| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) : I thank the Minister for his kind words, but we do not have the system right yet. I welcome the Lords amendments because they strengthen the clause on video-recording children's testimony.
I deeply regret the fact that an amendment allowing further implementation of the Pigot report was lost in the other place, partly because the Liberal Democrats voted against allowing children to give video-recorded evidence in pre-trial proceedings. The amendment would have saved many children the trauma of having to wait a long time to give evidence in a trial, and even though the amendment would not have affected a court's flexibility to recall a case if new evidence having a significant effect on the outcome was produced, the Liberal Democrats voted against it.
I very much regret the fact that the Bill does not include a measure for which I have fought for many years and which would have permitted video- recorded evidence to be used if a child's life was likely to be placed at serious risk if he or she appeared in court. That small amendment would have been rarely used but would have strengthened the Bill.
Having commissioned the Pigot report, the Government appear to have decided that it goes too far down the road towards providing a fair trial for a child and the accused. Despite all their fine words and all the injustices that have been done to children over many years, they have failed to give true justice to children in our courts. I ask the Minister one last favour. Will he undertake to provide official data to enable research to be carried out
Column 928
into delays in the prosecution of child abusers? I understand that the Nuffield Foundation is providing funding to Joyce Plotnikoff and her team to carry out research. It would help if official data were supplied to that lady. The evidence may help the Minister to do another U-turn and implement all the recommendations in Judge Pigot's report.Dr. Godman : I hesitate to speak in an English debate, but I agree with the Minister that the Lords amendments refine clause 45, on video recording the testimony of child witnesses, and clause 46, which is an important clause.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I am gratified by the Minister's comments about the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) in these matters. I offer my compliments to the Minister, his colleagues and officials for what is, from a Scottish perspective, astonishing legislation. The Bill is remarkable, and I say that without rancour or resentment. Last year, I attempted to change the law in Scotland by plagiarising these clauses and including them in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), paid me the compliment of accepting an amendment on television links but, disappointingly, he refused to accept a remarkable innovation enabling video-recorded interviews to be used, where appropriate as evidence.
It is important to interview, as soon as humanly possible after an investigation, a child who may be involved in the appalling circumstances about which we are speaking. The longer the delay between investigation and an interview using video recordings, the greater the dangers. All that was said in Standing Committee. I should like to warn the Minister. I appreciate the fact that the Orkney cases are under investigation, but there was severe criticism of the way in which children alleged to have been involved in sexual abuse cases were interviewed by so-called professionals. Will cognisance be taken in the guidelines of the mistakes made in the Orkneys?
How many courts have television links and how often have those links been used in child abuse cases? Has the Home Office commissioned research into the use of such links? What training will be given in interviewing children where video recordings are used in evidence?
I profoundly regret the fact that the Minister's Scottish Office colleagues chose not to follow the path taken in the Bill. Investigations are carried out in Scotland into allegations about dreadful cases of sexual and child abuse. I am convinced that, if we had similar legislation in Scotland, children would be spared the humiliating ordeal of giving evidence in court within a few feet of the accused.
One of the most modern courtrooms in the United Kingdom must be Glasgow sheriff court. I do not know the names of the architects, and perhaps they should remain nameless, but in that most modern court which deals with child abuse cases--they are also dealt with in the High Court--the child witness is placed within 12 feet of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse. From an architectural point of view, if nothing else, that is a living disgrace. The architects should have been advised to take into account the problems facing child witnesses in such cases.
Despite some of the excellent extant legislation on family law and children, there is no doubt that in
Column 929
attempting to ease the burden faced by children in such circumstances, English law is ahead of Scottish law. To me, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, that is a matter of deep regret.Mr. John Patten : I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his kind words about the Home Office and Home Office Ministers. I am used to bouquets coming to me from all angles from Scottish hon. Members--for instance from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who is not in the Chamber tonight--but I rarely receive them from Glasgow. A compliment from the hon. Gentleman is extremely welcome, and I thank him for it. The design of the sheriff courts in Scotland is not a matter for me, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's strictures on architectural matters to the attention of the Lord Advocate who, I believe, has ministerial responsibility for such issues north of the Border. As always, there is a difference between the two jurisdictions, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully whether there are any lessons for Scotland in the new provisions.
With regard to interviewing techniques and guidance, we are drawing up codes of practice which will take account of all relevant experience. I will ensure that copies of those codes of practice are sent to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman also asked about research, and that is one thing that we have plenty of in the Home Office. Yes, there will certainly be a full programme of research and monitoring. I do not have statistics about the numbers of courts equipped with video equipment, which was the last issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him with the statistics. I have seen some of the experiments being carried out, and I am sure that the police or others in the Metropolitan area would make it possible for the hon. Gentleman to visit them. I am sure that he would see much of interest to him.
In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), that will be the last time that I drag her back into the Chamber to receive a complaint. She asked me to make three U-turns and stirred up a debate when there was not meant to be one ; it was not part of my game plan, and I had intended to make a quick compliment and get on with the next group of amendments.
The Home Office will make available to Mrs. Plotnikoff any details that we have . We are aware of her research and welcome it, and we shall do all that we can to help her in her work by the provision of data.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Clause 47
Attendance at court of parent or guardian
Lords amendment : No. 74 in page 33, line 12, at end insert-- "(3) For the purpose of facilitating the attendance in court of parents or guardians, the youth court in each area shall hold at least one sitting fortnightly outside the times at which the court normally sits if in the opinion of the court this is justified by the number of cases where to require a parent or
Column 930
guardian to attend court at the times at which the court normally sits would jeopardise the employment of the parent or guardian or would be undesirable for any other reason."Mr. John Patten : I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following : Lords amendment No. 75.
Lords amendment No. 76, in clause 49, page 34, line 16, leave out from "years" to end of line 18 and insert--
"(a
(to exercise those powers if it is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that their exercise would be desirable in the interests of preventing the commission by him of further offences ; and)
(b
(where it does not exercise them, to state in open court that it is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) above and why it is not so satisfied.")
The following amendments to Lords amendment No. 76 : leave out (a)'.
(b), leave out from offences' to end of line 8.
Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 151.
8.15 pm
Mr. Patten : I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and 151 which refer to the provisions for binding over the parents of young offenders. I shall then deal in the second part of my speech with an issue that I know concerns the official Opposition. That may be convenient for the Opposition's spokesman.
As the House will know, we firmly believe that the binding over of parents of juvenile offenders can play an important role in helping to prevent further offending by young people. We wish the courts to make much more and better use of this power. That policy was set out clearly in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", and that is what the provisions of clause 49 are intended to achieve.
Where the offender is 16 or 17, we think that the courts should have the power to bind over the parents and should have the full discretion to use that power as and when they think it appropriate to do so. Clause 49 already achieves that. However, where the young person is under the age of 16, we think that the courts should be under a duty to consider the question of binding over the parents of a juvenile offender in every case. We also think it right that such powers should be used wherever the court considers it helpful in preventing reoffending by the young person. Amendment No. 76 would achieve that.
Where the juvenile is under the age of 16, the court will be required to do three things. It will be required to consider exercising the bind-over power in every case. It will be required to exercise the powers if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that their exercise would be desirable in the interests of preventing the commission of further offences by the young person. Where the court does not exercise the powers, it will be required to state in open court why it has chosen not to do so. The reference to the use of the power to bind over parents to help to prevent reoffending by the young person is especially valuable. It directs the court's attention very clearly to the positive purpose and benefits of binding over. It also makes it clear that there is no compulsion to bind over a parent when it is clear that the parent is not in a position to exercise the control that would prevent further offending.
Column 931
It may be convenient if I now speak to Opposition amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 76. One of the main points of clause 49 is that a court will always have to consider whether to bind over the parent or guardian of a young offender aged under 16. Either it exercises its power to bind over or it gives its reasons for not doing so. That is the theory and the practice that we want to see. The Opposition's amendments would remove the second half of that provision. We would effectively be returning to the law as it stands and we do not want to do that. The Government believe that the magistrates' existing discretion to bind over parents or guardians is not used as often as it might be, and if amendments (a) and (b) were accepted, there would be no additional obligation on magistrates even to consider whether they should exercise their powers to bind over. I turn now to amendment No. 77. Clause 49 allows the courts to bind over parents for up to three years. During such a period, family circumstances may change. For example, it is possible that a child whose parents are bound over when he or she is 14 or 15 and still at school, may leave school, get married and leave home before the bind-over period of this length has ended. To allow for such changes in circumstances, amendment No. 77 provides the courts with a power to revoke or vary an order binding over a parent if it would be in the interests of justice to do so.Mr. Maclennan : I want to ask the Minister for his view on amendment No. 74 which is grouped with this amendment, but which he has not dealt with. It would be of interest to know the Government's view.
Mr. Patten : I shall do my best.
In the interests of justice, the parent or guardian must make an application to the court, and the court must be satisfied that there is a relevant change of circumstance.
Amendment No. 75 is a technical amendment. As the Bill is drafted, it is the court that convicts the young offender which would be required to consider the binding over of parents. However, the convicting court may not be the court that sentences the young offender.
In amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and No. 151, we have made some sensible improvements to the Bill. That brings me to the end of the first half of what I said I would deal with. I now deal with the second part--amendment No. 74, which concerns the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I cannot, under any circumstances, commend it to the House.
Amendment No. 74 is designed to make it easier for parents to attend court when their child appears as a defendant, by requiring the courts to inquire into possible difficulties that parents in employment might experience in attending court during normal working hours and, if necessary, to hold at least one sitting a fortnight outside normal hours to accommodate them. That alone would cost between £7 million and £10 million.
I see no advantage in compelling a court, before setting a date, to seek out the defendant's parents and to see whether, in the court's view, their employment might be jeopardised by coming to court during normal hours. A parent reluctant to attend might seize the opportunity to claim that his job would be in danger, or might give some other fallacious reason, if he had to be absent for even part of a day. The court would then have to confirm with the parent's employer that that was the case, with all the
Column 932
attendant costs and all the delays in the criminal justice system which would flow from that. As we all know, one of the best things to do with juveniles is to get them brought before the court as quickly as possible and dealt with as quickly as possible so that they learn the lesson before they have forgotten it.It should also not be forgotten that many of those in employment are engaged in shift work or work at weekends. Such work patterns seem to provide considerable flexibility for parents. Not only parents, but victims must be taken into account. The House of Lords did not mention victims and the inconvenience caused to victims who have to appear as witnesses and who may have to come out after dark in the evening. Why should victims have to come out in the evening, for example, and make an attendance at court as witnesses at great inconvenience to themselves?
Mr. Sheerman : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten : I really cannot--
Mr. Sheerman : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten : The hon. Gentleman must restrain himself.
We need to take into account the perfectly proper considerations of all court users. We must take into account not only the accused and the accused's parents, but witnesses and victims. In taking a balanced view of amendment No. 74, we taken into account the convenience not only of parents, but of all court users. Does the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) want me to give way? I did not think that he did--
Mr. Sheerman : I had resigned myself to coming back to the subject of victims in my remarks in response. The Minister knows--and I do not know how he did not blush when he made the point about victims--that we tried to put the whole role of victims in the court system high on the agenda. The Minister knows that he and his Government would not allow victims to be discussed when the Bill was in Committee.
Mr. Patten : If the Opposition wished to deal with the serious problems facing witnesses in court, and the fact that the elderly, the disabled and other victims might have to turn out at night to attend court sessions, they would have taken them into account in tabling their amendments, and would not have tabled them in their present form. I cannot recommend amendment No. 74 to the House.
Mr. Sheerman : I will start with the "Home and Away" part of the Minister's remarks, rather than with the "Neighbours" bit of his speech-- [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said that the first half was "Neighbours" and the second half was "Home and Away", and that they were as bad as each other. It was a bit dismal to listen to the Minister's rather negative response.
In Committee, the Minister opposed the ideas in the amendment. He has had to change his mind, because he has been defeated in the Lords and he has to make some concessions. However, he does not have the good grace to say that he was wrong in Committee, that he has learnt his lessons and that he is trying to improve. Instead, he threw in the gratuitous insult about victims, although we desperately tried to get victims on the agenda of the Bill
Column 933
and were prevented from doing so by the long title of the Bill. Every time we sought to amend the Bill, we were knocked back because the amendments were out of order.Like the Minister, I will start by discussing amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 76. It would remove from the Bill the requirement for courts to give reasons if they do not bind over the parents of juvenile offenders. In its original form, the Bill provided that, when a juvenile was convicted of an offence, the court must bind over the parents to take proper care of him or her and to exercise proper control, unless it considered that that was unreasonable. On Report in the Lords, the Government removed the statutory presumption in favour of binding over parents in response to amendments moved by peers in the all-party penal affairs group. We are always grateful for small mercies, and that was a positive change from what the Minister said in Committee. We had argued from the beginning in Committee that the bind-over proposals were wrong and were opposed by all who worked in the system as doctrinaire nonsense which would create far more problems than it would solve. The Minister has staked his reputation on legislating for happy families. We have told him that one cannot do it, that, if one imposes a £1,000 fine on parents for their children's good behaviour, it will not work, and that it will destroy families rather than unite them. We told him that until we were blue in the face. It was not until those in the other place told him that, that he had to accept that some part of our argument was right.
We stressed that the proposals were likely to increase rather than reduce juvenile crime by placing an additional burden on many families who were already under pressure. Amendment No. 74 was a welcome modification of a quite unworkable proposal. Through amendment (a), we are saying that the new version of the clause would require courts to give reasons if they did not bind over parents. Although an improvement on the original proposals, that will still-- [Interruption.] We had strictures from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, earlier about my not concentrating fully on her remarks. I was not, because I was trying to follow how we had lost a couple of clauses. I hope that the Minister has not lost a couple.
The power for the courts to give reasons if they do not bind over parents is still not good enough. Although an improvement on the original proposal, it will still place inappropriate pressure on courts to use a measure that, in the vast majority in cases, would do more harm than good. It is misguided to place pressure on the courts to use that power in cases in which they do not currently regard as sensible to do so.
Binding over parents and requiring them to forfeit money if the child reoffends is likely to increase parents' resentment and to aggravate further relationships between them and their children, putting the children more at risk than ever. It will increase the pressures on many families who are already struggling to survive against great odds. In some cases, it will accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house to join the growing ranks of the young homeless. We have talked about the homeless, and about the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the
Column 934
missed opportunity to get rid of it. The problems that I have described would have been more serious if the Bill had not been amended by the Lords.We believe that a further refinement would be for the Minister at last to say that the provision was a bit of an ideological wheeze which he thought might go down well at the Conservative party conference and might impress some Back-Bench Members. He should say that, because of the implacable opposition of the Magistrates Association, the Justices Clerks Association and everyone who does the job in juvenile justice, he has taken some notice. He should go the full way and forget the proposal.
The "Neighbours" part of my speech concerns amendment No. 74, which is better than the first part which is hard to believe. I will not render this bit with an Australian twang. The amendment requires youth courts to hold at least one sitting a fortnight in the evening or at weekends when that is justified--I hope that the Minister will listen--by the number of cases that would be dealt with more appropriately at such a time. The amendment was moved not by some radical firebrand, but by Baroness Faithfull, a constituent of the Minister. I know that he has great respect for that lady. She moved the amendment on behalf of the all-party penal affairs group and it was carried on Third Reading by 79 votes to 75, against the Government's wishes.
One result of the amendment will be to reduce the risk that requiring parents to attend court with their children would jeopardise their employment. Perhaps if one is of the aristocratic persuasion in a marginal Oxford constituency, one may feel that it is irrelevant to consider how the courts cater for people. The Opposition have consistently said that the real change that needs to be made to the courts system is that the system should be more consumer-oriented. The people who use the courts should find friendly courts and places which are not aloof. The courts should be people's courts where people can find justice. They should be run for the people and not for the barristers, lawyers and others who are there to serve. It is about time that we had a legal system based on the principle of serving people who use them rather than those who work in the courts.
8.30 pm
The Minister of State may be contemptuous of the idea that ordinary working people and single-parent families must attend court. Perhaps the Minister of State should be reminded of the number of homeless people in the marginal Oxford constituency that he represents. He would be surprised at the number. There are many in my much less marginal constituency of Huddersfield. Those families need to be able to attend courts at more convenient times than at present. What is wrong with weekend or evening courts? The Minister plucks figures out of the air. He seems capable of adding up only in tens. His proposals seem to cost £10 million, £100 million or £1,000 million.
Mr. John Patten : I said £7 million.
Mr. Sheerman : Well, £7 million to £10 million. The proposal has not been costed properly. We should at least be able to experiment in the areas where there is greatest need. We might then make the courts people's courts instead of lawyers' courts. The Opposition believe that justice and access to justice is what this Bill could have been about. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The
Column 935
one small measure that Baroness Faithfull managed to propose in the other place could be a sign that the Government are at least prepared to accept that change.I am sorry that the Minister has been contemptuous of this, sensible amendment which would have opened up the courts and made them more amenable to those who have jobs in which they lose pay if they do not turn up. The proposal would have made matters more convenient for single parent families and those who suffer from the kind of discrimination that I have described at work. If those people do not turn up at work, they are not paid and the family is not fed or shod.
Mr. Maclennan : I was more surprised by the Minister's reasons for opposing amendment No. 74 than by the fact that he opposed it. There is no requirement to hold courts at the convenience of the parents or guardians of young people brought before the court. There is a requirement to hold such courts only when that is justified. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary because, as I understand it, it is open to the courts to hold evening sittings if they so choose at the moment.
As it is desirable that the courts should hold evening sittings if that is in the interests of justice including the interests of the witnesses, the amendment must be unnecessary. I understand that courts increasingly choose to sit in the evenings. That makes a great deal of sense. It saves time and it expedites hearings. It also meets the convenience of many people who are not necessarily professionally engaged in court, and it may even be for the convenience of those who are so engaged, who may prefer to handle a long list of cases rather than a short list and have to return on another occasion. The Minister's over-the-top opposition to the amendment was uncharacteristically unsympathetic. I hope that he does not disapprove of the holding of evening courts. I was surprised by his suggestion that the costs would increase. I was also surprised that he was able to cost matters in that way. It must be difficult to judge how often courts would choose to sit in the evenings. I would like to know the Minister's assumptions and how he made his calculation of £7 million to £10 million of additional expenditure. If courts could dispose of matters which they would otherwise have to bring back on another day, that would save money. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government do not oppose evening courts.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 202, Noes 132.
Division No. 194] [8.36 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkins, Robert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Batiste, Spencer
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Butler, Chris
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
| Next Section
| Home Page |