| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady has introduced an important Bill and I must put the Government's position on record. I do not have much time.
Mr. Morris: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Maclean: I am sorry, but I have only six minutes left.
The police have built up considerable expertise in this field and provide a high-quality service. Good examples include the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Metropolitan police. The Strathclyde police, with whom the hon. Lady is of course familiar, are at the forefront of such work in Scotland, having launched a pilot witness protection scheme last August. Following on from that, funding of £210,000 is being provided by the Government over the next three years to support witness protection initiatives in Scotland.
Fortunately, only a minority of witnesses require a high level of police protection. In the vast majority of cases, a less disruptive response will be appropriate. A wide range of measures are available to cater for the needs that arise in individual cases.
Many witnesses have expressed unease at having their addresses given out in open court. It is no longer standard practice for that to happen. Judges have been advised that there is no need to ask for the address of a witness in open court, and addresses have been removed from witness statements. That simple step has greatly assisted witnesses without compromising the trial process.
The occasions on which prosecution witnesses will come face to face with the defendant and his family or friends have also been reduced. Wherever possible, courts provide separate waiting areas and facilities for prosecution and defence witnesses. We are implementing practical measures, such as changing the design of courts, to make things easier for witnesses.
Powers are available when a witness has concerns about giving evidence in open court. If a witness is unable to give oral evidence through fear, a written statement can be used instead. Alternatively, screens and voice distorters can be set up in the court room, so that the person's identity is not revealed. If there are national security considerations, witnesses' identities can be withheld from the defendant and the defendant's lawyers. Such powers are designed to protect the anonymity of witnesses. They
31 Jan 1997 : Column 644
Encouraging the public to act as witnesses is, however, not solely a matter of removing the scope for intimidation. For many people, attending court is a bewildering experience and scares them even if they are not being intimidated by some hoodlums or criminals. We have tried to make things easier for witnesses by publishing the "Statement of National Standards of Witness Care in the Criminal Justice System". All such measures are designed to make life easier for witnesses attending courts.
Returning to the Bill, I reiterate my sympathy for its sentiments. As I said, there is more to be done to protect witnesses. Despite the many provisions, some members of the public are still afraid of the consequences of telling the authorities what they have seen. We must do something to protect witnesses better in circumstances where--rightly or wrongly--they are terrified to come forward.
On the particulars of the Bill, I can see several merits in it. I can see potential advantages in prohibiting the media from publishing information that would identify witnesses to a crime. Perhaps most important, there may be occasions when intimidation of a witness would be prevented by such a ban. If those who carried out or threatened such cowardly attacks found out the address of a witness only through, say, the local press, a media blackout would cut off their source of information. Although it might often be true that retaliatory attacks will be inflicted by associates of the defendant, that need not always be so. I therefore accept that on occasions failure to publish the name might help the witness.
As well as preventing some intimidation of witnesses, the Bill could influence the public's perception of the threat of intimidation. The public might come to believe that, if they come forward, they will be protected in all cases. That might help to bring more witnesses forward, but we would have to ensure that the reality met the expectation.
The merits of witness anonymity of the type proposed in the Bill have already been recognised for victims of rape and other sexual offences. To encourage victims of those dreadful offences to report them to the police, it was decided that a ban on publicity was justified. Although such points are in favour of the Bill, I have some concerns about it.
First and foremost, I have some doubts on whether the proposed media ban will achieve the desired results. If the defendant or his associates are intent on threatening a witness, the chances are that they will already know his or her whereabouts without getting the information from the television or the wireless. On high-crime estates, for example, where we know that intimidation is a problem, the identity of witnesses will usually be common knowledge in the neighbourhood. If the prime aim of the media blackout is to protect witnesses from reprisals, the Bill will therefore prove ineffective. Indeed, as the Bill would not protect the witness's identity from the defendant, it could be said that its main purpose is largely defeated.
A related point is the impact on witness expectations. If the Bill of the hon. Member for Paisley, North was passed, and people came forward with a misplaced expectation that they would always have anonymity and
31 Jan 1997 : Column 645
I also have some difficulties with the duration of the news blackout. It would prevent media coverage as soon as the offence had been committed, which would seriously hamper police investigations. The police would, for example, no longer be able to appeal for a key witness to come forward or for information about a missing child, by broadcasting his details on television and in the press. Placing such shackles on the investigation of crime cannot be in the interests of justice. There are some good programmes on television that aim to bring witnesses forward and to help to solve crimes.
The Bill would also seriously curtail the freedom of the press. We have a tradition--whether we, as politicians, like it or not at times--of open justice, of which we are rightly proud. Conducting criminal proceedings in the open strengthens the operation of justice and increases public confidence that the system is working fairly. While placing restrictions on that freedom is justified on occasions, limiting media coverage to the extent proposed in the Bill seems to me to go too far. The ban would apply to all witnesses, whether prosecution or defence. Indeed, it would cover the defendant himself if he testified. The ban would last from the commission of the offence until the final determination by the court, and the Bill would provide no judicial discretion to lift the ban, whatever the circumstances of the case--unlike, for example, the anonymity provisions for rape victims.
I have other broad concerns--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday 7 February.
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 February.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill has been through another place on two occasions, first introduced by the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby and secondly by Viscount Falkland. The Bill has wide support and has been scrutinised by the Select Committee of the House of Lords. It is also in line with the recommendations of a House of Commons Select Committee. In spite of that, an objection has been raised today. Will you ask Madam Speaker to discuss with the Leader of the House ways in which we can ensure that legislation that has been given consideration in another place, and passed through all its stages, receives a proper and courteous hearing in this House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
That is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 February.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Second Reading what day?
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe):
Noting the Whip's objection, Friday 7 February.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 February.
31 Jan 1997 : Column 647
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |