| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): I shall be extremely brief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) for her work on witness protection, and for her obvious commitment to that concept. However, I am afraid that I strongly disagree with her Bill, because I do not believe that it is the best way to achieve what she rightly wants to achieve.
I disagree with the Bill for two reasons. First, the main problem with witness intimidation comes before a witness or victim enters the court room. In the majority of cases, the hon. Lady's Bill will not achieve its purpose. Secondly, the Bill would mean a major reduction in the press's freedom to report trials. It does not refer only to serious trials, but refers to all criminal trials. It provides a blanket ban with no possibility of exemption: it covers all witnesses and victims. As a result, newspapers would give up covering criminal cases almost entirely. They would have nothing to write about, and would not carry pictures of victims or witnesses, which is often beneficial.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth):
I, too, will be brief because I hope that the Bill can make progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who spoke tellingly today because she spoke from experience--both her experience of dealing with individuals and the experience of her constituents. She may have been tempted to introduce a Bill on the regulation of the private security industry in view of one of the points she made. Such cases are the reason why we have said for a long time that there is a need for regulation of that industry and of those who run it, not just those who are employed in it. My hon. Friend made her remarks effectively.
I was disconcerted to hear earlier today that it is likely that the Home Office will not allow the Bill to proceed into Committee. When the Bill was published, the Home Office said that it would consider it, so the Minister of State should ensure that it receives proper scrutiny in Committee. If there are concerns such as those expressed by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), efforts should be made to try to get the balance right by amending the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that he is willing to do that, although we have seen no signs that that will happen. The Opposition are very willing to enter into discussions to see how we can make progress on the matter.
The protection and support of victims is extremely important. Victim Support has become increasingly thoughtful, positive and creative in suggesting ways in which the needs of victims can be met. I use the term "victims" deliberately. Often the victim is a witness and in the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North has mentioned, witnesses become victims too. Victim Support has argued that point, as has the royal commission on criminal justice chaired by Lord Runciman.
31 Jan 1997 : Column 641
The commission made strong recommendations about the way in which victims should be "protected from intimidation". It said that everything possible should be done to ensure that
That disincentive is a great danger and led my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to publish "A quiet life". It contains suggestions, including a new community safety order, to address a problem that occurs not only in the extreme circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North, mentioned but, all too often, on housing estates where people's confidence in the protection they can receive has gone.
If people become worried about the protection that they will receive, there can be rapid and devastating effects on the community. If people feel that they will be unsafe if they contact the police and if they feel that they cannot have confidence in the criminal justice system to protect them, it is not only their individual cases, but the process of protecting the peace, and the liberty and safety of every member of the community that are undermined. That is why the Bill is so important and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North is right to promote it.
It is rather sad that the Government's victims charter, which makes some progress on the matter, has, under the title "Fear of Attack", very little that helps. It acknowledges the problem, but offers no real assurance or suggestions except that people should tell the police. The police need a context in which to operate and they need to be sure that they can have witnesses who feel confident about coming forward and giving evidence in court.
There may well be a need for safeguards. Evidence that might have been available if the names of victims and witnesses had been known in advance may become available only after the event. Those are problems that should be addressed in Committee rather than on Second Reading in an effort to kill off a Bill that addresses such an important issue.
The Minister should simply allow the Bill into Committee and bend his efforts to co-operating in improving the Bill in any way that it needs, through discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North. As I have said, I undertake to help that process.
It would be disgraceful for the Bill to be talked out today. There are few enough opportunities in this Session--which must be short even if the Government stagger on until May--to tackle problems that affect ordinary people. The Bill seeks to tackle a problem that affects ordinary individuals and communities and the House should give it a Second Reading.
31 Jan 1997 : Column 642
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean):
I thank the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) for introducing the Bill. The Government recognise and have great sympathy with the concerns that she seeks to address. I also pay tribute to her personal bravery and courage over the past few years in standing up to some of the drug barons who are making life a misery for her constituents in Paisley and surrounding areas.
On this, the bicentenary of Edmund Burke's death, I should like to open my remarks with one of the most famous sayings attributed to him:
Our criminal justice system is founded on the support and participation of the public. We rely on witnesses coming forward to report crimes, to help the police and to give evidence in court. Without their support, we could not hope to catch the number of criminals that we do.
Of course, we must not take the good will of the public for granted--and the Government do not do so. It is not enough just to sit back, adopt a neutral stance and hope that justice will flourish. We must create a climate in which law-abiding people feel that they will be supported and that criminals will be punished rather than the other way round.
We recognise, too, that some witnesses will be reluctant to tell the police and the courts what they have seen. They may fear for their own safety and that of their families, or worry that getting involved will result in too many demands on their time, or they may simply feel overwhelmed by the whole process and the unknown world of the court room. Such fears may be heightened in certain locations, for example on high-crime estates where the threat of reprisals may be greater. We heard a moving description of those circumstances from the hon. Lady.
Encouraging the participation of all witnesses--whether reluctant or not--is one of our priorities. It is a task that calls for a vigorous and comprehensive response and I believe that the Government can be proud of the measures that we have taken--both individually and in partnership with the police, courts and voluntary organisations--to improve the position of witnesses. It makes for an impressive record. In the context of today's debate, it would be useful if I spent a few minutes outlining some of those provisions before turning to the hon. Lady's Bill.
Tackling the problem of witness intimidation at source is a key part of our strategy. Those who intimidate or threaten witnesses must be punished severely. That is why we introduced a specific offence of intimidating or threatening a witness. Those convicted can be sentenced to up to five years' imprisonment. The provisions have been in force for two years and are used extensively--there were nearly 500 prosecutions in 1995 and significantly more in 1996.
"in all other ways they are given the support and encouragement that many will need when undergoing the daunting and sometimes distressing experience of appearing in court."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North has stressed, the problem is not just the appearance in court, but everything that surrounds it.
"Witnesses may find the publicity, or threat of it, surrounding their appearance in the witness box a powerful disincentive to giving evidence."
Those were the remarks made by Lord Runciman and his colleagues on the royal commission.
"It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph."
Nothing demonstrates the truth of that statement more powerfully than society's attitude towards crime.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |