ryedale wants. We are not satisfied that the reform is justified. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the sex offences review might deal with the point, but it falls outside the review's terms of reference, which are to consider the law, not procedural or evidential issues. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. If there is a need to avoid publicity, the court has the power to act to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to proceedings. The court may order postponement of publication of any report of proceedings for whatever period it considers necessary. In addition, where a court decides to withhold a name from the public during a trial, it has the power to prohibit publication entirely. The courts, mindful of the need to preserve the principle of open justice, have held that that power should not be used merely for the comfort or feelings of the defendant or to enable defendants to avoid unwanted publicity. The powers should be used only in limited circumstances, such as protecting the identities of the young, or in cases in which witnesses might later be exposed to violence or blackmail, or where national security might be prejudiced. The Government agree with that approach. We have been asked why we should protect only victims. Anonymity for complainants in sex offence cases is designed not only to protect them from hurtful publicity for their sake alone, but to encourage other victims of sexual assault to report the offence and to co-operate with the prosecution. Those arguments do not apply to the accused. Throughout our deliberations in Committee, it was pointed out—not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes)—that the current rate of attrition is such that nothing must be done to weaken in any way the capacity and confidence of a complainant to come forward and make her allegation; it is normally "her", but it could equally be "him" in relevant cases. The point was also made by other hon. Friends outside the Committee and in the considerable and weighty representations that I received. The point has been made time and again. The House must confront what the attrition rate in rape cases tells us; the proportion of rape cases recorded by the police and resulting in a conviction fell from 24 per cent. in 1985 to 9 per cent. in 1997. That is a matter of the gravest concern.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is not the lack of balance in the anonymity provisions part of the problem? Since anonymity for the defendant was scrapped, the suggestion has been lurking in the courtroom, in almost every rape case, that a false allegation may have been made under the cloak of anonymity. A man's life may be ruined because of that anonymity. If both parties have anonymity, that suggestion cannot lurk in the background at court. I suggest that that would make a difference.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I want to make it crystal clear why it is so important that the special position of the complainant should be recognised in law. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, if the complainant is in the same position as the defendant, that does not hold up the complainant's special position as deserving the special measure that the complainant should not be subjected to publicity.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I am not able to give way; the House wants to proceed. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I have listened carefully to the arguments, but, for the reason that I have just given, we are not able to accept the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will not press it to a vote.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

The Minister's response was predictable. In fairness to him, I do not mean that as a criticism. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, whenever the matter has been raised in recent years, Ministers—in Labour or Conservative Governments—have given the same response. However, there is more to the matter than the Minister accepts. The Minister asks whether the stigma and consequence of an unfounded rape allegation is different from that of any other crime. For two reasons, there is a significant difference. The first reason is that, in a case of rape or serious sexual offence, the victim has complete anonymity. In the case of virtually all other serious crimes, such anonymity does not exist. If, for example, someone alleges that another person has stolen or embezzled money or property, and if the person concerned is acquitted, a stigma will be attached to the person who made the allegation, because—presumably—that person will have been found not to have told the complete truth. That in itself deters people from making false allegations of criminal offences: those who would make such allegations know that, if the case ends in an acquittal, it is they who will be made to look foolish and dishonest.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is noticeable that, since the scrapping of the anonymity of the defendant, the number of rape cases that have been successfully pursued and have resulted in conviction has fallen dramatically. Might not one reason for that be that the point is not lost on the jury that the person making the complaint is doing so anonymously, and is risking nothing? I am all in favour of that—I think that there should be an anonymity for the victim—but there is an unfairness, in that the defendant, who is not guilty at the time of the trial, has had his reputation ruined for life and, at the end of the day, it may turn out that the allegation is false. That unfairness is in the background of juries' thinking, and it is causing many of the problems.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all accept that anonymity for the victim is an important prerequisite: it encourages women to report rapes or other sexual or violent offences, and I have no doubt that that is the correct approach. However, anonymity has a number of unfortunate consequences. For instance, as my hon. Friend says, someone who intends to make a malicious complaint has nothing to lose. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made that point too.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the woman's name may not be printed in the press, she has to stand up in open court, facing the person whom she has accused, in front of the jury, the judge and court officials, and make her case?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

All that is true, and is taken as read; but it does not explain another fact to which I was about to refer. The research paper that I mentioned earlier gives reasons other than those given by the Minister for the fact that the attrition rate is so high, and the fact that so few rape allegations result in convictions. One reason is that allegations are subsequently withdrawn—a factor that is not a feature of other criminal offences. The Minister asked us, quite openly, to give a reason for the fact that rape and other sexual offences should be different. I think that we have made our case. The stigma, and the consequences, are different in the case of rape—not just because of the anonymity involved, but because it appears for some reason that an acquittal, or the withdrawal of an allegation, does not result in anything like the prominence in the press that was given to the original allegation. There is always the lingering suspicion that the acquittal was not justified, or that there was some truth in the allegation but not enough evidence to sustain the prosecution.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

No smoke without fire.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

My hon. Friend states the reality that the House must face.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am sorry to exploit my hon. Friend's good will, but I have become interested in the debate. Does he agree that the unbalanced position on anonymity has two bad effects? First, it is bad for the defendant if he is acquitted and people say that there is no smoke without fire. Secondly, it undermines the case of women who have been wronged and treated appallingly, because in court, they are undermined by the ever-present suggestion that they are making their accusation with the benefit of anonymity, while the man's reputation is on the line. That undermines cases that should be pressed home successfully to a conviction.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

My hon. Friend tempts me with a road down which I do not wish to go, because I do not want to dispel the spirit that existed within the Committee and encompassed some of the Government Members. However, he makes his own point extremely well. We shall not have an opportunity to discuss this important issue again for a while, but time is pressing and in an effort to be brief, I missed out a page of my notes. One of the important points on that page is the one made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—that in rape cases, the lack of anonymity for the accused, or the defendant, or the alleged perpetrator leads increasingly to the anonymity of the victim being breached and her identity being disclosed. The fundamental reason for that development is clear in the research: it is that the number of stranger rape cases as a proportion of all rape allegations is falling, but that the number of so-called acquaintance, intimate or date rape cases has increased substantially. Therefore, there is a far greater prospect that, by publishing the identity of the alleged perpetrator, the identity of the victim will be disclosed. It seems logical to conclude that, if the priority is to give protection and anonymity to a victim, any matter that undermines that anonymity should be a matter of concern for the House, and that some adjustment to the law is justified. When he referred to the Home Office review of sex offences, the Minister said that the anonymity issue was outwith the scope of that review. That surprises me, because the document given to us at the seminar that the Minister kindly and helpfully arranged sets out the terms of reference for the review. They are: To review the sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and make recommendations that will: provide coherent and clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation". I accept that the anonymity issue is not covered by that, or by the second requirement—that the recommendations should enable abusers to be appropriately punished". However, I suggest that the anonymity issue is covered by the third strand, which is that the recommendations should be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. Even setting aside those cases in which a trial results in acquittal, and concentrating only on those cases in which the allegation is subsequently withdrawn and the woman admits that she was not telling the truth, I put it to the Minister that it is not fair and not non-discriminatory to give anonymity to rape and sex offence victims, but not to people who are, in many cases, maliciously and falsely accused. There is a human rights dimension to the question of anonymity for those who are falsely accused of rape and sexual offences. It will be clear that I do not seek to press this matter further. Early Thursday evening, when the House is about to adjourn for the week, may be an unfortunate time to have this debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) laughs, but although I do not think that we shall have a long Third Reading debate, there was a statement that lasted an hour, and the Government have known for days that it would be made today. The House ought to return to this issue. The other place will do so. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for his support, and I ask the Minister to think again about including the issue in the important review of rape that his Department is currently undertaking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

WITNESSES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE ON GROUNDS OF FEAR OR DISTRESS ABOUT TESTIFYING

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 13, line 24, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 5.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The amendments are the direct result of representations made to the Government by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown), for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), among others. They are designed to ensure that all sexual offence complainants will be eligible for help unless they say that they do not want to be eligible. Every sexual offence is likely to be distressing and frightening. It represents an assault of the most intimate kind and, if the complainant and defendant know one another, a betrayal of trust. In Committee, I agreed to consider whether complainants in sexual offence cases should have a greater degree of certainty that they will be deemed eligible for assistance. After consideration, I agree that the particular nature of sexual offence cases and the problem of attrition in those cases demand that we give sexual offence complainants greater certainty. They should have the certainty that they cannot be judged ineligible for help unless they do not want help. The debate in Committee was enormously significant. It was enhanced by the representations made by the hon. Members whom I have mentioned, not forgetting the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who brought the point home with particular force and has used her considerable influence to bring about this outcome. I hope that in the light of that, hon. Members on both sides of the House will give the amendments a fair wind.

Julia Drown (Labour, South Swindon)

The amendment gives the complainant the strongest possible presumption that special measures should be adopted unless the witness does not want them. As one of those who have argued for the strengthening of the clause, I welcome the amendment. The amendment allows the strongest possible assumption, but not an absolute automatic right to special measures because the judge could decide that none of the special measures would help the witness. The intention of the clause is that it would be incredibly unusual for someone not to be given at least a screen, but it still allows for no special measures to be applied. A justification for that is the European convention on human rights, which we have now incorporated into British law. Article 6 of that convention says that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. 7.15 pm I am not aware of any authority or previous ruling that has laid down that screens—which we may take to be a minimum protection—breach article 6 by acting as an impediment to effective cross-examination. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be fully aware, the European convention on human rights allows for a margin of appreciation in the interpretation of its provisions by signatory states. Some leading lawyers believe that that margin would allow the Home Secretary to permit screens in court under article 6. Has counsel's opinion been obtained on that issue? If so, what was the advice? Given that the minimum of a screen as a special measure would not restrict a fair trial of the defendant, I would want the Government to go further even than they have by tabling amendment No. 5. I should like them to say that a screen would be the minimum that they would expect for a witness in a rape trial. Guidance would need to be given to judges, to say that the minimum of a screen does not prevent other measures—such as clearing the court—from being offered, but that the screen should be regarded as a minimum protection and that, if the witness requests further protections, the court must give the matter serious thought. The huge advantage of setting the automatic right to at least a screen would be that we could then offer potential witnesses some certainty. They could be told from day 1, when they walk into the police station to report the crime, that if the case went to court, they would not have to face the accused if they did not want to. An automatic right for complainants to be afforded such protection would be better for defendants, too. If in all cases the judge has the ultimate say over whether special measures are appropriate, so that particular measures are allowed only in specific cases, it may be difficult to prevent juries from forming the belief that there is something especially sinister about the defendant in a case where a special measure has been allowed. If there is an automatic right to special measures, juries can be advised that the use of the special measures has nothing to do with any special features of the case or of the defendant. Undoubtedly, the law needs to give better protection to witnesses. Some victims of rape say that they cannot face even the prospect that they might have to face their attacker again in court, and that they would prefer to let the attacker go free than to risk going through that experience. Amendment No. 5 would obviously help those victims. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that, if amendment No. 5 is passed and if sufficiently strong guidance is given to judges, he will be able to give men and women rape victims the assurance that they need to enable them to report crimes of rape and face going into the witness box? I should like further clarification. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that complainants would not usually attend pre-trial hearings, but that in rare situations, that could happen. I then asked how complainants would be protected at pre-trial hearings in the unlikely, but possible, event that both they and the defendant turned up in the same room. I was very pleased to hear in Committee that a judge would have the power to prevent a witness from having to be in the same room as the defendant in such situations. However, can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will give judges sufficiently strong guidance to ensure that they exercise that power when the witness wishes her or him to do so? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the protections that, rightly, he has included in clause 41 to restrict the use of sexual history evidence in trials can also be extended, via the guidance or via further legislation, to apply to pre-trial hearings, too, so that victims know with certainty that they will have all the protections that the Government envisage through all parts of the justice system? One reason why special measures are so necessary is that, sometimes in rape cases and all too often in the past, sexual history evidence has been brought into rape trials. It could have been thought that fewer victims would need special measures if the Bill had outlawed all inappropriate sexual history evidence. However, many of us now accept that we cannot do everything that we had hoped for in the Bill in terms of limiting sexual history evidence, which makes screens and the strong presumption in favour of screens as proposed in amendment No. 5 even more crucial. The barrier to our making as much progress on the matter now as would be desirable is that the rules on the admissibility of evidence must be framed in the light of the definition of rape contained in the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Understandably, we cannot have two inconsistent laws. The strong presumption in favour of screens, as proposed in the amendment, will encourage rape victims to come forward. I welcome the moves to limit sexual history evidence, but they cannot give complainants the complete assurance that they will not subjected in court to humiliating or intimidating questions about their sexual history. Many women have described the experience of a trial in which they have had to go through their sexual history in intimate detail as a humiliation which made them feel as though they had been raped again. We must recognise that however much witnesses are protected from unreasonable questioning about their sexual history, it is inevitable that, in many rape cases, witnesses will have to give intimate and detailed sexual evidence. That is bound to be the case when the defence is that intercourse did not take place. We should not forget, therefore, that the experience is bound to be traumatic and intrusive for the complainant. We are discussing ways in which that trauma and intrusion can be reduced, but it cannot be removed entirely. I have discussed with my hon. Friends the many police officers, lawyers and women's refuge workers who told us that if they had been raped, they would not take their case to court. Their testimony is eloquent. The strong presumption in favour of special measures is relevant. Although the Bill goes some way towards reducing the admissibility of sexual history evidence, particularly in cases where the defence is arguing that the complainant consented, the Bill cannot rule out inappropriate sexual history in all rape trials. That cannot be done because the definition of rape currently on the statute book allows as a defence the argument that the defendant had an honest belief in consent, even if he now admits that the victim did not consent, or worse—that the defendant had an honest, but unreasonable belief in consent. It is incredible that such a defence should be available. We must try to make sensible laws about what constitutes reasonable evidence and appropriate special measures in a rape trial. On discovering the possible defence of an honest, but unreasonable belief that the victim consented, I felt rather like Alice stepping through the looking-glass and moving into a world of make-believe. However, even for this defence, through the Bill, we have introduced restrictions on sexual history evidence. Those restrictions are that refusing to give such evidence could lead the jury to an unsafe conclusion, that the main purpose of the evidence must not be to undermine the victim's credibility, and that the evidence must relate to specific instances of sexual behaviour of the complainant. That is as far as we can go while such a ridiculous defence is available. That makes this amendment essential. I should be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Minister believes that the Bill introduces further restrictions, in addition to those that I outlined. We wanted to reduce the horrific cases in which inappropriate sexual history is brought out in court and widely reported, which deters other victims from reporting rapes. In Committee, we discussed a case in which it was pointed out in court that in the past, the witness had had sex with an Asiatic, and that the accused happened to be an Asiatic, and another case in which the witness was reminded that she had had sex with a man older than herself who was of the same age as the defendant. It is understandable that complainants would want the court to be cleared if such evidence were presented. Although such evidence will now be ruled irrelevant, it could be relevant if it related to specific instances of sexual behaviour and the defendant claimed an unreasonable, but honest belief that the complainant had consented. The defendant could argue that he believed stupidly, but honestly that because the complainant had had consensual sex with a similar person, she consented to sex with the defendant on the occasion in question. The Minister said in Committee that offensive and irrelevant questions should not be allowed in our courts, but under the Bill, it will still be possible to present similar evidence. That further emphasises the need for the amendment. The Bill is intended to overrule the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Viola in 1982, which argued that a complainant's promiscuity was relevant to consent—a ridiculous judgment. The overruling would apply to consent, but not to belief in consent, as a defence. Hon. Members will agree that victims in such situations have a strong right to special measures. I should be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill precludes specific instances of sexual history being brought out to justify cases such as the three to which I have referred, in which case victims might not have to ask for all the particular special measures that we are making available through the clause. If so, surely we are changing the law of evidence in anticipation of how we want the law to change. That is precisely what my hon. Friend told us in Committee that we cannot do. As long as the defence of unreasonable, but honest belief in consent remains, unreasonable evidence may be admitted, which makes special measures all the more important.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

A defence of that nature—the subjective test—exists in relation to many other offences. It is nothing new, it is not peculiar to this offence and it does not seem to create any injustice in any other context.

Julia Drown (Labour, South Swindon)

We are particularly concerned about the attrition rate in rape cases and the fact that so many vulnerable people will not come forward because of the sort of evidence that has been brought forward in the past. I acknowledge that the Government are tackling the larger problem by reviewing the definition of rape. That is desperately needed, because we will not be able to give women victims confidence that the law will always protect them until unreasonable belief in consent is removed as a defence from the law of the land. For that reason, special measures are even more necessary, although in a sense we are putting the cart before the horse by considering special measures and evidence first rather than the offences. The problem with unreasonable belief in consent is not the only reason why we need those special measures. Even though there are special protections in clause 41, there is still a need for special measures, such as clearing the court or being able to give evidence from behind a screen. Under subsection (3)(b), a person might have to talk about sexual behaviour…at or about the same time as the event", which makes special measures necessary. We need to consider whether that is the best way of protecting witnesses. It has been suggested that we should use special measures rather than look in more detail at sexual history, but we should look in more detail at the root of the issues relating to sexual history and consider whether we are doing all we can to make sure that guilty people are brought to trial. For example, clause 41(3)(b) concerns anything that happened around the time of the event and whether such events are relevant to consent, which is what the Government would argue. All those things could be brought in under rebuttal, which few people have mentioned, or under a restriction that is used in many other countries: sexual behaviour evidence should be limited to that between the defendant and the complainant. In Committee, the Minister gave the example that it would be relevant to know that a couple had been seen kissing in a doorway or on a park bench—or, to take another example, that they had had consensual sex—an hour before the alleged incident took place. However, we were not given an example of behaviour with anyone other than the complainant which would be relevant to consent, so should not the Government be considering that as at least an added restriction to subsection (3)(b)? Can they justify subsection (3)(c)(ii), under which any previous, strikingly similar sexual history is relevant to consent? The Government have rightly and strongly said that, in general, people do not decide to consent to sex with anyone on any occasion. People give consent on separate occasions to a certain person and the law should uphold that. If such examples are still to be brought in, we can see the case for the amendment: victims need those special measures. Subsection (3)(c)(ii) has been justified by some peculiar examples. Baroness Mallalieu has referred to a sexual history involving a "Romeo and Juliet" balcony scene followed by sex. In a trial, that would be considered to be relevant to consent if the rape was alleged to have occurred in similar circumstances. If that is to be allowed, an amendment to clause 17 such as this is definitely necessary. 7.30 pm We need further scrutiny of these issues. The Government have gone a long way towards limiting sexual history evidence and providing better protection for rape victims. Nevertheless, until we review current sexual offences, we shall not be able to give proper protection to women and men victims of rape. The Government need to ensure that the sexual offences review concludes as soon as possible, and to get rid of the honest, but unreasonable belief in consent defence. Then we need to return to these clauses, and ensure that all irrelevant sexual history is excluded from trial and that victims can be guaranteed special measures protections that they request.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

The amendments are to be welcomed. If I may, I shall draw the Minister's attention to the fifth sitting of the Committee when I asked: Would it not be to the advantage of all concerned if, when the victim requested special measures, they were granted? Otherwise, the victim might well have to go through the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 June 1999, c.121.] In reply the Minister said "No" and explained that answer. Do I now understand that his answer to my request of last month is now yes?

Lorna Fitzsimons (Labour, Rochdale)

I wish to put on record how important this amendment is and how welcome the Government's new approach has been, in particular that of the Minister and his ministerial team. He has been open to people like myself with no legal background whatever and has helped us understand the problems in other bits of the law that we, as interested parties, face—specifically in the application of special measures. We acknowledge that the Government recognise the special needs of the most vulnerable people, to which special measures he is attending, and realise that we cannot do everything in this Bill. The achievement of the women on the Committee needs to be put on record. They and the ministerial team have been working round the problems of our awful legal system where witnesses do not count because what matters is what can be proved in a court of law. Ordinary people cannot understand it. We have pushed back the boundaries. We need to look at the review of sexual offences and other bits of the law, such as the definition of belief. I welcome the Government's approach and believe that it will achieve a lot for the most vulnerable whose voice is not heard at present.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) for those kind remarks and echo them in relation to the Bill team who have been responsible for giving us the back-up that they have on these amendments and responding to the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the debate. It has been important, and it has guided our work as a Bill Committee, to determine that the courts should be required to put at the heart of their consideration of the matters before them the needs and views of individual witnesses, taken on board and understood in detail, in terms of the court determining the appropriate response to make sure that witnesses can give of their best evidence. This is all about ensuring that witnesses give of their best evidence because it is when witnesses have been able to present that best evidence to the court and the jury have had an opportunity to understand and appreciate it that the interests of justice are most likely to be served. The interests of justice are best served by our addressing the causes of attrition in a way that is based on research and developing best practice, and ensuring both through primary legislation and guidance to the court how best to give complainants the confidence and reassurance that they so desperately need to go forward with these prosecutions. Hence it is important to ensure that a menu of measures is available to the courts, so that they can consider which one will best meet a particular witness's needs. We intend to proceed down that route, rather than impose an artificial norm to be followed unless a witness protests. Some rape complainants may find a screen helpful. In other cases, the court may decide that the witness should be kept out of the court altogether so as to be able to give of their best evidence, and that a video or live link would be better. In those cases, rather than a screen, the first thing the court should consider is a video or live link. Having taken into account the needs of the witness in some detail in the context of what is occurring in the court, the judge should be able to put those special measures in place. The amendments ensure that sex offence complainants have confidence that they will get the understanding of the court to which they are entitled, and we must back that up with guidance. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) that guidance will be forthcoming: it will be clear and focused on the needs of witnesses to enable them to give of their best evidence. The Government have heard the representations of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and those of my hon. Friends in Committee, which is why we have come to this conclusion. We believe that it is important for the courts to retain proper control of how evidence is given at trial, and to strike a balance between the needs of the witnesses and the interests of a fair trial. That is necessary to accord with our European Court of Human Rights obligations. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, we are quite satisfied that the measures that we are introducing are entirely in accordance with our ECHR obligations. The court will be able to consider the views of all parties, including the party calling the witness, who may take a different view from that of the witness. Having borne in mind the totality of all the circumstances, it will be able to come to a proper conclusion. In her wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised the wider issues around consent and belief in consent. I hear what she says, and note her vigorous critique of the law of rape as it now stands. There will be varying views in the House about how best to constitute the offence of rape. I am glad to say that the Government are determined to take an inclusive approach by reaching out and giving everyone an opportunity to make representations, hence the importance of the sex offences review. I am delighted that so many hon. Members availed themselves of the opportunity that I gave them earlier this week to attend that seminar, and I am grateful to them for doing so. There will need to be more debate and discussion.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD WITNESSES

EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21 TO CERTAIN WITNESSES OVER 17

AIDS TO COMMUNICATION

CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I 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. 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.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

There are too many lawyers.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

There 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. 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.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

It was the Whip.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The 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.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I 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 (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.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

We 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 Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

May 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.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

EC PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 2000

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hunting with Dogs

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 42,500 people from throughout the United Kingdom, including many from my constituency, on the issue of hunting with dogs. The petition is sponsored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The petition is yet another part of the jigsaw that is being put together that will, we hope, ultimately bring about the end of hunting in this country. Among the signatories are Anne Ruach from London and Dean and Jodi Hancock from Porchester in Hampshire. It gives me great pleasure to present the petition to the House. The petition Declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in modern Britain. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from Honourable Members and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition.

Stroke Unit (Hull)

Alan Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle)

The petition of the members of the OK Stroke club and their supporters had 16,000 signatures when they set out from Hull to London and 16,083 by the time that they completed the journey. The petition Declares that the lack of a specialist stroke unit in Hull and East Yorkshire means that there are avoidable deaths and avoidable disabilities in this area as a result of strokes. Most other parts of the country now have stroke units. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to ensure that a specialist stroke unit is provided for the people of Hull and East Yorkshire.

Rail Regulation (Wales)

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I begin by referring to the transport powers that have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. I am wary of what Madam Speaker had to say on Wednesday, so I shall be careful about what I say. As I understand it, there is some limited rail investment through strategic development schemes and the Assembly can fund or regulate trunk roads, bus services and integrated transport packages. Local authorities have powers to fund local road construction and maintenance, bus services and some limited rail service development. Integrated public transport policies are among today's big ideas, and rightly so, but there is a considerable problem in ensuring an integrated, sustainable transport policy for Wales—the glaring absence of any substantial powers under present legislation for the national authority to co-ordinate rail transport with other forms of public transport. The White Paper on devolution suggested that the Assembly should be able to monitor the performance of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. It said: The Assembly will also be able to invite evidence from various regulatory bodies including the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. Government policy therefore appears to be that the National Assembly should be able to monitor the activities of these bodies and make its views known. However, these bodies will remain accountable to Parliament at Westminster. One way forward for rail services in Wales may be through local authority funding. The Assembly has just taken over the transport powers of the Welsh Office, one of whose functions was to oversee passenger rail services in Wales. The departmental report for 1998 stated that more than £8 million was allocated to local authorities for improvements to the rail infrastructure between Cardiff and the valleys for the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. However, an all-Wales passenger transport authority would be preferable, as it would provide considerably more investment. The establishment of such a body would require primary legislation. At present, only metropolitan counties are passenger transport areas: only they, therefore, qualify for the establishment of passenger transport authorities or executives. The financial implications of funding and its sources will be an issue. Other matters to be considered will be block grants, the transfer of current Opraf payments, investment funding for railways from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and so on. The addition of the railways to the National Assembly's expenditure portfolio would require a negotiated settlement estimated at between £80 million to £100 million, based on passenger miles within each franchise operating in Wales. That figure would, of course, be reduced in line with the subsidy profile. Although there is a need to ensure that Wales is perceived as a country that is efficient and easily accessible to road-based inward investors and tourists, there is also a longer-term requirement for a sustainable transport policy that reduces both pollution and congestion. There is no doubt that Wales's road and rail network has been grossly underfunded for the past quarter of a century. To be frank, the picture is a bad one. There is a lot of work to be done, and the Minister more than anyone will realise how important it is to put the right transport infrastructure in place. It is likely that the greening of the road building programme by the previous Government was a Treasury-led, cost-cutting exercise. The Welsh Office has published two documents that are appropriate starting points, but they must be backed by adequate funding if policies are to be turned into actions and are not to become mere platitudes. The adequacy of the Welsh block grant—now transferred to the Assembly—will impact on road and rail expenditure, but at present no account is taken of any particular transport needs, nor of the current state of infrastructure in urban and rural Wales. Therefore, to overcome past underfunding, considerably higher amounts are required. The National Assembly has no control over expenditure in certain areas, such as major railway infrastructure. It faces the challenge of ensuring that Wales receives its fair share, and its relationship with the Strategic Rail Authority will be crucial. The consultation process on the SRA began yesterday. I understand that the authority's main purpose will be to provide a clear strategic direction for rail transport in Britain. It will also promote—inside the Government and among the public—passenger and freight transport by rail, and it will foster a climate that encourages private investment in the railways. The SRA will be the single body, accountable to the Secretary of State, responsible for strategic planning. It will co-ordinate and supervise the activities of the rail industry, as well as the disbursement of public funds. It will also have the clear aim of co-ordinating strategic objectives with the Government and other interested parties, which include passenger operators, consumers, freight operators and Railtrack. The SRA is also tasked to lead and promote a radical improvement in the integration of rail with other transport modes, and to maximise benefits to the rail user as far as possible, acting as an advocate of passengers and freight consumers. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions enumerated its concerns and aims in its recent response to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. No one could argue with the Department's aims, but Wales is at a gross disadvantage. The National Assembly for Wales has a relative lack of power to oversee the strategic development of rail services in comparison with both the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority. That is a raw deal for our railways. Creating an integrated transport policy will not be easy unless the powers are right. The SRA will work closely with key organisations, passenger transport executives and co-signatories to several franchise agreements. The Scottish Executive will have power to instruct and guide the SRA on certain aspects of rail services that are wholly in Scotland. The GLA will be able to procure enhanced rail services from the SRA and propose changes to the pattern of services in London. The Welsh Assembly, by contrast, will be consulted only on passenger service specifications. None of those powers will compromise the SRA's duty to plan the operation and development of the rail network strategically across Great Britain. The Welsh Assembly plainly has considerably weaker powers than the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority, a distinction crucial to the economic development of Wales. A Cardiff office of the SRA could help properly to integrate rail services in Wales, which are currently poor. Back-Bench Members whinge, and Ministers get fed up of us, but I say nothing against the Minister by pointing out that rail services in Wales are probably at their lowest ebb. Siting an office in Cardiff could help in the short term. Consultation is beginning on the proposed Railways Bill. Will the Minister convey the idea of a Cardiff office to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions? It would help our economy as well as developing a sustainable transport policy for Wales. I want a passenger transport authority for Wales—but for the time being, a Welsh SRA would be a useful step. Last month, the Welsh Consumer Council reported on railways in "The European Connection: A report on transport connections to Europe". It found that railways in Wales were in a perilous state, never having been so poor. It observed that the system in Wales had become fragmented, failing to deliver any of the perceived benefits of privatisation. It opined that the quality of service to passengers had reached an all-time low. Old trains are being transferred from routes in England to Wales. Recently, a relatively new set was taken off the north Wales coast railway to be replaced by a 1957 set. That is not good enough on one of the main lines in north Wales. The report also observes that the Assembly will control budget subsidies for roads, but will have no control over railways. The different administrative locations will make integration and co-operation difficult. Its firm conclusion is that the National Assembly should create a passenger transport executive so that—inter alia—the needs of passengers come first, and so that all forms of public transport are integrated and there is sufficient investment by rail operators in new rolling stock, staff and stations to provide an efficient, all-round service. Three months ago, some high-powered Japanese entrepreneurs visited north Wales. They were intent on investing in the old county of Clywd in the eastern part of north Wales. Their arrival on train was delayed by two hours; shortly afterwards, they decided that investment was not a good idea. If that is not a graphic example of how the situation is hitting us economically, I do not know what is. We are beginning the consultation period on the Railways Bill. I urge the hon. Lady to bring these matters to the attention of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so that the legitimate and deeply held concerns of the Welsh travelling public are met and so that, at the end of the day, Wales, too, will have a first-class, integrated public transport system with an excellent railway at its heart.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss railway regulation in Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the key objectives identified at the national rail summit in February was to improve the quality of service for passengers while obtaining the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. One of the steps towards achieving that objective was the setting up, on 1 April, of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, under Sir Alastair Morton, with Mike Grant as the new franchising director. The work of that body is well under way. Our new Railways Bill will formally establish the Strategic Rail Authority on a statutory basis, as well as aiding our regulation of railways in general—including those in Wales. Our Bill will put right some of the more glaring faults of the previous Administration's privatisation. It will amend the tangled mess of railways legislation left by that Administration. They left our railways without a single voice, champion or focus. The railways were run as separate businesses, not a national network. What does our Railways Bill do? As I said, the Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority. It sets out the mission statement for the SRA: to promote the use of the railway network for passengers and for freight; to secure the development of the railway network; and to contribute towards integrated transport. The Bill requires the SRA to produce a strategy or strategies to fulfil that mission. It transfers the duties of consumer protection to the SRA and a simplified closure procedure to the Secretary of State. It retains the rail regulator as an independent economic regulator, subject only to high-level guidance from Ministers on the Government's transport policy. It allows the SRA to ask the rail regulator to direct owners of railway facilities, such as trains or stations, to enhance them or provide new facilities. The Bill will enable the SRA to step in and operate trains if a franchise goes bankrupt, or if there are no acceptable private sector bids when a franchise is re-let. The Bill allows the SRA, and the rail regulator, to impose more effective sanctions on those who break the terms of their franchise agreements or licences. In contrast to the position under the Railways Act 1993, contraventions that may have caused widespread inconvenience and loss, but which have been remedied by the time lengthy enforcement action is completed, could in future attract penalties. The Government have agreed in principle that the SRA will be able to retain income from penalties and reinvest it in the railways. It is vital that our railways are run as a national network and because of that they must remain a reserved matter. However, that will be to the advantage of Wales—for which proper rail links are, I know, extremely important. Indeed, in his closing remarks, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated that vital importance in respect of inward investment. We also know and respect the needs and concerns of the devolved Administration. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed with the our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that there will be Welsh representation on the Strategic Rail Authority, and that the authority will consult the Assembly about the exercise of its functions as they relate to Wales. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy suggested the establishment of a separate SRA for Wales, but, as I have said, what is overwhelmingly important is for us to return to the concept of a national integrated network. An SRA for Wales could not form a strategy for the whole network, and that would disadvantage Wales as well as the wider railway network. It is essential for the SRA to be able to ensure that the railways are run as a national network, and to produce a strategy for the whole network. Most Welsh services start, end, or pass through England. Cutting them off—making them a separate entity—would lead to even more fragmentation. As I have said, proper, coherent links are vital to Wales. The hon. Gentleman referred to the different position in Scotland. The position is different there because the network is largely self-contained. A Scottish policy will not have the impact on the rest of Great Britain that a Welsh policy might have; nor will it fragment Scottish services. The powers of Scottish Ministers will, however, be exercisable only within the Great Britain strategic framework. Given the huge pressure on legislative time in the House of Commons, the introduction of the Railways Bill now is, we believe, an unequivocal demonstration of the resolve of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed of the Government as a whole, to fulfil our side of the bargain and improve our railway services. That will be of inordinate benefit to Wales, and to Great Britain as a whole. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is both a welcome and a fundamental step towards a better railway, which, in turn, will feed into the aims and objectives announced last year in our integrated transport White Paper. An obvious factor that influences people' s choice of transport is performance. The main concern of passengers is that their trains run, and run to time. As the hon. Gentleman said, performance in many parts of Wales is, or has been, below par, notably the service recently provided by the Valley Lines—formerly known as Cardiff Railway—and Wales and West Passenger Trains. Long-term problems have also been experienced on Great Western Trains and the west coast main line. The franchise agreements for all but InterCity operators include a punctuality incentive regime, under which companies are rewarded for improved performance or penalised for poor performance. It will come as no surprise to rail users in Wales, or indeed to the hon. Gentleman, to hear that between them Valley Lines, Wales and West Passenger Trains, Great Western and Central Trains paid more than £4 million under these regimes in the financial year up to 31 March 1999. That is a lamentable advertisement for rail services in Wales. We have made it clear that poor performance by train operators will not be tolerated. Last November, an action plan was agreed with franchisees and Railtrack to secure short-term improvements in performance. Measures agreed included 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint "hit squad" to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, a national "trouble shooter" team to tackle punctuality problems, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services, and to help measure performance across the network. As I have said, building on the success of the November meeting, the national rail summit took place in February to assess progress on the action plan, and to put in place solutions to tackle medium to long-term problems. We also launched the national passenger survey, and the start of a consultation with the rail industry and passenger representatives on a new standard measure of overall performance to reflect the experience of passengers more accurately. The rail industry also accepted our challenge to improve punctuality over the next year, and committed itself to deliver real performance improvements that are measurable year on year. When franchises are renegotiated, past performance will be one of the criteria on which operators are assessed and considered for future involvement in the industry. We have warned all train operators that those who fail to improve services will have no long-term future in our railways. There are some significant new rail developments in Wales. The first of these is bilingual signing, and I understand that Wales and West Passenger Trains is in the process of installing bilingual customer information systems at all of the stations within Wales that it manages. I welcome that initiative as an example of a train operator responding to the wishes of passengers in Wales. The second is the north to south Wales fast train service, which was announced on 25 March. A feasibility study has been conducted and, although funding has yet to be finalised, the anticipated start date remains summer 2000. Thirdly, while I welcome the increase in frequency of Great Western trains between London Paddington and Bristol from June, I welcome even more its increasing the frequency of London to Cardiff trains by 2001. We are committed to encouraging more people to travel by rail and to ensuring more investment in the rail network. That is why we have made available additional funding for a new rail passenger partnership scheme, launched on 24 May and aimed specifically at providing support for locally sponsored services that are not commercially viable. Applications for funding will be assessed on planning criteria that take wider social benefits into account. Guidance has been issued to local authorities on how to bid for funds under that scheme. Proposals for RPP support can be submitted by various bodies, including local authorities, passenger transport executives and authorities, and train operating companies, either as individuals or consortiums. Local authorities and others are encouraged to come forward with proposals. Formal bids will be appraised to ensure that they are consistent with Opraf's planning criteria and the franchising director's objectives, instructions and guidance. Bids will have to demonstrate the achievement of value for money in the delivery of the scheme. Copies of the RPP bidding guidance and planning criteria have already been sent to all local authorities. I repeat, our perception is that it is vital that our railways are run as a national network, and that that will be to the advantage of Wales. We recognise the needs and concerns of the devolved Administrations and we are listening to them. The Government would strongly and wholeheartedly endorse the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the needs of railways as part of a properly integrated transport system. However, as I said, we believe that to split off the railways in Wales would make the situation in Wales even worse. Many of the problems that passengers in Wales suffer are, as we know, owed to the failure of previous Administrations adequately to invest in our railways. The Government are committed to change that, not only by our policies, but by our approach to regulation and through the additional funding that we have found for our railways. I assure the hon. Gentleman and all the people of Wales that Wales is central to our considerations and to the delivery of our programme.