Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2002.

Standing Committee F

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before we begin, I want to draw hon. Members' attention to an error in the amendment paper. New clause 5, tabled by Mr. Mallon, appears as a new clause relating to part 4. Instead, it should appear as a new clause relating to part 5. It has not been selected for today's business in any case, as it is starred.Clause 53 Aims of youth justice system

Clause 53 - Aims of youth justice system

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 223, in page 30, line 32, after 'children', insert

'having taken into account the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, as identified in the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; The United Nations Guidelines for the prevention of Juvenile delinquency; the United Nations Standard minimum for the Administration of Youth Justice and the United Nations Guidelines for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty.'.

No. 264, in page 30, line 32, after 'children', insert 'and young persons'.

No. 277, in page 30, line 37, leave out 'welfare' and insert 'best interests'.

No. 284, in page 30, line 41, at end insert—

'(3A) All persons with responsibility for the youth justice system shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.'.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for moving the amendment on Thursday last, in my unavoidable absence. It was most interesting to read the report, which gives a certain flavour of attitudes.

I will be pretty brief, because the debate has already taken place. My three amendments try to fulfil the obligations of recommendation 169 of the review group, which was that

''a clear statement of the aims of the juvenile justice system''

should be developed, agreed and incorporated in legislation. The clause attempts to do that, but it is

parsimonious and lacks the detail and humanity that one would expect on the issue. In many ways, it has a turn-of-the-century tone about it—and I am not talking about the last century. Although I recognise the validity of what the Minister has said and will say about stating the aims, I ask him to consider the importance of the issue—I know that he has—and to try to reflect its importance by agreeing to the amendments.

In a Bill such as this, it is important that we ensure that the wording reflects the challenges that we face and the world that we live in. It is not adequate simply to state the principles in bare terms, as the Government do. That is deficient, because it does not expand on them as it might. It is also incomplete, as it ignores several elements that the review group felt should be included among the aims. I know that they will be dealt with—somewhat parsimoniously, I suggest—in other parts of the clause.

I have no quarrel with the aim of the prevention of offending and the encouragement of children to take responsibility for their actions, but the provisions should deal with the rehabilitation of the offender, which they do not. Nor do they deal with the duty to regard the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, in accordance with article 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. That convention is the most widely adhered to of all international human rights instruments. It is unacceptable for its fundamental provisions to be ignored when the principles of a system of justice intended to deal with children are under consideration. It will be argued that those principles are reflected elsewhere in the Bill—I do not dispute that—and that they are presented in practical terms—I do not dispute that either. However, I believe that the principles have such weight and importance that they should be stated clearly in the clause.

The amendments derive from the views put forward by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in its submission to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its approach was accepted by all the political parties. It is important for the relationship between the Administration and the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and all the other agencies to be such that the more we respect and reflect their views, the stronger the legislation becomes. Their input does not weaken its objectives; it strengthens them. Rather than the negative function that is implied in subsections (1), (2) and (3), the justice system should have the positive function of reintegrating children into society and enabling them to play a constructive part in future. That is crucial.

It will be argued that the amendment is redundant, and that those aims are stated elsewhere. So be it. However, those aims are so important that we should live with the possible redundancy and include a declaration of our intent.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

My hon. Friend has anticipated one of the counter-arguments to his assertion. Does he agree that the best thing that we can do for a young person who has a strong propensity to offend is to get him to the stage at which that propensity is much weaker? Subsection (2)

promotes the development of conscience in young people. Surely that is doing the right thing both for the young person and for the wider society.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I could not disagree with a word that my hon. Friend has said. However, I am attempting to ensure that the tone changes and, with it, the declaration of intent in the legislation to make those aims a priority, which the clause does not seem to make them. We must ensure that children in the justice system are treated with dignity, and that all actions taken within the system are taken with the best interests of the child firmly in mind, not just his welfare.

I do not want to argue about semantics, but there is a substantial difference between welfare and best interests. Welfare is the fulfilling of responsibilities in a fairly cold way, whereas dealing with a young person's best interests goes beyond that. I know that hon. Members who have dealt with young people will recognise that substantive difference.

The amendment is important because it provides a declaration of intent. It sets out not only what we shall do, but what our approach will be. The tone that it gives the Bill could help us to achieve our aims.

I believe that amendment No. 286 was grouped with the present amendments on Thursday, and, if I may—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that amendment No. 286 has been grouped with amendment No. 227 under clause 54, and we shall come to it later. I will allow a reasonable amount of wandering, but we should bear in mind the fact that amendment No. 286 is in the next group.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank you most sincerely for that guidance, Mr. Conway, which gave me time to remember what I was going to say about the amendment.

I shall conclude by asking the Minister carefully to reconsider the amendments. Nothing in them runs contrary to the Bill's wording or objectives or to the direction that it must take. Yes, there is a softening of tone and a little more humanity in them, but it is crucial that we enshrine the UN principles, which take us away from what I called the turn-of-the-century approach and places the issue in a different context, from which it can only benefit.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall be brief because we have until one o'clock to discuss 13 clauses, about 80 amendments, some schedules and, possibly, some new clauses.

I want to respond, in particular, to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about legislation containing statements of intent, a matter on which I briefly touched before the weekend. Sentencing policies change quite frequently, and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has quite radically changed them in the past four or five weeks. Hon. Members may have read about this in the newspapers, but I clearly remember him saying that those who were guilty of street robbery or of stealing mobile telephones should go to prison

for a long time. Indeed, he increased the sentence of someone who had stolen a mobile telephone to five years.

As we know, most street crime is committed by youngsters, and there has now been a radical change in the way in which the courts are required to consider the issue. This year, the Lord Chief Justice has also said that, wherever possible, young mothers should not be sentenced to prison. That, again, is a change in sentencing policy, and the Court of Appeal criminal division is constraining the way in which the courts exercise their discretion in sentencing.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes the important point that sentencing policies change. Is it not, therefore, all the more important that principles, which do not change, should be made explicit in legislation such as this?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I take an entirely different view. Legislation is not the place for statements of intent, which are to be found in policy documents, party political manifestos and papers provided by jurists and others. They should not be placed in statute.

Not only do sentencing policies change, in accordance with declarations by the senior judiciary, but so do Government responses to criminal behaviour. The ways in which the present and previous Governments have dealt with aspects of criminal behaviour have changed from time to time. Usually, in my experience, Government responses to changes in public concern are somewhat delayed and it sometimes takes as long as five years for a criminal justice Act to be passed to bring about change reflecting those concerns. None the less, I have given two examples of the constantly moving scene. By setting in stone the amendment or subsections (1), (2) and (3) we would not do any service to the courts, the Government or those whom we seek to serve.

That lesson was brought home to me at the weekend when I attended a Judicial Studies Board tuition course—one of the refresher courses that recorders attend. I was constantly reminded, as the only recorder at the seminar who was also a Member of Parliament, that much of the criminal justice legislation passed by the House is difficult to apply and does not adequately take account of what has happened before. The result is increasingly meaningless legislation. An article in issue 3 of ''Sentencing News'', for 15 November 2000, concludes:

''Legislators seem to be unable to learn the lesson that statutes which no one can understand cannot be put into effective operation.''

I do not suggest that the amendments or subsections (1), (2) and (3) are impossible to understand, but they are coming close, as I said last week, to being as useless as an early-day motion.

I was rebuked by the Minister on Thursday afternoon, at column 292, for failing to read the criminal justice review. I am not prepared to accept a rebuke from the Minister, whether it is right or wrong. It was wrong, in fact. In my role as shadow Attorney-General I studied the criminal justice review as it was

published before the general election. I may even have come to it before the Minister. I cannot claim to have his detailed knowledge of it, but the points that I am making are outside that context. Simply repeating paragraphs from the review does not add to the quality of the argument that we need to get to grips with in this Committee if we are to produce effective measures.

Nothing in what the Minister said on Thursday afternoon comes close to being an answer to the points that I raised then. I am not making a party political point, but arguing that we need increasingly to be on our guard. We need to ensure that measures passed by the House, particularly on criminal justice matters, have some utility and effectiveness, instead of amounting to a collection of ill-thought-out amendments to earlier measures, or warm words that will make us feel good but fail to achieve our aims.

I of course accept that the aim of the youth justice system must reflect either the content of the amendments or the subsections that I have attacked. However, we do not need those provisions in the Bill. They will not help the sentencers to deal with the youngsters who come before them, nor will they help the people who write the pre-sentence reports. They will be hobbled and will produce a formulaic report.

After the Bill is passed, the probation service or whoever writes the pre-sentence reports in Northern Ireland will, almost as if setting out a computer matrix, write reports that reflect subsections (1), (2) and (3). The reports will then deal with the meat of the case, consider what should be done with a particular child or young person and pay no more attention to the aims set out in clause 53. They will not ignore those aims because they will always be in the mind of, and second nature to, the sentencer, but I assure the Committee that the amendment would be of no assistance whatsoever in securing proper sentences or treatment for young people, custodial or non-custodial—and I hope that, in the case of young people, they will be predominantly non-custodial.

From my experience, from the criticisms that have been expressed to me by those who are far more experienced than me in the practice of sentencing, from my understanding of the way in which legislation is, increasingly, being constructed in this House, and despite the Government's best intentions, as well as those of the two leading proponents of the amendments, I can assure them that they are barking up a tree that will produce no fruit.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

We have had an extensive debate, which has, arguably, lasted for five days with a short break. I have listened to hon. Members' views and it is even clearer to me now that it was last week that we are, in fact, discussing the direction that we want the youth justice system to take.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) underlined the binary option before us. One option is to continue in much the same vein as before. The other is to take a new approach, which regards youth offending as a symptom rather than a cause, and thus the solution as being much deeper and more profoundly connected with the treatment of the

human condition than clause 53(1) would imply. As the Minister rightly said, one can make the case that those considerations are incorporated in part 4, in which case we are arguing about a matter of emphasis, but that emphasis is crucial. If we apply the 20-year rule and ask what someone will think of the legislation in 20 years' time, I believe that they will naturally look at clause 53 to ascertain the principal intent of this part of the Bill. That is what I am asking the Committee to consider.

As I said last week, if young people are not treated fairly, with understanding and in a way that is appropriate to their age, and, worse still, if they are put into an unsuitable environment in which their educational needs are not met and their behaviour is not challenged but simply punished, I am sure that society will reap the results later and that it will cost more in the long run.

The principle underlying amendments Nos. 278 and 284, and the other amendments in the group, is that rather than giving passive consideration to such matters, one should actively commit to rehabilitation, on the assumption that it will reduce reoffending and aid the prevention of crime more effectively than discussing sentencing, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has just done. The emphasis in the United Kingdom has been wrong for a long time. I am sure that we would all agree that the paramount consideration is to protect the public, but I would argue that the best way to achieve that is by putting the rights of the child first and by measuring the success of our intervention from the change in crime rates.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who sadly is not here at the moment, made an interesting point. I asked the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh whether we did not want the strong propensity to offend to become a weaker propensity to offend. Yes we do want that, but putting it like that implies that we can somehow go straight to that point. We should consider the matter in another way. We want to turn a weak association with mainstream society into a strong one, so we should start at a different point and, rather than simply suppressing the desire to offend, we should nurture the desire to participate positively in society.

I return to the main point of the amendments. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said some interesting things; he said that most crime was committed by youngsters, which is certainly an interesting statement, and that prison sentencing policy had changed. He talked a lot about sentencing, and we suggest that the kind of argument that he was making is exactly what the clause would lead Northern Ireland into. Amendment No. 278 would make us ask, instead, ''What do we have to do to stop young people from reoffending? How do we persuade an individual that he wants to play a constructive part in society?'' In that case, the requirement to suppress criminal tendencies would diminish.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the amendment was as useless as an early-day motion, which shows that this is not a moot debate. The

amendments are not as useless as an early-day motion, but suggest that we should handle Northern Ireland youth justice in a different way from how it is handled anywhere else.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am breaching my own injunction to be brief by interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he may be confused. Of course, we want diversionary activities to prevent youngsters from offending, but the work of the youth justice system consists of catching people when they have committed offences. That is why I talked about sentencing, which does not have to mean sending youngsters to prison or young offenders institutions—it simply means dealing with them through the court system. Diversionary activities happen as much through education and parental guidance as anything else, and they should surely not have to happen through the youth justice system.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In actual fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman has saved me time, because he lucidly described the choice that the Committee needs to make. If the Committee agrees that the youth justice system as described in the Bill should purely be concerned with what we do when young people have offended—and, on a secondary level, with what parents might have done to prevent the offence—it should vote against the amendment. If, however, like myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, the Committee feels that the

''principal aim of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland is to . . . promote the child's reintegration and the child assuming a constructive role in society'',

as the amendment says, it must recognise that that view is not adequately represented in the clause. That is the choice that faces us.

I want to end by giving a practical example of why the Committee should agree with the amendments. I have had some association with an organisation called Youth at Risk, which has embodied and tested the concept of tough love. That sounds a bit woolly and namby-pamby—letting kids off the hook by loving them and hugging them, to make them better people. The organisation says, however, that rather than simply creating a mindset of criminality in offenders, such a strategy gets deep inside the motivations of offenders and gives them the option to choose a different route. The statistics that the organisation has shown me in terms of reoffence are absolutely phenomenal, showing a reduction in reoffending to a fraction of its normal level. Therefore, we can see evidence that the amendments would achieve the result that we all want, by protecting the public by preventing children from offending, and ensure that those children become constructive members of society.

The arguments have been presented. I respect the Minister's remarks and I hope that hon. Members understand that there is an important decision to be made on an issue of principle. For that reason, Mr. Conway, I hope that you will allow us to have separate votes on amendments Nos. 278 and 284. There is no

point in voting on the other amendments in the group, because all of the issues are adequately summarised by those two amendments. Now that we have had a constructive debate on the matter, I ask the Committee to consider what has been said and vote accordingly.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. Following the request made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I shall put the question on amendment No. 278 when the debate on this group has concluded. The Committee will have an opportunity to divide on amendment No. 284 after we have disposed of the next group of amendments. At that stage, I shall ask the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to move that amendment formally.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 19.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 30, line 41, at end insert—

'(3A) A Guardian ad Litem will be appointed for the child in all cases where custody is a possible outcome of Court proceedings.'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 252, in Clause 57, page 43, line 25, after 'representative', insert 'or Guardian ad Litem'.

Amendment No. 259, in Clause 61, page 56, line 9, after 'solicitor', insert 'or Guardian ad Litem'.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I shall try to be brief. Others have suggested that a guardian ad litem should be appointed in order to protect the interests of young people. Interestingly, I have a different perspective on the matter from that of youth groups in Northern Ireland, because I have chaired a local authority social services committee, and I was a teacher for the best part of the past 30 years.

The thrust of the Bill is wherever possible to move children into the care system rather than into custody centres. It could be argued that there is not a massive difference between some children in the care system and others in the criminal justice system. That is why we should protect the interests of young people facing custody, to ensure that at least one appropriately legally qualified person will protect their legal interests. As the Bill stands, all those persons and bodies are responsible for the welfare of the child, but no named person takes legal responsibility. In an ideal world, it would be sufficient for those persons and

bodies to take responsibility, but just as a child in the care system requires a guardian ad litem, so too, we believe, does the child taken into custody.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child makes the point that children's rights require special protection. It states in the pre-amble that

''childhood is entitled to special care and assistance.''

Article 20 states:

''A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.''

Some will argue that such protection could be provided simply by appointing a solicitor. I hope that the Government understand that providing a solicitor who has no special training in the protection of children's interests would be a mistake. It would not be in the best interests of the child.

Providing a guardian ad litem in every case of possible custody would be expensive. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said, if the Government do not spend the money up front, they will have to spend it eventually; and with children the money needs to be invested at an early stage. The education and the social care worlds are beginning to understand that principle. If the Bill does not recognise that children need special care at that stage, we will ultimately have failed to protect the rights of the child—and society will pay the price. What I say is based on my experience as a teacher and my rather more limited experience as a chair of social services.

There is not much more to be said on the matter. The principle will be either accepted or rejected. We may live to see the day, 30 years on, when what I fear will happen. I would like to think that we could deal with the problem in advance.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In the first instance, I wish to make a slight technical point on amendment No. 224. It will not be the most important point that I shall make in the debate, but I cannot see how an amendment that addresses a matter of process sits well with a general statement on the overall aims of the youth justice system. However, although the amendment seems out of place, it does not detract from the point of principle that the hon. Member for Cheadle seeks to put before the Committee.

To some degree, the hon. Lady anticipates my response. It is the Government's position that the interests of a child subject to criminal proceedings should be properly represented by a lawyer of that child's choice. That facility will be available to all children subject to those processes under the Bill. In addition, the court will have available a pre-sentence report prepared by the probation officer, which will provide advice to the magistrates on the child's background and suggest the most appropriate outcome.

In those circumstances, the guardian ad litem scheme does not have a role. It provides an excellent service to young people in civil proceedings, most often when the interests of the child are not properly represented. The guardian ad litem in civil proceedings

is often appointed in cases involving disputes between adults, and the child is not a party to those proceedings. That is why it is necessary to have someone to represent the interests of the child. In criminal proceedings, the child is clearly a party to the proceedings and has proper representation.

Amendment No. 252 would permit the guardian ad litem to attend a youth conference, and to act instead of a legal representative as adviser to the child. Although we are keen to ensure that the legal representative attends conferences only in an advisory capacity, his advice will sit within the wider criminal context of the case. We do not believe that a guardian ad litem, whose primary role in all other cases is to advise the court, would necessarily be best placed to provide the child with the advice that they need in those circumstances.

Yesterday, I met representatives of the Law Society of Northern Ireland to discuss several matters related to the Bill. I am content that it accepts the responsibility to provide appropriate training to lawyers, so that they can make a constructive contribution to the new processes that we are putting in place. It realises that that is a significant challenge. Our discussion on that and other matters was constructive. I am content that properly trained lawyers will provide the necessary advice and support, in the best interests of the child and of all aspects of the process.

When a child is already in contact with a guardian ad litem because of other proceedings, it is likely that the guardian will have a role in sharing information with the conference. It will be open for the guardian to attend the conference under new paragraph 3A(8) of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which is proposed in clause 57.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the rights of the child are protected during the conference, and we feel that that will be best achieved by allowing the child to be advised by a legal representative. In the light of that, I ask the hon. Member for Cheadle to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment No. 259 seeks to ensure that, if a child is eligible for free legal aid, that legal aid covers the appearance of a guardian ad litem when he accompanies the child at a diversionary conference rather than a solicitor. In Northern Ireland, such guardians are paid by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. They are not eligible for payment from the legal aid budget, so the amendment is flawed and I ask the hon. Lady not to press it.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I am somewhat reassured by some of the Minister's comments, and am prepared to accept that the legal profession will receive specific training to deal with aspects of the problem. Perhaps the Minister would reassure me now that the solicitors or legal representation appointed will be appropriately trained to deal with every case in which there is a possibility that the child will be placed in custody. If the Minister wants to intervene, I will be happy to let him.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I happily accept the hon. Lady's invitation. She will realise that whom a person

instructs is a matter for that person. It is incumbent on the Government to provide the appropriate support, if necessary, to the bodies that need to train their members. They have undertaken to provide that training, and will train solicitors with the necessary skills. The Government are not in a position to advise any individual child or adult who appears before criminal courts who they should or should not instruct to represent them. That is a matter of individual choice.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

Individual choice must be paramount, although in some circumstances it may not be in the best interests of the child for the full range of individual choice to be exercised. I accept what the Minister says, but I believe that children will fall through a gap. The system will not necessarily ensure that a child's best interests are represented. I hope that in all cases in which children come into contact with the criminal justice system, specialists who understand their specific needs fully and adequately represent them, but I am concerned that children will fall through the system. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 284, in page 30, line 41, at end insert—

'(3A) All persons with responsibility for the youth justice system shall have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.'.—[Mr. Mallon.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 19.

Clause 54 - Reparation orders

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I beg to move amendment No. 225, in page 31, line 22, after 'otherwise', insert 'directly'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 226, in page 31, line 22, at end insert

'by virtue of presence at the scene of the crime or by close familial connection with the victim, i.e. mother, father, brother, sister, child.'.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I have had a conversation with the Minister, and these amendments may not be necessary.

I am not a legal expert, but I sought to limit the number of people who could be considered as victims. My first reading of the Bill suggested that someone who had been traumatised by watching television could claim to be a victim and that the child might have to apologise to them. I understand, however, that there may be a legal definition of the word ''victim'', which the Minister will no doubt share with us.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Amendment No. 225 adds nothing to the provision in the clause. Amendment No. 226 seeks to achieve the hon. Lady's objective.

There are definitions of victims in other legislation, where other circumstances may or may not apply. Hon. Members who represent the people of Northern Ireland will know that there is a great debate about who should be described as a victim. In another context, the Government's position was to say that they would not prescribe who should be described as a victim and that it was a matter for the person concerned.

The hon. Lady may have been misled in private conversations with someone into believing that there was a legal definition of a victim in this case, but there is not. The Government's position on the amendment is that it should be left to the good sense and direction of the court to determine who should benefit from reparations and that we should not seek to provide an exhaustive list. Applying good sense and discretion to the circumstances of any offence should make it clear who the victims are and to whom the provisions should apply.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I am somewhat reassured. I have been engaged for many years in looking at matters from a child's perspective. The Minister will appreciate that on reading this part of the Bill from such a perspective, I thought of the matter in terms of hundreds of people who might regard themselves as victims and expect reparation. The Minister assures me that such a situation would not arise, and I am happy with that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 31, line 25, at end insert—

'(aa) a person professionally responsible for the child's education'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 228, in page 31, line 32, at end insert—

'(c) details of the child's educational provision.'.

No. 286, in page 31, line 32, at end insert—

'(c) the educational, psychological and other needs of the offender'.

No. 230, in page 32, line 31, leave out 'if any'.

No. 231, in page 33, line 22, at end insert—

'(d) a person professionally responsible for the child's education.'.

No. 232, in page 33, line 35, after 'case', insert 'including educational information.'.

No. 236, in clause 55, page 36, line 5, leave out 'if any'.

No. 239, in page 37, line 1, at end insert—

'(d) the person professionally responsible for the child's education.'.

No. 251, in clause 57, page 43, line 2, at end insert—

'(e) a person professionally responsible for the child's education where the child is in receipt of education'.

No. 255, in page 45, line 19, at end insert—

'(8) A youth conference plan must contain details of provision for the child's education where the child is in receipt of education'.

No. 256, in clause 58, page 49, line 6, at end insert—

'(c) a report on the child's educational progress, including attendance and Key Stage test results where the child is in receipt of education.'.

No. 257, in clause 60, page 55, line 5, at end insert—

'(d) a person professionally responsible for the child's education, where the child is in receipt of education.'.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

Again, these amendments are all of a theme. The education of children, wherever they are, is not just important, but of paramount importance in ensuring that they grow up to be useful members of society. In my previous work as a chair of a local authority social services committee, it became clear, via Government guidelines, that a child's education was to be considered very important and that in many ways that education and its continuance should be considered more important than placing the child in accommodation.

I have been reading the performance indicators that form part of the quality protects management action plan for Stockport. The Government now regard it as important that a child is kept as close as possible to their home local authority. That applies right across the country. Figures are now provided for how far a child is being taken away from their home local authority. The child is kept close to their home local authority so that they can maintain contact not only with their parents, but as far as possible with their original school. We must examine carefully the crossover in the Bill between the social care system and the youth custody system and ensure that it is seamless, because if we are not careful, children in secure accommodation who have come from the youth justice system will be treated differently from those who, for whatever reason, have ended up in care.

Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 are designed to ensure that the education of children is given sufficient prominence in the justice system. I believe that unless it is mentioned at regular intervals in this part of the Bill, its importance will be forgotten and children's education neglected.

Amendments Nos. 230 and 236 remove the phrase ''if any''. I recognise that those amendments are unlikely to be accepted, but it is important that there is a presumption that the child will be engaged in education or employment. That ''if any'' provides a loophole for anybody who feels that it is okay for the child not to go to school.

I have been engaged with social care and I have visited social care institutions of one sort or another. One of the questions asked by visitors to social care institutions is, ''Where does the child go to school?'' I am not talking about children in secure accommodation, but those who one would expect to be attending school and doing all the things that are expected of children. Too often, the answer is, ''The child does not go to school.'' That is not good enough.

There must be a mindset in which children either go to school or receive an education in some other way. I shall be happy not to press for the removal of ''if any'' if the Minister will assure me that the clause will include a presumption that the child will be educated. I am concerned that the words ''if any'' suggest that the child might not be educated.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

When I read that, I interpreted ''if any'' as reflecting the situation of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are not necessarily in a place of education or in work. If we take ''if any'' out, it will imply that the reparation order will force them to attend school or another educational establishment or work. That brings many other considerations into play. I shall be grateful for the hon. Lady's comments on that, particularly in light of the fact that the legislation brings 17-year-olds within its ambit.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right. I understand that the words ''if any'' are there to ensure that the clause covers young people who are no longer in the education system and who are not in employment. However, in my experience, that phrase will provide a loophole for people who believe that it is not that important for a child to be educated. That happens, and we must recognise it. It might happen less often than it used to, but I am concerned.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the hon. Lady has repeated the assertion that the words provide a loophole. Will she accept that many 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are not educated? She seems to assume that the world is as she would like it to be.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

Yes, I agree. The words ''if any'' are probably legally necessary in this case. However, they will give some people the impression that a child's education is not important. Am I seeing the world as I should like it to be? Absolutely. That is how I intend to continue; I have a much better view from where I stand than, perhaps, some others do.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

The hon. Lady has made the point. However, a number of Committee members have tried to explain that the amendment will not achieve what she wants to do. Perhaps it would be easier if we moved on.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me further advice. I shall move on. Amendment No. 231 would extend the definition of ''responsible officer'' to a person professionally responsible for the child's education. There might be circumstances in which an educator could be acceptable in that role.

The intention of amendment No. 232 is much the same as that for amendments Nos. 227 and 228. That is to ensure that the education of children involved in the justice system is given sufficient prominence. Unless that is mentioned at regular intervals throughout this part of the Bill, its importance could be forgotten and the child's education neglected. Educational experience has a vital part to play in the development of a child, and there must be a presumption that a child will receive an education while still of school age.

We have covered amendment No. 236. My argument in support of amendment No. 239 is the same as that for amendments Nos. 227, 228, 231 and 232. Amendment No. 251 continues the theme that a child's education is of paramount importance and should be continually supported by the presence of an educator.

I will press amendment No. 255 to a separate vote, because it ensures that the child's education is provided for in any plan from a youth conference, and unless it is specifically mentioned, the child's education could be overlooked.

Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 are, in a sense, related to amendment No. 255. They would ensure that the child's educational progress was monitored by key stage test results and that the person responsible for the child's education was informed about the youth conference order.

We can regard the child's education as being separate from the aims of the Bill, but in my experience, a child's education is fundamental to what we are trying to achieve. If it receives only a passing reference at the beginning of this part of the Bill, it might be forgotten and the care that should be taken to ensure that the child's education is as complete as possible may not be taken. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I wish to speak to amendment No. 286, which requires that the report provided for in article 36A should indicate

''the educational, psychological and other needs of the offender.''

The amendment is relevant to my previous point about need. This is a perfect example of how welfare might be fulfilled but need overlooked. I believe that paragraph (5) of article 36A is flawed because, although it specifies that the report must indicate

''the type of requirements that it would be appropriate to impose on the offender''

that is, the sentence, and

''the attitude of the victim or victims''

that is, it recognises the rights and role of victims, it leaves out the third part of the equation: the offender. In these cases, the offenders will be children, so we must complete the circle. I have great respect for the probation service and for people involved in social work, but they may not always be able to make the type of assessment that is required, because the offender may have other needs that require more expert involvement. In many cases, the experienced social worker or probation officer will be able to identify educational and, perhaps, psychological needs, but in certain circumstances the assessment may have to go further than that, and the amendment would make the necessary provision. Although the onus of responsibility will, in most instances, be carried by the probation service and social workers, there may be circumstances that require the assessment of other needs that are not provided for in the Bill.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. Before any other hon. Members speak, I should inform the hon. Member for Cheadle, as she has been helpful enough to tell us that she wants a Division on amendment No. 255, that we shall take that Division when we debate clause 57. Because of the way in which the timetabling motion works, I may put all the votes at one o'clock.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

My general approach to the amendments is that they are well intentioned. Naturally, as there is a requirement on all those involved that the best interests of the child offender are protected, children should continue to receive education if they are already receiving it. However, with respect to reparation orders as they are described in the Bill—an amendment that I have tabled would change that—the maximum reparation is for 24 hours. The orders are already limited, therefore.

The amendments would place an additional bureaucratic burden on the order process, especially amendment No. 286 tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, which requires the production of yet another report. The clause represents a new departure. When we draft such legislation we should try to be prescriptive as little as possible to ensure that the system gets up and running and is not destroyed under a huge weight of bureaucracy.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

In case there is any misunderstanding, amendment No. 286 does not propose a report, but adds to the requirements for the one report that is prescribed in new article 36A(5).

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I understand that, but we should consider how the legislation would be used by the practitioners. The requirements prescribed in proposed new subsection (5) are general. The Bill states:

''The report must indicate—

(a) the type of requirements that it would be appropriate to impose on the offender; and

(b) the attitude of the victim or victims of the offence to the requirements proposed to be included in the order.''

If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were included in the Bill, the practitioners would be faced with a checklist of

''the educational, psychological and other needs of the offender''.

Those ''other needs'' might produce another lengthy checklist. For example, the hon. Member for Cheadle would like to include educational requirements on a checklist.

The instrument of the reparation order will emerge only after the individual has been through a youth conference process, and that individual will have to consent under the order, as he has to consent under the whole youth conference process. The amendments may be well intentioned, but they would strangle the effectiveness of the system that we are putting in place.

Reparation orders will represent a less formal part of the youth justice process in an effort to persuade the offender to face up to his responsibilities to the victim. To achieve that aim, there must be flexibility in the structure. Although the amendments are fine in their intention, when translated into practice they could have the unintended effect of making the system more difficult to administer. At this stage, we can only guess

at the bureaucratic burden that will come from the new departure in youth justice that is being planned.

We must be concerned about the possibility that an enormous burden will fall on those trying to administer the process, particularly in the initial stages. Reparation orders involve a series of additional responsibilities and cannot come into effect until the Secretary of State has made certain other provisions. Our instinctive, underlying approach should be to keep matters as simple as possible. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will not press the amendment. The Committee has heard what he and the hon. Member for Cheadle have said, but while the issues to be tackled are important, we should try not to burden those who will administer the system in a way that could lead to unbalanced outcomes, particularly with respect to reparations.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Member for Reigate makes important points about reparation orders, and about the community responsibility orders to be dealt with under clause 55. However, the response from the hon. Member for Cheadle could include the point that some of her amendments go further, and would entail conferencing orders, which could apply to offences of greater seriousness than those for which reparation orders would be appropriate.

This extensive group of amendments—with the exception of amendment No. 286, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh—effectively deals not with several issues but with just one issue in several different ways. Following the order, or at least the approach, taken by the hon. Member for Cheadle, I shall attempt to deal with the amendments as briefly as possible. I shall try to take them in the order in which they appear on the selection sheet.

On amendment No. 227, the education of a young person is important, and care must be taken to avoid conflict between that and the requirements of a reparation order. However, it is not necessary or appropriate to require that a person professionally responsible for the child's education should report to the court on the appropriateness of the reparation and the attitude of the victim, which would be the amendment's effect. Generally, teachers have no obvious qualifications to make such judgments, particularly in relation to a victim. I can see how teachers would have a contribution to make with respect to a child who could be in their care for part of the day, and for whose education they were partly responsible, but I do not see that they would have skills to contribute to a report on the appropriateness of the reparation and the victim's attitude. Under the Bill the Secretary of State would already have powers to designate a person to perform the relevant function, in circumstances where that would make sense.

Amendment No. 251 would similarly require an education professional to attend every youth conference. I wonder if teachers would really welcome that duty in addition to all those that they now have. I urge the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a vote. I do not know if it is her intention that a teacher should be required to attend

every youth conference, or merely to make it possible for teachers to attend, but the effect of the amendment would be to require it.

On amendment No. 228, I accept that details of the child's educational provision are important and should be reflected in the court report to avoid unnecessary interference between those arrangements and the reparation requirements. However, other aspects of the child's life, such as religion or work, should also be taken into account in determining the appropriateness of the requirements of a reparation order. We do not want to be drawn into ranking them in importance. We should include all or none of them. As I explained when I was urged to include some of the considerations, the appropriate list will be inferred from the provision, and the application of common sense by the courts and others will identify what aspects of a child's life we should report on. We should not try to be prescriptive.

I fully accept that the factors set out in amendment No. 286 are typical of those that must be taken into account when determining the requirements of a reparation order. I would, however, expect those factors and others, such as the child's age, to inform the court's decision about what requirements are appropriate in each case. I am, therefore, content to leave it to the courts and to those professionals who prepare the reports to reach sensible judgments on such matters. The courts would have to take such factors into account when deciding what was appropriate, and I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh to new article 36A(5)(a). They are also bound to have regard to the child's welfare under clause 53(3).

On amendment No. 230, there will be circumstances in which a child who is subject to a reparation order may be beyond compulsory school age, not in full-time education and unemployed, and similar considerations apply to amendment No. 236. For all the reasons that have been given, I would ask the hon. Member for Cheadle not to press those amendments.

Amendment No. 231 would add to the categories of people who can be nominated as responsible officers. That extremely unusual power would be unwelcome with most teachers and educational professionals. Placing someone with responsibility for a child's education in a position of having to enforce a court order could have a detrimental effect on the child's attitude to education if, for example, breach proceedings were necessary.

The provisions at which amendment No. 232 is aimed transfer the authority for a reparation order from the court that imposed it to the court in the petty sessions district in which the child lives, if that is different. That technical provision will enable the court that acts for the receiving area to deal with matters such as breach, revocation and amendment. In any event, a court that had such information or any other relevant information would forward it to the other court as a matter of course. Therefore, there is no particular point to the amendment.

On amendment No. 239, copies of a community responsibility order must be given immediately to the child who is subject to the order, to his parent or guardian and to the officer responsible for supervising the order. That is for the information of all concerned and the proper discharge of the order. Although it will be important to ensure, as far as is practicable, that the order does not interfere with, among other things, the child's education—contact between the responsible officer and, say, a teacher may be necessary for that purpose—I see no reason why the person who is professionally responsible for the child's education must also receive a copy of the order. In any event, I cannot think what purpose they would put it to.

Amendment No. 255 requires the conference plan, in all cases that involve children who are still in receipt of education, to contain details of provisions for the child's education. The conference already has the power to include educational elements in the plan, and the child can be required to participate in

''activities . . . offering education or training''.

It does not, however, follow that, just because a child is in education, all offending behaviour must be tackled through the provision of education. Nor does it follow that the plan will cut across the child's education; in fact, the reverse will be true, because the co-ordinator will ensure that the plan's requirements do not interfere with the child's schooling.

Amendment No. 256 would require that, when the director is informed of the extent to which the child has complied with the youth conference plan, he also receives a report on the child's attendance and performance at school in every case that involves a child who is still in receipt of education. New article 10D provides that a report must go to the director at the end of the period that is specified in the youth conference plan to inform him of the extent to which the child has complied with the plan. That information will enable him to decide whether to instigate proceedings in respect of the child. Education may not be a relevant consideration here, and it is inappropriate to insist that it would be in every case.

Amendment No. 257 would require a copy of the youth conference order to be given to a professional responsible for the child's education in all cases where the child is still in receipt of education. It will be necessary for the child's school to know when the plan includes requirements relating to the child's attendance or performance at school, to ensure that compliance is monitored. If the plan includes no such requirements, I do not agree that the school should, as a matter of course, be informed about that order. For all those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cheadle not to press the amendment. I make a similar request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Will the Minister enlighten me? I am confused about the references to schedule 1A in the clause. I had expected to find the details of schedule 1A on page 119, where amendments to the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 are

detailed, but it is not there. The schedule relates to the precise way in which the orders work. I would not wish the Committee to move on from consideration of the clause without having debated whether schedule 1A is to be implemented by statutory instrument.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If any other hon. Members are looking for schedule 1A, they will find it in schedule 10.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I have listened with interest to the Minister. I am still unhappy that the report, which, for the young person, would be very important, is incomplete. It is so in the sense that there is no reference to the needs, be they educational, psychological or of some other kind, of the young person. That incompleteness would have been remedied had the previous reference to ''needs'' been successfully adopted and included in the Bill.

Again, the absence of any reference to the young person reflects the Bill's miserly approach to the needs of the young person. I take the Minister's point on new clause 3. I also take the point about probation officers and social workers. However, I still believe that there are cases where it would be right to ensure that other needs that often prevail in this type of case are provided for, in terms beyond those specified in the Bill.

I know the probation and social services and I respect them, so I shall not press the amendment. I shall, in an act of faith, accept that the element of the new clause to which the Minister referred is adequate. I hope that, for once in my life, an act of faith will prove well-founded.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I am somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will not press amendment No. 286 to a vote. In my view, it is better than amendment No. 228. It covers more ground and so should be included in the Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that the new clause to which the Minister referred will cover the provisions that he seeks to add, I shall indulge in a similar act of faith.

The Minister said that education would be regarded as important and taken into account. In the light of that, I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 227 and not press any others, apart from amendment No. 255, which ensures that the child's education will be provided for in any plan from a youth conference. It may need tidying up so that it fits all the legal niceties, but a youth plan should recognise the importance of education as it is usually regarded by most of us in this country.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I am delighted to see you.

I want to explain to the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for Cheadle that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, every child in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland already has the right to an education, in accordance with their parents' religious beliefs or philosophical convictions. That right will extend to the children who will be subject to the orders.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and assistance. I am more than willing to accept that there may already be legal provision for every child in Northern Ireland. However, my experience has shown over many years that even legal provision on the subject does not always work. As people who are putting legislation together now, we should remind those who will come after us that we regard education as of paramount importance in a child's life.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. Is her argument that legislative provision has not necessarily achieved its aim? If so, what is the point of making further legislative provision?

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

Therein lies the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal Democrat. Conservatives tend to be less optimistic on the whole than Liberal Democrats. I have been a teacher and a chair of social services, and I know what the Government guidelines are for children in care. I know what the Government say about children in care in other places. Many of the relevant children will effectively be in care, and they will be treated slightly differently from those who are not. Their education should be important.

I have said all that already, and there is little point in saying more. Amendment No. 255 should be voted on, but I shall not press any others in the group. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I remind the Committee that in the next hour, we need to dispose of, by whatever means, 11 clauses and schedules. That may help hon. Members with the length of their speeches.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I beg to move amendment No. 229, in page 31, line 35, after 'consents', insert

', having been previously informed of the potential outcomes of consent.'.

I shall do my best to keep my speech short. The amendment introduces the concept of informed consent appropriate to the child's age.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I apologise to the hon. Lady for interrupting her, but I have been reflecting on your remarks and seek your guidance. It is plain that we do not have enough time to consider the rest of part 4. Your injunction to make our speeches short should be permanent, in the sense that hon. Members should keep to the point in debate. However, we will not be able to give part 4 proper consideration. Do we then ignore amendments that are important and issues that need to be discussed, or foreshorten our debates? The Government have got us into this mess, so why should there be a duty on us not to give proper consideration to the issues?

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. My injunction was not for brevity. As long as hon. Members stay in order, I shall allow them to speak, but I wanted to ensure that the Committee was aware of the small writing at the end of the first column on the selection list, which points out that debates up to those on new clauses and new schedules

relating to part 4 must be concluded under the programming motion by one o'clock. It is not in my gift to change the programming motion; that is for those who decide such matters and for the instructions of the House.

As long as hon. Members stay in order, they can speak for as long as they want, but the length of their speeches will affect whether they reach all the matters that they want to reach.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I had virtually said all that I was going to say. We should consider the important concept of informed consent appropriate to the child's age. I again draw the Committee's attention to the need for appropriate legal advice. In many submissions made to the review, concern was expressed that children should understand what they were agreeing to when they were asked to consent to various procedures. That is what the amendment seeks to ensure.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Lady is right to point out that a reparation order cannot be made unless the child consents. She seeks to qualify that requirement. By definition, consent can be sought only when the requirements of the order are determined. Given that the child will previously have been informed of the possible outcomes of consent, I see no need for the amendment.

The hon. Lady may seek to avoid circumstances in which a child might agree to something while being unaware of the consequences of the order in terms of, for example, criminal record. If so, I should say that we expect that the child will have the advice of a legal representative to ensure that he or she knows the exact consequences. In part, I return to an answer that I gave to the hon. Lady some time previously. There is a significant choice in terms of representation and advice. A child has a right to that, as does an adult, and the Government cannot interfere with it.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I thank the Minister for that answer. The same arguments apply as applied to the guardian ad litem. We must be certain that the child will receive appropriate advice, as would come from properly trained people. The Minister has given assurances about that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 31, leave out line 38.

I was surprised to read in new article 36B(2) that

''The court must not make a reparation order in respect of the offender if it proposes—

(a) to pass on him a custodial sentence; or

(b) to make in respect of him a community service order, a community responsibility order or a combination order.''

The amendment would strike out the restriction on passing a custodial sentence. One can see that there is a degree of overlap between community service orders and reparation orders, but the principle surely applies across the piece. The amendment also serves as a vehicle for a debate on reparation orders as described in the Bill.

Paragraph 10.75 of the review recommends the introduction of reparation orders in Northern Ireland, after which it states:

''We believe that the introduction of reparation orders and the new form of community service for those under 16 years of age will provide useful additions to youth conference co-ordinators and sentencers in creating imaginative, appropriate and proportionate youth conference plans.''

Reparation orders should not be a stand-alone punishment that cannot be taken in conjunction with other forms of punishment that might be awarded by the courts.

The principle behind the orders is that the offender consents to both the youth conference and reparation orders. If we want to create as flexible a system as possible, we should allow a youth conference to conclude that a variety of different types of order may be appropriate. I do not understand why an element of reparation should not sit alongside a custodial sentence. If the offender agrees to the order, as is required, it may be appropriate to have a combination for a serious offence, such as mobile phone theft, for which the Lord Chief Justice has said there should be exemplary penalties. If negotiation with the offender, which must happen if his consent is to be achieved, enabled him to make reparation in combination with a sentence, and if his reparation were thought to be genuine and were carried out under the system proposed in the Bill, a shorter sentence might be passed because the youth conference could be confident that a reparation order had been made and had linked the offender and the victim.

Reparation orders are a positive vehicle, as they provide the opportunity for direct reparation between victim and offender, and the new article limits them unnecessarily. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and ensure that reparation orders can be used in a more flexible framework. That could mean their not only accepting amendment No. 262 but returning on Report to remove new article 36B(2) altogether. If the Government do not agree to the amendment, I may seek to remove the paragraph myself on Report to allow reparation orders to be used as flexibly as possible in order to give them maximum effect.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In raising an issue that it is appropriate to raise at this point in the Bill, the hon. Member for Reigate gives me an opportunity to clarify some basic points about reparation orders.

Significant thought was given to the subject of his amendment, which is the combination of custody and reparation. To understand our decision, one must understand the consistent approach taken in relation to custody for young offenders. We intend reparation orders to be available for children whose offence is relatively minor, or for first-time offenders. Custody, on the other hand, is traditionally and appropriately a last resort for serious offenders, so the two things cannot be combined as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If custody is appropriate, we are dealing with a far more serious offence than the ones to which it is expected or intended that reparation orders will apply.

The restriction in relation to custody orders is therefore necessary, in our view.

The hon. Gentleman asks why a reparation order cannot be combined with the orders mentioned in new article 36B(2)(b), but those orders incorporate an element of reparation or work in the community, so it would seem inappropriate and, arguably, disproportionate, to add a reparation order on top of them. The element of reparation can be incorporated into the orders when appropriate, so there is no need to create double reparation by adding another distinct provision on top.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I want to clarify one point about community service orders. Am I correct in saying that orders to make reparation to the victim can be part of

''a community service order, a community responsibility order or a combination order''?

While he considers that point, I must say that I do not find his arguments about the inappropriateness of combining reparation orders with serious offences that require custodial sentences wholly convincing. A first-time offender may be guilty of an offence such as street robbery, as is perfectly possible in an age of rising street robbery and when the Lord Chief Justice is giving instructions in favour of exemplary sentences for mobile phone theft. Given its serious nature, such a first offence may require a custodial sentence, but we may want to have the flexibility to bring the offender face to face with his victim in the way envisaged under reparation orders. Such a restriction on reparation orders in relation to custodial sentences creates an unnecessary limitation.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Without going into debates that we may have under other parts of the Bill, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should consider the whole suite of provisions, including community responsibility orders, community service orders and youth conferencing. To concentrate all the reparative aspects of justice on one order is to fail to understand how the orders interact and where they can substitute for one another. We do not intend that each person who appears before the court can be made subject to every order.

In respect of community service orders, the element of reparation may be not to the victim but to the community. Of course, the reparative aspect of a community service order and other orders can be recognised.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

That makes my point precisely, because the role of victims in reparative justice is important. It would be healthy for reparation to be seen to be made directly to victims, although the Bill would plainly have to require the offender to consent to reparation being made in that way. Such an approach would, however, tackle victims' concerns that reparation should be made to them and deal with the offender.

It misses the point simply to say that a community service order makes reparation to the whole community. As we shall debate later, victims are part of the youth conference system, but if offenders are

sent to prison because of the seriousness of their offence, it will become impossible for victims to receive direct reparation through a reparation order—even when everyone agrees that direct reparation is the desired outcome. That is an unnecessary restriction.

It is important that victims see reparations made directly to them, rather than indirectly to the community. I suspect that most victims do not have confidence that community service orders always result in indirect reparation to them. The amendment would go to the heart of the issue by giving victims a proper role in the process, which is clearly what is desired—at a philosophical level, at least—in the Bill. I shall therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 17.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 32, line 24, leave out '24' and insert '160'.

When I first read that a reparation order could not require the offender to make reparation for more than 24 hours, I wondered whether there was a typo, because 24 hours does not sound like a great deal of time. I know from discussions on the Bill that reparation orders are—in the minds of the draftsmen, as I am sure the Minister will explain—at the bottom of the list of punishments available to the courts. None the less, the clause would wholly limit their effectiveness.

We should bear it in mind that the Bill brings within its ambit 17-year-olds who can be sentenced to 240 hours' community service. I see a parallel between reparation orders that benefit the victim and those that help the community. Whether reparation is made to the community or directly to the victim should be a matter of judgment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the equivalent number of hours that would be regarded as appropriate in England and Wales? Section 74(1)(a) of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states that

''A reparation order shall not require the offender to work for more than 24 hours in aggregate''.

Can he explain why young people in Northern Ireland should be subject to a reparation order that would increase those hours to 160?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

First, because the legislation will bring 17-year-olds within its ambit. I believe that the victim should stand at the centre of reparative justice and that

it should be a matter of judgment as to whether reparation is made to the victim or to the community. If it is appropriate to make community service orders—benefiting the community—of 240 hours, it is unnecessarily limiting to say that only 10 per cent. of the reparation should be given in instances in which the victim might gain from it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

What does the hon. Gentleman regard as the primary objective of the reparation order, and does he think that there is any element of rehabilitation involved in it?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Yes, I do. That is why I do not think that it should be limited to 24 hours, particularly for 16 and 17-year-olds who are no longer in full-time education. I would envisage that serving a lengthy period of reparation would achieve a relationship between offender and victim. That could be set up only if both agreed. If it were possible for that relationship to be established over a period, it would be a direct way in which the offender could begin to be reintegrated into society. It would not be a punishment being administered by representatives of the state—of course, it would be overseen by them—but would be a direct way of allowing the offender to create a relationship with the victim. Presumably, that is the intention of reparation orders, even those limited to 24 hours' work.

I can see that 240 hours is equivalent to a community service order, and that the amendment says 160 hours. The right duration is a matter of judgment—the court should be able to judge, in the light of the nature of the victim and of the offender, which sort of order would be appropriate and what the duration should be. My preference is for reparation to be made directly to the victim rather than to the community, so 24 hours is too limiting, especially as we are considering offenders up to the age of 18.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

There is an interesting debate to be had about the question of reparation and rehabilitation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even if his argument were to hold water, the amendment would create a different set of circumstances for those who are under 17, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has pointed out? We would need a more sophisticated amendment if we were to maintain parity with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's point: we would, if we were going to be as sophisticated as the review intended. At paragraph 10.74, the review states:

''We recommend that a form of community service should be developed for those under 16 years of age, with a maximum period of service of 40 hours.''

Again, that would be different from what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Bill will bring about differences, not only with reparation orders but in other areas, because it introduces an experimental system of criminal justice for youth. Northern Ireland's experience in the wake of these proposals will clearly hold important lessons for the rest of the UK. It would be a pity to limit reparation orders to 24 hours because of the

relationship between offender and victim, which is intended to aid rehabilitation, especially as they will involve 16 and 17-year-olds.

I hope that the Government will be flexible in considering the amendment. I shall not press it to a Division. Deciding what the number should be is a matter of judgment. Perhaps the amendment should be more sophisticated, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire suggests. I should be grateful if the Government would keep an open mind.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Mindful of your earlier remarks, Mr. Conway, I shall be brief. The amendment seeks merely to give courts greater flexibility in deciding for how long reparation orders should be in force. It would not dictate that a court should impose 160 hours. It would give the courts greater flexibility in exercising their judgment and allow them to impose a slightly longer order if it was thought that it might help with rehabilitation. It is a facilitating amendment, and I ask the Government to consider it from that point of view.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The clause provides the courts with a new community-based disposal. As the hon. Member for North Down helpfully pointed out, it broadly replicates the provisions that apply in England and Wales. The hon. Member for Reigate said that we are seeking to do a number of things differently from England and Wales. He is right, but when we seek to enact provisions broadly similar to those that apply in England and Wales, it behoves us to be consistent about the penalties that apply there and in Northern Ireland. Those penalties must also be proportionate.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

When the Minister speaks of penalties being imposed, are those penalties that are consented to?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Yes, but they are still imposed. One may consent to the imposition of them, but they are still imposed by the courts. That does not differentiate the penalties as between Northern Ireland and England and Wales, nor does it detract from the argument put by the hon. Member for North Down—which, with respect, the hon. Member for Reigate did not properly answer.

The hon. Gentleman's reference to the extension of reparation orders to 17-year-olds does not answer the point for the following reason: it is the Government's intention that reparation orders will be a low-level disposal and, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) rightly pointed out, it is particularly suited to younger offenders and to those who have not progressed to more serious offences. That is why they are restricted to 24 hours, and the courts will use them only in that respect. One should not underestimate the impact of 24 hour's intervention in a young person's life in such circumstances. I would also argue that the reparative nature of the order might be lost if its duration was seen as punitive in relation to the offences for which it was likely to be used. That is the important argument about proportionality.

The orders have their genesis in English legislation. Home Office research published in 2001, which

evaluated the effectiveness of youth offending teams under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, reflects the broadly positive experience of the same order in England and Wales. For example, more than 80 per cent. of the orders were found to be completely satisfactory. That is a high level of satisfaction with the court orders imposed.

As the hon. Member for Reigate said, for more serious offences or offenders, other community orders, for example a probation order, or a community service order for those aged over 16, are available. These orders are not intended to be substitutes for others; they should be seen as part of a progression of orders that are being enacted in relation to the Bill. This order is intended to apply at the lowest level to first offenders and very young offenders.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I have listened to the Minister and I am disappointed that the Government's position is not more flexible. I want to take up one point about whether the orders will provide proportionate reparation. The maximum order that can be imposed is 24 hours, and 24 hours at the minimum wage amounts to about £100 worth of labour. Only in the minority of cases will the victim have suffered £100 worth of harm and will such an order bring the offender to justice. Any amount of vandalism or theft is extremely likely to involve loss equivalent to more than £100.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I would not like the Committee to suppose that this way of thinking, which reduces everything to pounds and pence, is the Government's way of thinking. It may be the Opposition's thinking that the effectiveness of orders and disposals by the court should be reflected in monetary terms.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

No, the Opposition are thinking about the victims, who will be told that the maximum reparation that they can receive towards the hurt that they have endured is an order worth 24 hours of work by a young person. The victim may think that that is insulting given the hurt and damage that he or she may have suffered. By setting such a restriction on the number of hours, part of the clause's purpose—enabling the victim to feel that he or she is part of the process and can gain proper reparation—would be lost.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend accept that when an adult commits a crime, there are other means by which he or she can be required to pay compensation, but when a young person commits a crime, it is unlikely that they will have any assets on which to draw to pay compensation to the victim? In such circumstances, it is not at all unfair to reduce the matter to pounds, shillings and pence.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I agree with my hon. Friend, who puts the point well.

I do not want to detain the Committee further on this point. I regret that there is no flexibility in the Government's thinking. We shall consider how best to draft amendments that will meet our concerns about the age-related nature of the issue and ensure consistency throughout the system, and we shall

return to the subject on Report with the victim firmly in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 265, in page 33, leave out line 22.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this we may also consider amendment No. 266, in clause 55, page 34, leave out line 29.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

If Committee members turn to paragraph (4) of article 36A, they will see that,

''Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain''—

it has a duty to obtain—

''and consider a written report by—

(a) a probation officer;

(b) a social worker of the appropriate authority; or

(c) such other person as the Secretary of State may designate.''

That gives the Secretary of State wide discretion. I have no idea who might be in that grouping.

Likewise, the new article 36D(2) that the clause would insert into the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, states:

''In this Order 'responsible officer', in relation to an offender subject to a reparation order, means one of the following who is specified in the order—

''(a) a probation officer;

(b) a social worker of the appropriate authority''

and, again, the open-ended category of

''(c) such other person as the Secretary of State may designate.''

Amendments Nos. 265 and 266 would remove the references to that category. However, I have in mind the comment last week by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) that he represented

''a community that has often been overlooked in appointments to non-departmental public bodies''

and his assertion that his

''community sees itself as unrepresented on a variety of bodies,''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 February 2002; c. 274.]

I hesitate about damaging his community's chance of being represented. Perhaps it would be possible to enlighten me as to who is envisaged as being affected by the provision, so that I can review my amendments.

My fallback measure is to compare what is proposed for Northern Ireland with what has been arranged for the rest of the United Kingdom, which means I must return to the subject of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Under section 74(5) of that Act, in England and Wales a responsible officer is defined in limited terms, as

''(a) a probation officer;

(b) a social worker of a local authority social services department'',

or

(c) a member of a youth offending team.''

That is an exhaustive list. We know where it begins and ends, but it is proposed that in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State should be able to designate anyone. That is too open ended. Will the Minister explain the phrasing that has been used and tell the

Committee whom the Government had in mind for the function in question when the Bill was being drafted?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The flexibility for the Secretary of State to designate anyone as a responsible officer is necessary to ensure that schemes for reparation orders and community responsibility orders will be available in all parts of Northern Ireland, because it allows for those with a direct interest in the statutory sector, such as the juvenile justice board, and the voluntary sector, which already works closely and effectively with children who offend, to act as responsible officers and to be responsible for the supervision of the child where appropriate. Those would be the very people to be appointed to youth offending teams in Northern Ireland, if such things existed there, but since they do not, the Secretary of State requires flexibility. It is intended that only people who would have been members of youth offending teams will be appointed.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister undertake to tighten up the provision? He has explained whom the designation was intended to include, and perhaps a form of words could be arrived at to be included in the Bill later in its progress. Clarifying the Bill seems preferable to retaining the reference to

''such other person as the Secretary of State may designate.''

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Lady was inviting the Minister to intervene, and he did not. Therefore she should advise me whether she will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, the debate having concluded, or whether she wants to press it to a division.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

In light of the time and of the Minister's generous nature, for which he is famous and in which I shall place my confidence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Community responsibility orders

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move amendment No. 210, in page 34, line 7, leave out

'punishable, in the case of an adult, with imprisonment'.

The clause provides the courts with a new community-based disposal, as recommended by the criminal justice review. The order combines appropriate reparative activity with instruction in citizenship and is, therefore, particularly suitable for younger offenders, who need better to understand the context within which they make reparation.

By making the order subject to a less strenuous test and, therefore, available for a wider range of offences, the amendment ensures that it can be used at the most appropriate time for those who might benefit most from it. The amendment responds to comments that were made during the consultation period.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I have no difficulty with the Minister asking for more flexibility as regards the imposition of these orders, but I am surprised that he should do so following a debate in which he rejected an opportunity to introduce more flexibility into the youth justice

system. There is a slight philosophical inconsistency in the Government's approach; indeed, the only consistent element is perhaps the ''not invented here'' syndrome that is evident in their ideas. It might be better if they approached the Committee's proceedings with a mind that was more open to accepting ideas.

We are happy to accept that the philosophy that underlies the youth justice system should make it as flexible and usable as possible so that we can embark on this new departure in youth justice in the most satisfactory manner and apply the lessons to the rest of the United Kingdom. We are happy to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 233, in page 34, line 16, leave out 'instruction', and insert 'teaching'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 234, in page 34, line 18, leave out 'instruction' and insert 'teaching'.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The amendments are so sensible that they should really be Government amendments, and I expect the Committee to treat them as such.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on those remarks for a second?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Yes, indeed I shall. If these were Government amendments, it would mean that the Liberal Democrats were already in power, which, I am sure, is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

The amendments would change the wording of the clause, because the word ''instruction'' is a rather dramatic description of how one would teach citizenship, and the word ''teaching'' is more in line with the spirit of what is intended. Instruction implies forcing concepts down people's throats, and I was about to say that it was an aggressive activity; indeed, it might be something that old Labour Members would enjoy. As a liberal-minded kind of person, however, I think that teaching best describes the two-way approach that is most suited to learning about citizenship. I shall be interested to hear the Minister accept the amendments.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

What an extraordinary admission of the Liberal Democrats' state of mind that they should think that the only sensible amendments are Government amendments. I realise that they have been the Government's auxiliaries since 1997, but a position of such astonishing supplication quite takes my breath away.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am a continuing supporter of a bipartisan agreement that applies to the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party alone. It is, therefore, obvious why, in the spirit of positivity, I would be willing to lend the Government such a good amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is going to make such remarks, he might like to reflect on where he is sitting and whether he is in the appropriate part of the Room.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was complaining just now that there was not enough time.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Gentleman is deluding himself if he thinks that we will be able consider the rest of this part of the Committee's consideration in 16 minutes. Everything that the Opposition have said about the conduct of the Committee's business has turned out to be correct. I might add that the Liberal Democrats voted with the Government on where to put the knives.

The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—that we should now track through the rest of the consideration in 15 minutes—is wholly misguided. The Committee has already failed to consider three quarters of the first part of the Bill. Other clauses have also not been considered. I am blowed if we will be able to ensure that the Bill is passed on to Report stage having been properly considered. The Committee's consideration of the Bill has been wholly appropriate throughout; indeed, the Minister has been complaining that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has not made a proper contribution to the Committee. If he had, that would have lengthened debate even more.

I can see you rising, Mr. Conway, so I shall return to the Bill. It is appropriate to put those matters on the record. The difference between ''instruction'' and ''teaching'' escapes me. This is more Liberal Democrat aspirational nonsense that does not need to be included in the Bill.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am always interested in discussing the nuances of words, as we have done in the past, but I cannot for the life of me see any substantive difference between the two words. There is a difference of emphasis, however, to which I will come in a moment. I do not want to suggest that teaching is not instructive, but I prefer the word ''instruction'' in this context, because it implies the provision of guidance and direction, which is exactly what the children in question need.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Member for Reigate is not being very nice to me, but he is, after all, a Conservative. Nevertheless, we have made our point. If the Minister, who will monitor the implementation of the measures, will ensure that meaningful citizenship education is provided, then that ought to satisfy me, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 309, in page 34, line 34, leave out '40' and insert '240'.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire thinks that I am not being very nice to him. I would point out that it is his knife that is now sticking in the guts of the Committee's consideration, since he voted for the programme motion when it was first considered. However, I shall move on to ground on which I may be able to convince the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment No. 309 is designed to increase the maximum aggregate number of hours that can be

specified in a community responsibility order from 40 to 240. The purpose of the measure is to bring 17-year-olds into the remit of the measure and achieve some degree of consistency. It is not envisaged that much younger offenders to whom the measure would apply would be subject to a maximum of 240 hours—that is not the intention behind the amendment. We discussed this matter at an earlier stage. I seek an indication from the Government that 40 hours may not be an appropriate duration for a community responsibility order for a 17-year-old, and that they may be prepared to reconsider the matter and devise a more sophisticated instrument that would ensure that the maximum length of the order matched the age of the offender.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

As the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out when we were debating an earlier set of amendments, the criminal justice review recommended that a form of community service should be developed for children aged under 16, and that it should be limited to a maximum duration of 40 hours. The community responsibility order has been developed in response to that recommendation. It provides for relevant instruction in citizenship, including programmes to address offending behaviour and victim awareness, and practical reparative activity, from repairing damage to helping at a school for the disabled.

The order is aimed at younger children, although it is available for all, including those whose offending is relatively minor. That is why the Government have been flexible. The instruction element provides the essential context for, and a better understanding of, the reparative activity that follows. To increase the maximum hours from 40 to 240 would be excessively punitive and wholly disproportionate for the type of offenders and offences it is aimed at. The reparative nature of the order would be lost if it were unnecessarily onerous. Other community orders, such as a probation order or a community service order for those aged 16 and over are available for more serious or persistent offenders.

In those circumstances, I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment. If he is concerned about the pain of the knife, he knows that an offer was made by the Government to the Opposition to move it to a later time today, and that that offer was refused.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

As the Minister has chosen to bring the matter into the debate, it is appropriate for me to point out that we did not vote for the knives. The Government have got themselves into a mess and did not offer the Committee sufficient time for proper consideration of this part of the Bill. In light of the fact—

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The Minister slipped that one in the back of the net rather quickly, so I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to respond for the sake of the record. I should be grateful if he would now return to amendment No. 309. Further issues will have to be raised on a point of order by hon. Members from any party.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Conway. I have listened to the Minister's arguments. Because the legislation will apply to 16 and 17-year-

olds, the provision should be more flexible on community responsibility orders and community service orders, so that it can be applied proportionately. A 17-year-old receiving a responsibility order of this duration will think that he has got away with it. Part of the process in which we are engaged, particularly youth conferencing, is to get serious youth offenders to face up to their behaviour. If the limitations that can be placed on the orders arising from youth conferences enabled such 17-year-olds to be seen to be getting away with it, that would be a pity, and it would devalue the effect of the conferencing system. Perhaps we can rejoin that debate on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I wish to register my protest at what has happened. Earlier, you told us that we had to finish at 1 pm. Any minute now we shall spend 30 seconds on each group of amendments that we have not considered. There are 44 amendments, in 20 groups, left to consider in seven minutes. I am particularly disappointed because we shall not even reach a matter about which I spoke on Second Reading. I wish to place on record the fact that the Government have handled this very badly.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

It is not a point of order.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's point of order was perfectly in order. I am sure that those who follow the Committee's proceedings will note what has been said. We move on to amendment No. 235.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Given what has been said, I should like to point out that we were offered a lifting of the knife until later today, but it was Conservative Members, not the Liberal Democrats, who refused the offer. It should be made clear that the knife that we are discussing was kept in place by the Conservatives, not the Liberal Democrats.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The hon. Gentleman could have said that as a point of order, not when he was supposed to be moving amendment No. 235. If he wishes to move the amendment, he must do so now.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. It is wholly unacceptable that such inaccurate allegations should be flung around. Conservative Members do not oppose the lifting of the knife at 1 pm. We have argued throughout that the knife should not be used at all during our consideration of the Bill. We have wider issues to think of than the length of the Committee's consideration, but we are now running into the straightforward problem that the Government set for themselves. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would withdraw his suggestion that Conservative Members oppose the removal of the knife at 1 pm, as it was his hon. Friend who voted for it.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I have noted that point of order, but I am not aware of discussions that may have taken place between the usual channels as they do not take place on the Floor of the Committee. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made no

unparliamentary remarks, and I am sure that he will now wish to return to the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. I wish to set the record straight. Let me speak about what I know. I was approached informally with regard to the knife, and I said that I had no objection to it being lifted. What happens between the Conservative party and the Government is their own affair, but Liberal Democrats were more than happy for the debate to be extended. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am grateful for the hon. Member's point of order. I make it clear that no request has been put to me by the Programming Sub-Committee.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 235, in page 36, line 1, leave out ', as far as practicable,'.

We do not believe that it is reasonable to say that one should try to avoid conflict with an offender's religious beliefs or not interfere with his normal work or education.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, during the Report stage of the recent Education Bill, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) complained at some length about people's practice of suddenly getting religion when they wanted their children to be admitted to a particular school? Is it not conceivable that people might get religion if they are the subject of instructions from the responsible officer under the clause?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

No, I do not recall that, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman knows that when the phrase, ''as far as practicable'' is used, it means that although every reasonable effort will be made to avoid the conflicts anticipated in the clause and interference with other aspects of a child's life, it may not always be possible to achieve that objective. The bottom line is that the child must comply with the terms of the community responsibility order imposed by the court. If the matter is unresolved or unresolvable, the responsible officer or the child can seek to have the order amended or revoked and replaced with another. Adequate provision is made for such circumstances.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I understand the Minister's response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 237, in page 36, line 13, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 238, in page 36, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 249, in clause 56, page 41, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 253, in clause 57, page 44, line 12, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 254, in page 44, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 258, in clause 60, page 55, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

This group of amendments would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make rules to regulate both the treatment of young offenders and, to protect them, the circumstances in which they should carry out community responsibility orders. It would also make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to make rules to protect children under supervision, rules about the procedures for youth conferences and rules on monitoring offenders who are subject to orders. The amendments are probing. We want to know why the Government believe that the Secretary of State ''may'' do those things, and why they do not emphasise the mandatory nature of those rules.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

As the hon. Gentleman recognises, we will need to make rules on all such matters if the orders are to work. The word ''may'' has been used in line with the usual drafting conventions. Making the orders mandatory would seem rather unnecessary, and the amendment makes no difference. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [29 and 31 January 2002], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Custody care orders

Clause 57 - Youth conferences and youth conference plans

Clause 59 - Court-ordered youth conferences

Clause 60 - Youth conference orders

Standing Committee F

Clause 66 - Display of Royal Arms at courts

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move amendment No. 275, in page 57, line 31, leave out from 'after' to end of line 32 and insert '30 March 2000'.

The amendment is an attempt to get to grips with the time scale in which the provision may operate. In one of last week's sittings the Minister made it quite clear, in response to a question from me, that it was envisaged that some central provisions of the Bill would be in operation before devolution. We were left in no doubt about that. A question therefore arises. When will the recommendations based on the review body's opinions, and set out in the Bill, be carried out? We need to be precise about when clause 66 will come into operation.

It is remarkable that, in the Northern Ireland context, the matters of great substance that have been dealt with in the past two and a half weeks have not grabbed the imagination, but the business of symbols is all that is required for interest to arise with great alacrity. It is an old road that we travel. We have travelled it before with other legislation, and we shall travel it again when the Bill is implemented and when the criminal justice measures become operative in their totality. I agree with the Minister that even after the initial elements of the Bill are established—those relating to such crucial matters as the district policing partnership and its role it will be a considerable time before devolution takes place.

For that reason, some provisions of the Bill will be in force while other substantive provisions are not yet operative. The changes in the use of symbols will be dependent on a day, and I suppose that there is a choice of three possible dates: the date on which the recommendations of the review body became public; the date or dates when recommendations and some provisions of the Bill become operative; or the date on which devolution takes place. We can take our pick of those, but the question needs to be cleared up. It is and will be a matter of deep and genuine concern in the north of Ireland—symbols always are. The amendment takes probably the most sensible approach in that the new process would start without undue delay. It is the most public manifestation of the new dispensation in relation to the process of justice.

I have discussed the matter with many people, including Unionists, nationalists, and those of no ideology—as if that ever were the case in the north of Ireland—and I regard the views that I have heard as genuine and sincere. However, the subject poses a

fundamental question, touched on last week by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which will not be answered until certain questions are asked. What is the Government's attitude towards Northern Ireland? Is it a last residue of colonialism? That was the question posed by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. Has there been a fundamental change based on the Good Friday agreement? Let us not forget that the criminal justice review stemmed from the Good Friday agreement. Is Northern Ireland some sort of strange, semi-detached place, detached from anything and everything, in limbo and without a place of rest until these questions are eventually decided?

I shall not make any pejorative judgment on those three alternatives, but the sooner that the recommendations of the criminal justice review body are seen to be implemented, the better chance there will be to deliver all the legislation. It may be possible for the Government to put in place certain parts of it, but it is worth reminding people that this is not just a decision for the British Government because unless the devolved Administration decide, jointly and equally, that they will take on responsibility for justice, that will not happen. Hence, Northern Ireland could, and probably will, be in no man's land for some time. Do we want that no man's land to persist in relation to symbols, which will be a running sore? No one wants that.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It is good to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Pike.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and I both feel passionately about making the agreement work and be seen to work. I want to draw to his attention the clause in the agreement that refers to the use of symbols to promote mutual respect rather than division. Would it not be unfortunate to include in the Bill a date that would give the provision retrospective effect from March 2000, and to close down the possibility of parties, such as his and, hopefully, mine, agreeing on mutual symbols for the exterior of court houses?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I take the hon. Lady's point. She raises the other crucial issue, which is probably at the back of everyone's mind, not least the Minister's, as we debate the clause. I have a high regard for the Standing Committee system. I think that this is the eleventh Standing Committee on which I have had the honour to serve. The other Committees of which I was a member considered a broad range of emergency and other legislation.

I do not like to see the Committee system abused—I have some experience of that. We expend a great deal of effort, time and energy on the Bill, knowing full well that parts of it were not decided on in Standing Committee, nor on the Floor of the House, but elsewhere. We might well say that that is the nature of politics. Maybe it is, but it does not add to the credibility of our debates or of a Committee such as this.

As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, time might help to solve this problem. Time might heal it or produce a road to Damascus

change of view that many people hope for. However, minor miracles are not the basis on which to append clauses to a Bill. Having said that, I hope that the issue will not be used as a bargaining counter. I am not suggesting that the Minister would use it in such a way, but I am adamant that if this part of the Bill were to become a bargaining counter against other parts of it, the process of justice would be devalued, as would the political process.

It is right to take the earliest opportunity to show the fundamental changes that are taking place. Anybody who knows Northern Ireland knows that at present there is an unseemly rush to ensure that edifices—or an edifice—are finished in time so that they will not be subject to this measure. We all know that that is happening—let us not make a secret of it. I am not in an unseemly rush, because the more we get the newness into this, the more the oldness will start to disappear of itself.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I think it is unwise to assume that we all know anything on this Committee.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I think you are right.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I speak entirely for myself. However, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that works are being advanced or slowed down for political purposes, perhaps it would be well for him to provide the Committee with some details, so that those of us who are less familiar with events in the Province may become more so.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. The amendment is fairly tight. It concerns a date, and although I understand your point, Mr. Mallon, you should keep your discussion relevant to the terms of the amendment and not get sidetracked by others who might lead you astray.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you very much, Mr. Pike. I shall try not to go astray. There is only one edifice being built, and it is there for all to see. I shall certainly share my insights with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) if he wishes, as the point is essential in relation to amendment No. 274.

May I make a personal observation on symbols? I have no problem living with anybody else's symbols, and I never have had. I was raised in a little village, where the symbols of my tradition simply did not exist. I was reared on the symbols of Orangeism, Unionism and Britishness, and then along came 30 years of violence. Lo and behold, what did those who called themselves patriotic Irish republicans do? They copied exactly what had been done with Orange, Unionist and British symbols and started to use the Irish symbols in the same provocative way. I have no time for either tendency.

I want to respect people's symbols and traditions, and what they mean to them, and do not want to cause offence to anyone in that regard. But neither do I want symbols of any kind to be used provocatively—although I do not suggest that that is the case in this

instance—or in a manner that would retard progress. I suggest that the use of symbols would retard progress in the context described in the clause.

I shall leave the matter there. I hope that I have made my position clear.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to respond briefly to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on the issue of the date. I am afraid that I shall have to treat him more harshly than his status in the community would seem to merit.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment is precisely the sort of thing that is proposed when one starts mucking about with symbols, as the clause does. For the reasons that we shall no doubt address shortly, the amendment may appear to the part of the community that values the symbol of the royal coat of arms as a racket to get it stripped from courthouses between the date that the hon. Gentleman suggests and the date when this legislation comes into effect.

The hon. Gentleman's objection to symbols is to the provocative way in which they are used, but his amendment would achieve the provocative effect that he said he wanted to avoid. In dealing with this area, people must be straight down the line, and I do not think that the amendment falls into that category. It is not a straightforward amendment, or would not be regarded as such by many in Northern Ireland, and the Opposition will resist it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I take a slightly more sympathetic view of the amendment, although I would not have moved it myself. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh seems to be saying that, even while we discuss the Bill, some people feel that efforts are being made to slip a few royal arms and symbols in before the closing date. That is a perfectly reasonable concern to raise.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made the opposite case clearly, but some from the nationalist and republican communities may feel aggrieved that, until the Bill comes into force, there will be a kind of free-for-all in getting as many symbols into place as possible. Like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I have never been particularly offended by symbols representing other cultures, but I know that some people have. I would be interested to hear the Minister's view of the cogent case made by the hon. Gentleman.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Listening to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh outline the rationale for the amendment, one could be forgiven for thinking that the display of royal arms in the courts has been a bone of contention for a long time. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been involved in Northern Ireland politics for a long time, and I do not recall it being an issue before the publication of the criminal justice review. It certainly has not been an issue for the professions or members of the Bar, and the number joining the professions from Unionist, nationalist or other communities has neither diminished nor increased as a result of the display.

It is not a subject that has made the headlines. I may not have been involved in politics for as long as the hon. Gentleman, but I venture to say that I am not that far behind him. I have been involved in politics in Northern Ireland for 25 years, and I cannot recall it ever having been an issue of controversy prior to the criminal justice review. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the completion of buildings. I urge hon. Members to check, to discover how long the building work to which he alluded has been going on, and what its completion date was and is. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded.

I am most definitely at one with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh in saying that the matter of symbols in Northern Ireland cannot be overestimated—nor can the question of their removal. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland alluded before Christmas to a cold place in Northern Ireland for Unionists. The import of the amendment would be not a cold place; it would be for the freezer to be turned down. The issue has not been a bone of contention for either community. Indeed, the lack of controversy and the subject's absence from the headlines indicate that the presence of the symbols was never a bone of contention. However, should the amendment be accepted, their removal most certainly would be a cause for controversy. I therefore find myself resolutely in opposition to the thrust of the amendment.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I wish to make only a brief contribution. I acknowledge that the question of symbols has a particular resonance in Northern Ireland, for reasons that we are all well aware of, but it is important also in other parts of the United Kingdom. We must be wary that our debate is not entirely in the context of Northern Ireland. I shall return to that point in a moment.

I accept that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has given long service in the House, but I nevertheless disagree with him. He seems to argue that if we do not agree to the amendment, the proposed timings could cause offence to one tradition in Northern Ireland. We have to acknowledge that in agreeing to accept it. Even to do what the Government propose on their suggested timings would cause great offence to another tradition in Northern Ireland. However gently he made his argument, his amendment would rub things in so far as the other tradition was concerned.

When we debated timing on Second Reading, I argued that there would be an anomaly, in that some courthouses would display the royal arms but others would not, depending not on what they stood for but simply on when they opened. To give the Minister full marks for honesty, he replied, ''That is true.'' The question of whether the symbols are displayed raises issues of great principle. To alter the timing, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, would not obviate the point of principle but make the situation worse by rubbing one tradition's nose in it. I respectfully but firmly disagree with him.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful for the measured way in which Committee members

have approached the debate, and am sure that we shall return to some of the issues on other amendments. It may help the Committee if I tackle some of the issues of principle in the context of the amendment, as they will inform our debates. The issue is obviously important and emotive, and nothing that I say is intended to undermine that fact. The Government appreciate it, and it was reflected in the contributions to the debate, whether they came from firmly held positions or were meant as ameliatory and looked for centre ground, as some did.

I share the view of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that it is regrettable, if perhaps predictable, that the issue of symbols—one recommendation out of 294 in the review—is likely to attract more attention than the important and radical changes elsewhere in the Bill. I have said that before. I am not unrealistic, however. It is also a pity that the symbols issue tends to be treated as a zero sum game in Northern Ireland, which is a mistake. I believe that there is scope for an outcome that is principled, consistent and fair.

Several important principles lie behind the review recommendations, which build on the thinking in the Belfast agreement made on Good Friday. In the context of the debate, it is legitimate to make the point raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) about the absence of any apparent controversy in relation to the issue. He talked about seeing the issue in the context of more than Northern Ireland. However, we are where we are. The review made the specific recommendations, so lines were drawn on the issue to some degree, and it then became an issue with which the Government had to deal.

As the hon. Member for North Down points out, the recommendation, which the Government have attempted to translate into legislation, has its roots in the agreement. It was from the agreement that the remit for the review came. She pointed out that the agreement stressed

''the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need . . . to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect''.

I think that that was the quotation in the agreement to which she referred.

The criminal justice review developed its work on the subject in line with the approach recommended in the agreement. The review group saw that an important balance had to be struck between recognising the courts' position within the agreed constitutional framework, and using symbols in a sensitive manner.

The review group sought to achieve the necessary balance in its recommendations. Whatever it proposed, there would undoubtedly have been objections from all sides. However, the recommendations were an attempt to strike a careful balance, in particular making a useful distinction between the interiors of courtrooms and exteriors of courthouses, where, arguably, different considerations apply. The Bill reflects the thinking behind those recommendations.

I regret that the Government have to come before Parliament to regulate in statute a matter that, so far as I know, has never been discussed in legislation before. That, again, reflects the lack of confidence and trust between the two sides in Northern Ireland. However, I remain optimistic that that state of affairs need not continue forever. Like the review group, the Government

''look to a future when these issues can be addressed on an agreed basis to the satisfaction of all parts of the community''.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister referred to the quotation that I used from the agreement about the need

''to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect''.

How can the words ''symbols'' and ''are to be used'' be compatible with the agreement, when the review recommends an absence of symbols?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She and I have discussed the issue during debates in the House and in private. I do not accept that the review recommends the absence of symbols. Indeed, the review recommendation specifically refers to the retention of symbols in certain circumstances. That is the aspect of the review's recommendations that I described as an attempt to strike a careful balance. This is not a science. We cannot say that balances, when they are to be struck, can be struck specifically as if this were a law of physics; it is not.

There is debate about the interpretation of what the review group said, what it recommended and what it sought to see enacted to create a proper balance, and the hon. Lady engages in that debate in a constructive and positive fashion. However, to say that the recommendation equates with the absence of symbols is to misrepresent the position. I remain optimistic. I borrowed the quotation from the review to try to explain to the Committee the Government's position so far as the future is concerned.

I draw the Committee's attention to the recent agreement on symbols by the Policing Board, which is an example of being able to look to the future and to resolve matters in an agreed fashion that generates satisfaction. Many were sceptical at the idea that the new Policing Board could come up with an agreed symbol. The board's success is a lesson to us all.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. This discussion is difficult because, while we are dealing with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, you have allowed the Minister to argue a general case. Could we have your guidance on when to address the fundamentals of the issue, which the Minister is beginning to do?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I shall give a ruling. I was listening closely to the Minister. Following an earlier intervention, I said that we were going slightly wide of the amendment, which refers purely to a date, although it has regard to symbols. We cannot avoid

mentioning symbols to some degree, but please keep that to a minimum. We shall consider other symbols later, so we should keep to the amendment. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Pike. I was endeavouring to respond to specific points that have been raised. As they were deemed to be in order, I thought that it was appropriate for me to respond and inform the continued debate.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Perhaps the Chairman was too liberal in allowing people to go a little wide of the mark.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Well, you can say that Mr. Pike. I am always careful to observe the Chairman's decisions. I am grateful to you for the subtle nuance of your last observation.

I want to leave space for agreement in the future. In the meantime, the Government have undertaken to consider carefully the outcome of the consultation exercise and the parliamentary stages. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in considering all the representations that we have received, including those expressing concerns about certain provisions—on heritage grounds, for example—perhaps a sensible balance has been struck. That approach enhances the importance of the debate; it does not detract from or devalue it.

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh would redefine a new courthouse as any courthouse first used after 30 March 2000, which is the date that the review was published. Although the review was published on that date, the Bill that will implement it is currently the object of our scrutiny and has not yet come into effect. The implementation plan published last November made it clear that the implementation of new measures would require legislation. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to make retrospective provision. Accordingly, the provisions cover courthouses that are opened after the Bill becomes law. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh that no building in Northern Ireland has been constructed in haste, or in anything other than the context of its normal scheduled building time, in response to the provisions. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

As the Minister is inviting the Committee to resist the amendment, I should be grateful if he would reassure hon. Members that any building completed before the enactment of the Bill will have a royal coat of arms outside.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Member for Reigate is capable of understanding the Bill's provisions. The prohibition of royal arms on the exterior of future buildings applies only to new courthouses built after the Bill is enacted. It could not mean anything else.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I have listened with interest. People have realised from recent experiences that the question is at the core of life in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are two or three choices in dealing with something of that nature. One can finesse it away, pretend it does not exist, or look it in the face and

work out how to deal with it. I prefer to look it in the face.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about symbols. I have no problem with that. I want to avoid a situation in which the gap created by the process of implementation and enactment is such that the Bill will become law long before devolution occurs. As the hon. Member for North Down suggested, there is not time within which to solve this, but there is time within which it might fester. That is one of my problems in terms of timing.

The amendment is not perfect, but it is less imperfect that the Government's wording,

''after the coming into force of this section''

of the Bill. This clause's coming into force does not guarantee the coming into force of other clauses of the Bill, devolution or the new beginning for which we all hope. Nevertheless, it was right to table the amendment, it was right to make the case and I shall continue to make the case on amendment No. 274.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 22.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 58, line 4, at end add—

'( ) No other symbols must be displayed—

(a) in any courtroom,

(b) in any other place inside a court-house,

(c) on the exterior of a court-house, or

(d) in any other place outside a court-house which is used for the purposes of the court-house.'

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 3—Display of Royal Arms—

'It shall be mandatory for the Royal Arms to be displayed—

(a) on the exterior of each court-house; and

(b) in each courtroom.'.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Many of the points that can be made for and against the amendment have already been made, but I shall explain part of the thinking behind it. I venture to suggest, perhaps arrogantly, that it is tidier than the Bill in defining ''a courthouse'' and ''courthouse precincts''. The Bill tries to define those terms, and I have also tried to do so.

The definition that is used in relation to polling stations immediately comes to my mind. It refers to the

tutelage of a polling station, which takes in all parts of the building, and not just the room in which polling takes place, including the outside grounds and the fencing, railings or whatever there might be. That might be a tidier way in which to look at the issue.

The amendment would not have been tabled if there were not a Government proposal. Sometimes we forget that. There would not be a Government proposal had we been able to reach an agreement in the negotiations prior to the Good Friday agreement. We were unable to reach such an agreement hence we decided that the review body, which has now made a proposal, would be set up.

It may be worth taking a second or two to look at the report and ask, as with the Patten report, whose names are on the front of it. As was helpfully pointed out, Patten is a former member of the Conservative party, a former Minister of Education and Science, a former commissioner, a present commissioner, a former Governor of Hong Kong. He is not a raving nationalist from the heartland of south Armagh, such as myself.

By and large, the review body was made up of civil servants. Civil servants to the north of Ireland are not, have not been and probably never will be noted for their strong views about anything, but after consultation, a view was presented to the Government by the review body. It stems from the negotiations prior to the Good Friday agreement and, through the review body, is reflected in the legislation. It is not the result of huge lobbying by me—or, indeed, by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. We shared the view that it was an issue, but our views on it were diametrically opposed. It is important to consider it honestly.

The amendment tidies up the Government's definition of a courthouse; perhaps an alternative wording would be better than either proposal.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the Bill falling in line with the Patten review recommendations. Does he accept that that is not always appropriate? For example, the Patten report specifically recommended that the policing badge should be entirely free of any association with either the British or the Irish states. I believe that the hon. Gentleman alluded to that. However, the subsequent legislation and the unanimous agreement of the Policing Board were contrary to the recommendation in the review. The review is not set in concrete. Therefore, the Bill does not necessarily have to follow its every letter and jot.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

There is some validity to the hon. Lady's point. However, I do not intend to define the symbols of the police; I leave that to others. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and the substantive difference in what we are dealing with is that we must all be—I will not say comfortable, because one can never be comfortable in such a context—at least satisfied that the experience of justice in Northern Ireland is there for the entire community. I do not know what arguments may come from others, but I do not think that we will hear the argument that, since the state was formed, justice has encompassed the entire

community—nor will we hear the argument that, in effect, the whole community in Northern Ireland had the same emotional attachment to the process. That is part historical, part political and part colonial. However, change must take place.

A large section of the community regard the proposals, rightly or wrongly, as an indication of how the Bill will work when enacted. I accept that a section in the north of Ireland will look at them with a jaundiced view, but if we are to make the essence of the Good Friday agreement work, we must get people with different ideological, emotional and political attitudes to work as one. We will not achieve that if, one way or another, we hide the fact that they exist.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Once again, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. His amendment, which refers to the exterior of the courthouse and so on, opens with the words:

''No other symbols must be displayed''.

Will he explain how the words, ''No other symbols'' are compatible with the provision in the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—that refers to symbols being

''used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division''?

Does he accept that the removal of symbols, and the neutrality that that would introduce, would achieve the opposite of promoting mutual respect?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

No, I do not. Those of us who have lived all our lives in Northern Ireland know of and have seen circumstances in which symbols, perhaps not noticeable to others, mean something, either negative or positive. Through my amendment, I am trying to ensure that the new criminal justice system is a fresh start, which is not based on residues from the past and is not a recreation of something that could divide people and prevent individuals from all sections of the community from giving their full support to the process of justice.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Assembly itself was a new start, and it managed to broker a symbol that is now generally accepted by all sides. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the establishment of a symbol for the courthouse that is accepted by everybody in the community would be a greater triumph than the somewhat draconian measure of banning symbols altogether, thus preventing unification behind certain symbols?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The remarkable effort that went into the symbol of the Assembly predated it. Someone, as yet unidentified, had a bright idea and published it; we all accepted it, thought that it was good and tried to claim it for ourselves, which did not work. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; once again, his remarks are true and have a lot of validity.

However, we are in a difficult position because we are dealing, in a Standing Committee, with a piece of legislation. We do not have the luxury of going out that door, waiting six or 10 weeks then getting into a

huddle and negotiating the Bill—or whatever may happen before or after Report, or after it becomes law. That is the difficulty to which I alluded earlier. In effect, when one is dealing in a Committee such as this with a piece of legislation such as this, one does not have those luxuries—nor do I believe that the Government should have them. That is why my amendment is very specific, because I believe that it is necessary.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I asked the hon. Gentleman the question, but he and I must agree to differ, because I am optimistic that, on the basis of what has happened with the police emblems and what happened at Stormont—though he rightly explained the somewhat crafty way in which that was achieved—it is possible to find symbols that, for want of a better phrase, define the character of justice in Northern Ireland without being offensive to any side. To establish such symbols would be a greater achievement than to take away the opportunity for cultural expression in the Province's courts.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the debates on the form of those new symbols could become heated. However, that could be helpful, because it could force people to focus on finding a symbol that makes the kind of cultural statements that they want to make without denying other sides in the community cultural expression.

My other point is a human one. It would be a shame if the courtrooms in Northern Ireland were forbidden to use any kind of symbol, because that is not the way that human beings are—it does not reflect the way in which they celebrate their identity. Courtrooms with no symbols would be cold and sterile—they would be all about head and not much about heart. It should be recognised that human beings are entitled to show more than a room's sterilised function. As I look around this Room, I see many different, unnecessary symbols. I would expect and hope that nobody in the Committee would find them offensive, but they add to the character and in some ways to the status of the Room.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman proposed this amendment, because much of the time in Northern Ireland symbols have been used as a statement of oppression or a way of snubbing other cultures. On the basis of precedents from the past few years, we have moved some way forward. I am enough of an optimist to believe that those precedents, which were set either craftily or through formalised debate, as occurred with the police symbols, could be replicated in this case, reaching a successful conclusion.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I want to speak to new clause 3. Again, I want to come to the issue of the symbols and their uncontroversial nature.

As I said in relation to a previous amendment, down the years in Northern Ireland, issues of a controversial nature have often taken place in courtrooms, and the events that have transpired or been the subject of proceedings have attracted television cameras and headlines. Many people have

been subjected to the presence of the media in the courtroom or have seen reports in the newspapers or on their television screens, but on no occasion do I recall the display of the royal arms becoming the subject of controversy.

In fact, in an Ad Hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I put several questions to the Law Society about the issue in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister will have more first-hand and relevant experience of the matter in Scotland, where the tide of nationalist opinion may rise and abate, but there has been no evidence of a demand for the removal of the royal coat of arms. There has not been such a campaign in Northern Ireland either, but now we have the Belfast agreement, from which this and other issues have flowed.

Many people in Northern Ireland deeply resent the tributaries that seem to flow from the river called the Belfast agreement, all of which seem to flow in a particular direction. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that, when such issues are discussed, there is a deep reservoir of opinion on either side. However, if as a result of the hon. Gentleman's amendment and the defeat of new clause 3, we extend that position further to create a neutral, symbol-free environment, when there was no controversy before, that will be seen by many in the Unionist community to be a step in a particular direction.

Some Members have alluded to the successful conclusion of the debate about the police badge. It should be remembered that the old RUC badge contained several symbols, more Irish than British, and was not the subject of contention until some people in the community thought that political capital could be gained and demanded that it be changed. The Patten report made a particular recommendation, which was, to some extent, set to one side as a result of the unanimous approval of the Policing Board of a badge that had similar connotations to the old RUC badge. I hesitate to suggest that we could be getting into a circular argument, but if it were mandatory for the royal arms to be displayed on the exterior of each courthouse and on the interior of each courtroom, it is my belief, supported by the evidence of the past, that no one would feel offended, and that it would not have a detrimental effect either on those whose professional expertise brings them within the jurisdiction of the court, or on the defendants who come to the court. It would not be seen as a detrimental step to communities that simply view the matter as something in which they have an interest but not one in which they have first-hand experience.

For the life of me, I cannot find any reasoning that would lead me to support the removal of something non-contentious, when the removal itself would be deeply contentious. I cannot understand why anyone would say that this move would somehow reconcile two sides.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Perhaps it would helpful to give some members of the Committee some idea of how many courtrooms and court buildings we are talking about in Northern Ireland. It is a small jurisdiction. People in the Northern Ireland Office have been

enormously helpful in supplying statistics about the number of symbols inside and outside such buildings. I shall quantify the matter.

The royal coat of arms is embossed or sculpted—in other words, a fixture—into the fabric of a very small number of buildings. The present number of courtrooms that have internal coats of arms as a fixture is five, including Banbridge courthouse, which is earmarked under the accommodation strategy for possible closure. Therefore, in only a handful of courts is the coat of arms sculpted in.

I note with some confidence the statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading to the effect that consultations have resulted from concerns about heritage, and that he would listen to views expressed on that matter. I am anxious that there should be no acts of vandalism—that is what they would amount to—and no hatchet job on listed buildings. We are talking about a mere handful of buildings, after all.

There are 69 courtrooms plus one county court to which coats of arms are fixed with a screw, for example, but are not a fixture. Ten courtrooms have external coats of arms. The Belfast magistrates court was due for closure at the end of January 2002, removing it from that category, so only 10 courthouses carry the coat of arms.

I always take the agreement as the touchstone by which the Bill and, by extension, the review must be measured, as it was approved by a significant majority in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland in referendums. I draw attention to three paragraphs. First, the beginning of the agreement states that

''Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll''.

The constitution states clearly that Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom unless or until a majority of people vote otherwise.

Towards the end of the agreement, there is an enormously useful reminder to all the participants who

''acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division.''

A whole paragraph was dedicated to the use of symbols, in which the point was made about symbols promoting

''mutual respect rather than division.''

I draw the Committee's attention again to the beginning of the agreement, which records that the British and Irish Governments and the other participants agreed that

''the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions''.

That is something, I am sure, with which we would all agree. However, I would not like to put words into the mouths of hon. Members, particularly not that of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who, I am sure, would not wish me to.

The Committee will be interested to know that those provisions were considered in a recent court case in Northern Ireland. For the benefit of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I would mention that the High Court decision was delivered by Mr. Justice Kerr, on 4 October 2001. The case tested the compatibility of the flags regulations with the agreement. The clauses of the agreement to which I drew the Committee's attention were tested on that occasion. The applicant had claimed that the regulations were incompatible with the Good Friday agreement—particularly in that they failed to have regard to the partnership, equality and mutual respect between opposing political parties—and that they failed to fulfil the Government's commitment to exercise them with rigorous impartiality. However, Mr. Justice Kerr upheld the regulations by a very useful interpretation of the agreement, which would enlighten our debate about the use of symbols in courthouses. I quote from page 18 of his judgment:

''The Union flag is the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part. It is the judgment of the Secretary of State that it should be flown on Government buildings only on those days on which it is flown in Great Britain. By thus confining the days on which the flag is to appear, the Secretary of State sought to strike the correct balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging Northern Ireland's constitutional position and, on the other, not giving offence to those who oppose it. That approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for partnership, equality and mutual respect and to fulfil the Government's undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions.''

If, by extension, we apply that interpretation of the agreement and how legislation should be ruled to be compatible with the agreement, I suggest that—bearing in mind the groups of courts that we have considered—those courts where the royal coat of arms is embossed into the fabric of the building and the 69 courts, plus one county court, where the royal coat of arms is affixed should remain, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is the constitutional position. The balance could be struck in that the 16 new courtrooms could have mutually agreed symbols. That seems wholly compatible with the provisions of the agreement.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I am becoming very interested in the hon. Lady's point. She has gone to great pains to obtain the statistics about the courthouses that bear the symbols, and we thank her for that. How many of those courthouses in the north of Ireland bear any symbol that will be representative of what could broadly be called the nationalist tradition?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The royal coat of arms already contains the harp, which is very much the symbol of the Irish tradition. If the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me again, I shall have a look through my papers, as I have a copy of it somewhere.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It is only right that the hon. Lady have time to look through her papers.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

This a very unusual intervention.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Certainly, my understanding is that the harp, although a symbol of Irish nationalism, originated in Wales, as did St. Patrick, extraordinarily.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank you for your patience and tolerance, Mr. Pike, during that useful intervention by the hon. Gentleman, which gave me some time. With a little help from my colleagues, I can now say that the harp is incorporated in the third quarter of the royal coat of arms. By extension, it is in royal coats of arms throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to address the contribution made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, who rightly said that the issue was never of special importance and had not been raised by anyone. One draws parallels with the extraordinary outbursts of violence from time to time in countries such as India when the remains of Hindu temples are discovered under mosques. People were wholly unaware of such issues, but then they were discovered, brought to the fore and two communities that had rubbed along perfectly happily were suddenly lined up as opposing sides. Even in recent years, there have been tragic events in India and substantial bloodshed caused by issues that, to the purposes of the outside world, were entirely symbolic. That is why it is a pity that we are considering such measures at all.

Before I develop those arguments, I want to tackle briefly the consequences of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I hope that he appreciates that it would mean that one would have to re-sculpt the Supreme Court in Belfast. Never mind that the royal coat of arms is carved into the wood above the judges' seats inside the courtrooms; the marble structure of the foyer of that building is carved with the royal coat of arms and other symbols appertaining to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I cannot remember what the symbols are precisely, but they are extremely large. As the hon. Member for North Down said, to remove them would be an act of vandalism—

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am sorry to have committed an act of vandalism on my hon. Friend's sentence. I am especially interested in the phrase in the amendment,

''in any other place inside a court-house''.

That highlights the deficiency of the clause, which refers to either the exterior of courthouses or the interior of courtrooms, but on my reading does not deal with the public parts of the court building such as the foyer or hall. The Minister may take a different view. Subsection (1) mentions the courtroom, and subsections (2) and (4) refer to the exterior or outside of a courthouse. My hon. Friend's point chimed in with only those references.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

My hon. and learned Friend is right in referring to one of the consequences of the amendment, because it is framed to take account of the whole court environment. As he correctly points out, it does not comprise only the court room and the exterior of the courthouse but includes the other areas inside the courthouse.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

That is not my reading of the amendment. It refers to ''other symbols''. It would have no impact on the royal coat of arms. We have not yet heard what those other symbols might be, but they do not include the royal coat of arms.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am trying to remember what I saw on my one visit to the courtroom in question, but I do not think that the royal coat of arms was displayed. It was a slightly different symbol, but the amendment would remove it.

That leads me to the point about heritage made by the hon. Member for North Down. The hon. Lady drew attention to those courts where the royal coat of arms is built into the fabric, and said that it would obviously be an act of vandalism to remove it. She drew attention to the Secretary of State's comments on the subject on Second Reading. He said:

''We are considering all the representations we have received, including a number expressing concern on heritage grounds about the removal of certain symbols. We will consider whether any changes are needed in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise, and the views expressed in the House. We are open to any constructive suggestions, particularly those capable of attracting cross-community support.''—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 646.]

We are about to put some pretty explicit instructions into primary legislation, and unless other legislation is going to be made that will overrule it, that vandalism will take place. Should Parliament pass the Bill, the royal coats of arms will be stripped out and the vandalism to which the hon. Lady referred will take place unless a qualifying phrase is inserted at a later stage.

The hon. Member for North Down was right to draw attention to the Belfast agreement and the constitutional position. I do not want to repeat what she said; I entirely agree with her. I noted that, in response to the previous debate, the Minister said that the review had tried to strike a careful balance and that it was a matter of judgment. He said that there was no law of physics that would bring us to the correct solution.

The review has been deficient in trying to match the wisdom of Solomon. The Government propose slicing the baby in half, but neither side will intervene to save the baby's life. We shall be left in the unique position that the review will have managed to offend everybody. That does not deliver on the Belfast agreement—nor on the Labour party manifesto.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, nevertheless, that, however it came about, a satisfactory settlement was reached on symbols for the police and for Stormont? It is not necessarily an irreconcilable position to find a symbol that would suit most of us—or even all of us.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point, with which I agree. I wonder why we are attempting to achieve such a thing in the Bill. All it does is create division.

The point was included in the Labour party manifesto. A copy of the Parliamentary Labour party briefing came to me from the office of the Secretary of State—by indirect means, I might add. It

states that the Bill delivers another manifesto commitment. It continues:

''We will ensure that the Good Friday agreement is implemented in full and that new institutions take root . . . We will bring about the key reforms in the civil and criminal justice system which secure the respect and trust of both traditions.''

I hope that the Government do not believe that they have delivered on that item of their manifesto because, palpably, this provision will undermine the rest of the Bill and line the issue up with judicial oaths. Indeed, the provision is worse than that on judicial oaths because the stripping away of symbols will be so visible to the community.

The answer to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and the Committee sits in the review. Having taken a position, the concluding part of the review's recommendations states:

''These practices would become subject to any decision of the Assembly on devolution of responsibility for courts administration.''

It would have been infinitely better if that position had been taken in the first place. We have now created a situation where we all have to take fundamental positions based on an issue about which I suspect people had not previously given a great deal of thought. Because we are driven into considering what the symbology means, we have to take positions fundamentally aligned with our political philosophies. The Conservative party has to decide whether to support new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, which will insist that royal coats of arms should be displayed inside courtrooms and outside courthouses. The Minister correctly pointed out that there has not been any legislation in that area before. The use of those symbols has arisen through custom and practice. The accepted custom and practice under our constitution is that justice flows from the Crown, which is above politics. The symbol of the royal coat of arms, of the Queen, of justice flowing from the sovereign in court above the political process will be lost.

The Conservative party will be forced to take up a position. My preference is that the clauses should not appear in the Bill. Before we get to that point, we will be invited to vote on new clause 3. Plainly, the Conservative party takes a position about the place of Northern Ireland inside the United Kingdom and the role of the sovereign. Our position is that justice flows from the sovereign. While Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom by the consent of the majority of its people, those are the appropriate symbols to reflect the constitutional reality. The Conservative party will support new clause 3 if the hon. Member for East Londonderry presses it to a vote.

It is a pity that the Government were not wise enough to follow the excellent precedent set by the Policing Board, which managed to resolve this difficult issue in an effectively devolved framework.

Lady Hermon rose—

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, it may be helpful if I gave a ruling so that everyone knows where we are regarding new clause 3, which is grouped with the amendment. Mr. Campbell

has indicated to the Committee that he would seek to move new clause 3, which is tabled in his name. That would be taken at the end of this part of the Bill. At that stage, he would move the new clause formally. I have to inform the Committee that, if the question that clause 66 stand part is agreed to, I would not be able to allow a separate Division on new clause 3. New clause 3 would be inconsistent with clause 66. I would allow a Division on new clause 3 if the question whether clause 66 stand part of the Bill were negatived. I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. If hon. Members are minded to vote on new clause 3 they must defeat clause 66 in the clause stand part debate, which would allow me to put new clause 3 to a Division. I hope that that ruling is clear.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Pike. We shall oppose clause 66 standing part of the Bill, and I do not intend to repeat this speech in the clause stand part debate unless unexpected additional issues arise during the remainder of the debate. I intend to cover the clause stand part debate in this contribution. Just to ensure that I have understood the ruling, am I right in thinking that if clause 66 stands part of the Bill, new clause 3 cannot be put to a vote?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I was going to make the point at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I felt that it would be helpful to make it clear because he specifically referred to it. If clause 66 is carried and stands part of the Bill, I cannot take a vote on new clause 3 because I cannot allow a Bill to leave Committee with two clauses that are totally inconsistent.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am grateful because that relieves me of my dilemma, Mr. Pike. I wish that I had known that before.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I want clarification on how the hon. Gentleman thinks new clause 3, which would cause division over symbols, is compatible with the part of the agreement that promotes mutual respect. His party supported the agreement, and I would therefore expect to find that new clause 3 and the agreement are reconcilable. I do not see how they can be, so perhaps he can explain that.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It is simply because new clause 3 respects the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and the agreement also respects the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Those matters have never previously been legislated on, and my information on that coincides precisely with the Minister's.

We have been driven to legislate because the matter has come up in the Bill. I regret that and wish that that had not happened, but, as Mr. Pike has made clear, if we are unlucky enough not to manage to persuade Government Members to strip out clause 66, we shall not be in a position to vote on new clause 3. That is how I reconcile those positions. The hon. Lady has drawn attention to a potential contradiction with the agreement. There is no such contradiction, but the

matter has drawn us into territory that it would have been infinitely better not to cover.

I hope that we can persuade the Government to think again. A principle that has underlain many of my contributions in Committee is that such matters should, as far as is possible, be properly devolved. It would be much better if such decisions, particularly in areas where there is a precedent for resolving a difficulty, were taken by the devolved authority once justice were devolved. The matter is regrettable, and I hope that the Government will think again.

I certainly hope that the Government are not going to indulge in the vandalism of ancient symbols in courtrooms. I understand that there are courts in the Republic of Ireland that still have royal coats of arms, not least because they have cultural and heritage value. If such coats of arms have not been destroyed in the Republic of Ireland, it would be odd to choose to do so in the United Kingdom.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made, among things, two interesting remarks. One was that the civil service of Northern Ireland had no pronounced views—I paraphrase. It may not have any publicly deeply held and pronounced views, but many civil servants who are professional men and women must from time to time hold their noses, as they do the Government's business. The hon. Gentleman also asked the hon. Member for North Down whether the royal coat of arms included a representation of the nationalist—

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I did not ask that question. I asked which symbols represented the nationalist tradition in the courts that had been specified by the hon. Lady, and not what part they may be of another symbol.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The question that the hon. Gentleman outlines is one with which I want to get to grips. It identifies the very problem that lies behind his amendment. He wants to introduce a political element to the courts of Northern Ireland, but politics has no part to play there. I appreciate that many people think that it should, and that some cases that have been, and may in future be, dealt with by Northern Ireland courts will have a political tinge, but courts are wholly disinterested in politics. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the symbol by wanting to introduce a political element. One must only ask what the royal arms symbolise to understand why they exist, and why they should be allowed to continue. We seem to be confusing symbols in Northern Ireland generally with this particular symbol.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a genuine opportunity for conflict in the way in which the amendment is framed? It states:

''No other symbols must be displayed . . . in any courtroom''.

One could get into debates about everything, from clothing to items in the courtroom, having symbolic value.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

There is a myriad of good arguments to be deployed against the amendment, and I have time to deal with only one or two. An obvious symbol is the statue, or picture, of the blindfolded lady of justice with scales. Under the amendment, that would

have to go were it on top of a court building or in some pictorial form within one.

The only witty part about the amendment is the words,

''in any other place inside a court-house'',

because they identify a location that is not catered for in clause 66, which refers to the inside of courtrooms and the exterior of courthouses. The clause does not take account of the point drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about fittings in court halls, foyers and other public parts of court buildings that are inside the building but outside the courtroom.

I want to concentrate on the proper understanding of what the royal arms symbolise. They do not symbolise a political party or sectarian interest; still less do they symbolise the Government of Northern Ireland in the political sense of the word—[Interruption.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. I should point out to whoever has their mobile phone going off that it should be switched to silent mode, and should not be heard in Committee.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The royal arms symbolise not a political party, sectarian interest or the Government, but the Crown. I do not mean Her Majesty the Queen, an individual human being, but the impersonal, disinterested non-party political state, which is the provider of impartial public justice. In modern jargon, we call it ''the state.'' The state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and the hon. Member for North Down.

Under our constitution, we sometimes call the state the Crown. We are concerned with the state's courts, and it is perhaps worth bearing in mind, if only briefly, that when the state brings a prosecution against one of its citizens, it is not the State v. Bloggs but the Crown v. Bloggs. I have no understanding that, under the Bill, the Public Prosecution Service will entitle criminal prosecutions in any other way.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Before the hon. and learned Member completes his comments, may I draw to the Committee's attention the fact that it is incorrect to cross the line between the person who is speaking and the Chair when coming into or going out of the Committee Room. Members must avoid that whenever possible.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Mr. Pike, your intervention is—I think—the fourth that I have had to cope with. However, it encourages me to cut short my remarks, because I suspect that those members of the Committee who have a modicum of interest in or understanding of what I am saying have long since got my point. [Interruption.] I was not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was reversing out of the Room or bowing.

Let me quickly conclude my remarks. The arms within the courts are a convenient, useful and inoffensive shorthand. I suspect that some in the Committee are manufacturing offence where none is

intended and none should be taken. I invite those who support amendment No. 274 to consider carefully what they are supporting. I am concerned not so much about symbols—for goodness' sake, I have spent a great many years of my adult life wearing in court what some may think a silly uniform—but that the provision of justice has more to do with human beings and their attitudes to other human beings than with the furniture, the uniform or the other symbols of justice.

People want to see justice being done in the courts of the devolved justice system in Northern Ireland. Justice will not be improved by removing the coats of arms. Indeed, nothing will be improved by doing that. Instead, an unnecessary and unwelcome political angle will be added to what should be an area of public policy and public life that is wholly divorced from political and sectarian division.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I opposed this aspect of the Bill on Second Reading because, as my party's reasoned amendment made clear, it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm. I am still opposed to it for the same reason.

As I intimated earlier, the issue does not relate to Northern Ireland only but has important implications for other constituent parts of the United Kingdom as well. If we pass the Bill in its present form, in time we may hear an argument from certain quarters that the royal arms should be removed from other courthouses in the United Kingdom. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I hear Labour Members muttering ''Hear, hear.'' They prove my point. The people who may make such an argument, whoever they may be, will then seek to pray in aid the precedent that we are in danger of setting this afternoon for Northern Ireland.

There was some debate on Second Reading about the situation in Scotland, concerning the fact that, some time ago, the royal arms were not displayed in Scottish courts. My understanding—the Minister has worked in the Scottish system, so he will know—is that the royal arms are currently displayed in Scottish courts. We should, therefore, remain consistent on this point, for the sake of the integrity of the United Kingdom. The point about practices in Scotland is a red herring.

My objection to the provisions is that they give succour to republicans, but not just republicans in Northern Ireland. They threaten to give succour to republicans across the United Kingdom, and I am deeply opposed to that. What the Government are proposing that we do this evening has the potential—I use that word deliberately—to become the thin end of the republican wedge. Therefore, we must remember that what we are voting on tonight has implications across the whole of the United Kingdom. We must be very conscious of that when we vote on the matter, especially those of us who are, at heart, constitutional monarchists.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It would be inappropriate for me to repeat the general points that I made in the debate on amendment No. 275, so I shall try to restrict my comments to additional points that were not dealt with

properly by my contribution to that debate. I want to record, however, that I am pleased to see that the responsible manner in which the previous debate was conducted has been continued into this debate. Although these debates involve strongly held views and significant emotion, the way in which they have been conducted thus far is a credit to the Committee.

I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Rayleigh first. The hon. Gentleman told the Committee about what could be called his domino theory, in which this provision is the thin end of the wedge. I spent a lot of time—the hon. and learned Member for Harborough might recognise this—in court trying to persuade judges that what I was trying to get them to do would not open the floodgates. On a few occasions, I was successful. I can reassure those judges that their decisions did not open the floodgates. Lawyers spend a lot of time arguing points of principle with judges, trying to persuade them that there is no merit to the floodgates argument.

With respect to the hon. Member for Rayleigh, because I know that he holds his views appropriately and for good reasons, which he has articulated, I do not think that there is the remotest possibility of this provision leading to an upsurge in republicanism in Scotland and a demand for the removal of symbols in court rooms. Anyone in the Committee who thinks that that is a possibility can be reassured by my experience of Scottish courts and the conservative nature of the Scottish legal establishment. It is unlikely that the people who practise in those courts, whether or not they are republican, would call for the removal of those symbols.

However, I have some experience of appearing in court rooms in the Scottish system in which there were no symbols. That is not likely to be the case now, because the practice of displaying significant numbers of symbols has proliferated in Scotland. Some of them look cheap and nasty, because they consist of pieces of moulded plastic stuck on walls. I do not think that they especially enhance the environment of the room. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that symbols often enhance the rooms in which justice is dispensed, but I do not think that is especially true of such symbols. They do not give any sense of gravitas. They look what they are to those who sit on the public benches, but they are there, and I doubt that there is much likelihood of republicans—some members of republican parties are involved in the Scottish Parliament—calling for their removal. The hon. Member for Rayleigh will be reassured about that.

There is no direct parallel between Northern Ireland and Scotland in their relationship and union with England and the rest of the UK, for the simple reason that the union between Scotland and England was a negotiated and agreed position in 1707. Scotland does not share the same history as Northern Ireland, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point as well.

For those who think that nationalists will jump on the bandwagon in Scotland, I should explain that my understanding of the nationalist party's position on

constitutional monarchy is not far removed from that of all but one of the parties represented in the Committee.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

There are two points to make. First, I deliberately did not use the word nationalist, but republican. I chose my language quite carefully. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I was not trying to talk about any republicans who might or might not be confined to Scotland. Perhaps I should make it clear that I meant that there were quite a number of republicans in the Labour party, some overt and some covert. Those people will welcome the measure, because it advances their agenda. I am opposed to that.

Secondly, the Minister referred to plastic symbols of royal arms in court rooms that he thought did not add anything to the value of the rooms. He seemed to imply that it was all right to remove them. If we consider the other side of that argument, presumably we could also argue that especially beautiful arms such as those carved on wood with great heritage value should be preserved for exactly the same reason.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

There was no such implication in what I said. I merely made an observation from my experience. The reference to nationalists that crept into the debate did not come from the hon. Member for Rayleigh, but from the hon. Member for East Londonderry. My use of the word was in response to a point that he made.

The hon. Members for Reigate and for East Londonderry regret the fact that we are considering the issue at all. They join the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for North Down and me in that regret, which I expressed at the outset of my remarks on the previous amendment. The hon. Member for Reigate differs from me in my expression of regret, as to an extent does the hon. Member for East Londonderry, because he seeks to attribute some blame to the Government for our consideration of the subject.

I can accept that from the hon. Member for East Londonderry, because at least in doing so he is consistent. He has never supported the Belfast agreement, despite what the people of Northern Ireland voted for. The use of ''democratic'' in the name of his party calls for a separate definition of the word. At least he is consistent, but the hon. Member for Reigate consistently parades his support for the Belfast agreement. Support for that agreement necessarily implies support for a review, because the review came from the agreed position. The review raised the issues, and made recommendations based on what it clearly thought was a balanced approach. I sought to summarise the way in which it did so in my earlier contribution, so I shall not go over it again.

Mr. Blunt rose—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, he will have an opportunity to intervene in a moment.

The issue was raised in the context of the review. I venture to suggest that anyone who supported the review of criminal justice would frankly have been

naive to expect that it would not have been raised. That is the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry makes about the Belfast agreement. It would be naive to expect the issue would not be raised, and given that it had to be raised, what were the review team to do? Should they have pretended that the matter had not been raised, buried that contribution to the review and not put it in the public domain? Having put it in the public domain, even if they had made no recommendation, we would have been embroiled in this controversy in debate on the Bill. There is no question of that.

In his expression of regret, the hon. Member for Reigate suggests that the actions of the Government have generated the controversy. That is not the case. The fact that the Government support the Belfast agreement made on Good Friday has generated the controversy.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister implies that the Government do not have any capacity for independent thought, away from civil servants and those who served on the review team. It is the Bill that is now causing controversy, and it is up to the Government to decide what proposals in the review they put before Parliament. The implication of the Minister's argument is that the Government have been absolutely faithful to all the recommendations of the review, yet we are about to consider clauses 70 and 71, on which they have been nothing of the kind.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

We shall come to those clauses in due course. My point has no less validity simply because the hon. Gentleman wants to address it by raising an entirely different point. The review came about because of the agreement, which the hon. Gentleman supports, and made recommendations that were welcomed as balanced and fair by all but the party represented by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. Although this process is not a science, the Bill is a faithful attempt to reflect recommendations that were called balanced and fair by a full cross-section of Northern Ireland society. I have read leading articles that reflect that view in newspapers sold in large numbers to both communities. Therefore, the Government occupy appropriate ground when they attempt to translate those balanced and fair arguments into legislation.

Everything is subject to the position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading, and which I repeated today. The Government will consider all representations that they have received on this matter, including those on the heritage issues that I raised. Representations continue to be made, and the debate that we are having will inform that consideration.

The hon. Member for Reigate prayed in aid one other point that bears closer examination than he gave it. He castigated the Government by reference to the last part of the recommendations in paragraph 8.62 of the review. He referred to one sentence and seemed to suggest that the review had recommended that the matter should be left to a decision of the Assembly on devolution. In fact, that is a total misrepresentation of the wording, although I am sure that it was accidental.

That sentence starts with the two words ''These practices''. It states:

''These practices would become subject to any decision of the Assembly on devolution of responsibility for courts administration.''

It is clear from any ordinary reading that the practices referred to in that sentence are those mentioned earlier in the recommendation. It is clear to anyone reading that sentence properly and faithfully, without attempting to take it out of context, that the practices that the review recommended be devolved to the Assembly were the changed practices that were recommended in an earlier part of the recommendation.

There is no argument that the matter should simply be left. Leaving it to the devolved authorities, and regarding the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland as somehow equivalent to a Policing Board—which I think the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—would be adopting the very line for which he castigated the Government. That is not taking the responsibility that the Government's position require them to take.

I return to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for North Down, which came from officials in the Northern Ireland office. They are as accurate as they can be. However, when they were given to the hon. Lady they were in draft form. There is no great difference in them now, and the hon. Lady's points are not undermined, but I caution the Committee that they might be subject to slight amendment. Debates are ongoing in my office as to what is sculpted and what is fixed. I think that the hon. Lady's point was that the numbers will, of necessity, be comparatively small because the total quantity is small; that will not affect the principle. I should not like anyone to take the figures, which were prepared for illustrative purposes, to be prescriptive.

I turn to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Reigate. I am not sure what his point was, but he caused the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to raise it too. He referred to symbols in buildings other than court rooms. His first contribution and his contribution on Second Reading suggested that he thought that those symbols were to be removed because of the provisions of clause 66. The Government have not ignored those symbols. They are aware that they exist in parts of buildings other than court rooms or the exteriors of court rooms. The royal court of arms is sculpted in marble—if it is marble; that is subject to dispute, as some substitute materials look like marble—in the lobby of the Royal Courts of Justice.

The Bill applies to court rooms and the exterior of courts. It does not do that by accident, but because the recommendations of the review group apply to court rooms and the exterior of courts. The Government are aware that there are symbols in other parts of buildings—I am sure that Committee members who have been in courts in Northern Ireland know that they are there. However, there is no recommendation in relation to them, so there is no need to legislate in respect of them.

The hon. Member for North Down illuminates the Committee's discussions because she comes to them with such extensive, well-researched and helpful contributions. She has brought to our attention two decisions of the courts in Northern Ireland, both of which have been helpful and the second of which was also persuasive. That case was helpful to the Government because the judge upheld the Secretary of State's attempt to strike a balance in relation to flag flying. That should reassure the Committee that the Government are capable of striking a balance in an area of great contention that the courts in Northern Ireland, by reference to the Belfast agreement made on Good Friday, can uphold and find to be consistent with the terms of the agreement. With these provisions, the Government are attempting to strike a balance in relation to the royal coat of arms.

The hon. Member for North Down argued well that there was a flaw in the Government's judgment on this issue, whereas they were right before. That may need to be tested at some stage, but the Government believe that the balance struck in the clause will be found to be as sustainable in the face of interpretation of the agreement as the balance achieved on flags.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I tried to restrain myself but I cannot.

At one point in the Murphy case, which was delivered as recently as October 2001, the court emphasised the fact that Northern Ireland was treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to flag flying. Therefore, it cannot be consistent with that judgment or with the Belfast agreement for the royal coat of arms to be taken out of court rooms in Northern Ireland because it would not be consistent with the position in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot reconcile myself to the Minister's remarks, which are entirely at variance with that court judgment.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I knew what the hon. Lady's argument would be. She made it perfectly clear before and did not need to intervene again. However, her argument does not alter a word of my answer.

I turn now to amendment No. 274, tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I find the amendment perplexing for some of the reasons that engaged me in an intervention with the hon. Member for Reigate. The amendment provides that, as well as the royal arms, no other symbols may be displayed in court rooms, anywhere in a courthouse, on the exterior of a courthouse or in any other building used as a court. Although the word ''symbols'' is used in the review, it is clear from the context of the preceding paragraph that symbols means royal arms. We have not used the word ''symbols'' in the Bill because we were advised that it could be taken to include symbols—this might seem ridiculous but it is correct—such as the words ''fire exit'' if they appear on a sign, the statues of justice or of peace in the Londonderry courthouse, as was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, or the county crests displayed in the court rooms at Downpatrick or Bangor. I do not think that my hon.

Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh objects to those symbols, but they would be covered by the amendment. Even if we exclude the ridiculous example of the fire exit—I may need to be persuaded by those who are advising us that such a symbol would be included—the amendment would certainly include those other symbols.

The amendment would preclude the possibility, suggested in the review, of identifying a symbol that could reflect the separation of the court from the Executive and contain the qualities that the hon. Member for North Down urged that the symbolism in certain court rooms should have. Consistent with my earlier contribution, the Government do not wish to close down that possibility. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh to withdraw the amendment.

New clause 3 would insert into the Bill a requirement that every courthouse and court room in Northern Ireland should display a coat of arms. The amendment is inconsistent with the principle of a neutral working environment and I therefore oppose it. The review was set up by the Belfast agreement to deliver an efficient and effective criminal justice system that has the confidence of all parts of the community. The review specifically referred to creating an environment in which all those who attend court can feel comfortable. The new clause is not consistent with those aims. To be fair to the hon. Member for East Londonderry, he did not argue that it would be, but invoked other reasons. New clause 3 would require us to go back to court rooms and courthouses that do not currently display the royal arms and put up more symbols, and the Government are not prepared to do that. For those reasons, if my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh presses his amendment to a vote, I shall ask the Committee to resist it.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for giving us his views, which I found most interesting. I simply want to pose one question to Opposition Members in relation to the earlier part of our debate. Why did the review group make such a recommendation? As I have tried to explain, it would not have been the most radical grouping to grace Northern Ireland in the past 30 years. I suspect that when its members spoke to people, groups or lawyers, it was self-evident that the issue had to be dealt with if we were to have a new beginning. However, the implied view, at least, of Opposition Members was that all the new legislation could and should have gone ahead without this unfortunate theme sitting in the middle of it, which would hold everything up and cause controversy. That is pushing the case beyond reality. The hon. Member for Reigate seemed to imply that the Government should ignore or rebuff recommendation 141. He seemed to be saying that there was no onus on the Government to incorporate that recommendation into legislation.

With respect, I challenge that view firmly on the grounds of bluntness—I mean no pun—because the legislation does not stand a pup's chance of working for the broader nationalist community, and there will not be the slightest chance of devolution unless the matter is dealt with. The notion that it would be

possible to conclude the Bill without such a provision simply does not stand up.

I enjoyed—no, enjoyment is not the word; that is too sadistic. I took a certain pleasure from the embarrassment shown by Opposition Members when it seemed possible that that they might have to vote in favour of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—that really was between a rock and a hard place. But the Chairman, in his wisdom, rightly ruled that the two would not be compatible and hence a sense of relief replaced a sense of embarrassment.

I think that the Minister owes me one, in the sense that I deflected attention from his proposals in the clause. He is getting away in the smoke, and I think that he realises it. I hope that, before the Committee ends, he will at least nod in the direction of one of my amendments.

I was interested in the potential subversion that exists in Scotland, England and Wales regarding the monarchy and incipient republicanism. I regard myself—in Irish and European terms—as a republican, but not anti-monarchy in the sense that the hon. Member for Rayleigh meant. None of my comments or amendments was measured in that way. The case was made for me when the Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate and others pointed out the remarkable preponderance of symbols that exist in the Royal Courts of Justice, especially in Belfast. Listening to their comments, I got the impression that those symbols were everywhere. There were so many that they were in all types of rooms, which seems to be ample justification for the amendment that I tabled.

I want to make another point about heritage. One of the most startling examples is Dublin castle, which was the seat of British power before 1922, and the seat of military and intelligence might. It has potent associations with that period of Irish history. All those symbols are preserved almost in their entirety. It is remarkable to walk into the James Connolly room. I am sure that there is nobody here who does not know that James Connolly was shot in 1916, after coming from Scotland. He was brought into that room, and all the symbols are retained there.

I am not advocating heritage vandalism: far from it. I am trying to ensure that people younger than myself, who have not had the experiences that I have been lucky enough to have, feel comfortable in our system. If I were to tell hon. Members that I and people in my community do not feel comfortable in those court rooms or those contexts, I would ask you not to judge that on the basis of bad faith, but to regard it as an honest observation.

I shall definitely press my amendment to a vote. I shall make a point that I made earlier, but in stronger language. I have had a bellyful of flags and symbols, be they so-called republican flags, tricolours, Union flags, the commemorations of hunger strikes, gable walls, King Billy, King James or whatever. I am sure that the entire population of the north of Ireland have had the same bellyful. I am trying to secure, at least in the courts of law, some relief from that. I do not want to

be offensive to any other section of the community, but to feel a little bit part of it, at ease with it, and belong to it much more than at present.

Flags are not something of great interest. The only flag that I am interested in now is that raised by the starter at Cheltenham in a few weeks. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Committee has considered that problem honestly and has said what it thought. It is a problem for us, but the Chairman's ruling is absolutely correct. I regret that the hon. Member for East Londonderry will be unable to put his new clause if clause 66 is ordered to stand part of the Bill, but I have moved my amendment to redress the imbalance.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The hon. Gentleman is prejudging the situation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 23.

Clause 70 - Community safety strategy

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 60, line 15, at end insert—

'(d) such other persons or organisations as he thinks appropriate.'.

I should be able to deal with this probing amendment quickly. We want to know whether it is the Government's intention to prescribe who must be consulted when altering or devising a community safety strategy. Will the Secretary of State be able to consult others, or will he be confined to the three parties referred to in subsection 4(a), (b) and (c)?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult any

''other persons or organisations as he thinks appropriate''

when devising or altering a community safety strategy for Northern Ireland. We endorse the principle of wide consultation on the strategy, and will publish a draft community safety strategy shortly for just such consultation. I welcome comments from all interested parties and organisations, particularly from those who work in the field of community safety. Should we want to make substantive changes to the strategy once it is established, we will consult widely. The amendment would add nothing to the Bill, and if the hon. Lady accepts my reassurance of a commitment to consultation, she will conclude that it is not necessary.

Patsy Calton (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)

That satisfies our concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

With you indulgence, Mr. Pike, I should like to debate clause 70 stand part with arguments relating to the clause 71 stand part debate. That would help the Committee. If you agree, I will not seek to catch your eye during the debate on clause 71 to repeat my arguments.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.