---

Mr. Hoon: We are talking about a valuable revision of the distribution of jobs related to the defence industry across the country, and I am delighted that the decision will be welcomed throughout the country on the basis that it will create and secure jobs in manufacturing industry.

16 May 2000 : Column 161

I think that I have dealt with the point about numbers. These are firm orders, with which we shall proceed in negotiation with our partners.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): I am sure that component manufacturers in my constituency will also welcome the opportunity of further orders from the companies, but will the Secretary of State tell us what was the quid pro quo from the Treasury? We know that whenever the Treasury gives something, it takes something back. We know that we have replaced the Typhoon's gun with a lump of lead to save money; we know that soldiers are having to go around saying "bang" instead of using real bullets, and that we are having to cancel exercises because there is no fuel for vehicles. What else is having to be cut from the defence budget to pay for what has been announced?

Mr. Hoon: Absolutely nothing. Our proceedings are being observed by a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am sure will give the hon. Gentleman lessons on the way in which the Treasury operates, should he require them.

Point of Order

4.14 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, as a matter of courtesy the Government make statements available in advance to the Opposition spokesman, the Liberal Democrat spokesman and, perhaps, spokesmen from other minority parties. As the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, Madam Speaker, would it be appropriate for you to ask him whether he, any other member of the Government, or anyone acting on behalf of the Government supplied advance copies of his important and complex statement to any of his Back Benchers who are in the Chamber, or were at the beginning of the statement?

Madam Speaker: It is not for me to ask the Secretary of State or any other hon. Member a question across the Floor of the House because the point of order is for me. I am not aware that that is the case. In fact, I have reason to believe that the Secretary of State did not give the statement to any of his Back Benchers, but I will not go into my knowledge on that score. The hon. Gentleman will have to take that from me, but, of course, it is up to any Secretary of State if he wishes to give a statement to any Member. That is for him to decide; it is not for the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED

Police (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Secretary Mandelson, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw and Mr. Secretary Cook, presented a Bill to make provision about policing in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 125].

16 May 2000 : Column 162

Juvenile Justice

4.15 pm

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a young person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes.

As a Scottish advocate, now non-practising, I recognise that the 110-day rule that applies under Scots law has many advantages over the system in England. It gives great clarity to prosecution and defence alike as to how the rule applies. It is easy and simple to administer, unlike the Government's preferred option in England of different time limits being set for different categories of offender.

There are compelling reasons to introduce an equivalent rule to the 110-day rule into English law for both social and legal purposes. Three categories of people would benefit. The first is the young offender. Is it not extraordinary that, although figures exist for the length of delay facing persistent young offenders, there are no figures readily available for first-time young offenders? However, the trauma of facing the judicial system for the first time matches, if not outweighs, that felt on repeat appearances. I hope that the Government and the Home Secretary can rectify that situation as a matter of urgency.

As a general rule, clearly, all young offenders would suffer less were there to be a policy of keeping any delay awaiting trial to an absolute minimum. The anxiety that the accused and their families must naturally feel would therefore be curtailed. Likewise, for the victims of a crime that is suspected of having been committed by a young offender, protracted delay can result in real concerns about justice being done and seen to be done.

As regards witnesses, the sooner a case is brought to trial, the less chance there may be of any eventual memory loss. It is well known in legal practice that witnesses are very human and that the passage of time dulls the memory, even down to the colour of clothing worn by the accused or an accomplice. Those are compelling grounds to improve the administration of justice with regard to all young offenders. A particularly worrying trend is the rise in crime among the 10 to 17-year-old age group both in London and throughout the country.

The Narey report contained proposals to combat youth crime, which were piloted in six areas in England between October 1998 and March 1999. Those measures included location of Crown Prosecution Service staff in police stations; use of CPS designated case workers to review files and to present certain cases; the introduction of early first hearings for straightforward cases; the introduction of early administrative hearings for all other cases; changes to the powers of single justices and justices' clerks to assist case management.

In Ernst and Young's evaluation of those pilot schemes, a definition of a persistent young offender is given as:

A young person aged 10-17 years who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the UK on three or more occasions for one or more recordable offences and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has an information laid against him for a further recordable offence.

The level of support for the Bill shows that more must be done to reduce delays in trials for all young offenders--first-time young offenders as well as persistent young offenders.

16 May 2000 : Column 163

In January 2000, the governor of Her Majesty's remand centre in Northallerton wrote to me, saying:

Like many others working in the Criminal Justice System I do get concerned about the apparent lack of movement between arrest, first court appearance and final sentence. This is particularly true for young alleged offenders who can spend months on remand in prison with a final "not guilty" verdict at the end of it all. It sometimes appears less than fair . . .


I have every sympathy for those who are trying their best to reduce remand time, it must be a thankless task as so many groups might have hidden agendas which inhibit the much needed progress on this issue. The crux of the matter may well revolve around ownership and the ease of administration. If the Police, CPS, Magistrates, Judges and the legal profession can understand the benefits associated with this initiative then I have no doubt it will work. If one group wants to plough a lone furrow the whole concept of speedier justice for the young offender will fail. We do need a system which is easy to monitor and left to one group to manage. The more complicated it becomes, and the more agencies involved, the less effective it will be and therefore unfairness could easily creep in. This must be avoided at all costs as faith in the Criminal Justice System, from whichever end of the spectrum, is a vital element of any civilised society.

The chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Helen Edwards, wrote to me to say:

we fully support your proposal, which would usefully reinforce the efforts that the Government and the Youth Justice Board are making to reduce the length of the pre-trial process.

Support has also been expressed by members of diocesan boards for social responsibility. Jo Saunders, a social responsibility officer, wrote to me to say:

I am pleased to see that your Bill has got this far and certainly support your recommendations and hope that it will receive a commendation from the House.

Finally, Mr. King, a visitor at Hull prison, has expressed particular concern for Dutch and other nationals who are accused of offences. They often face lengthy delays when awaiting trial and have associated problems with matters such as language and visiting limitations. Those issues also need to be addressed.

As long ago as the previous general election, the Government promised to take action to reduce delays for young offenders. So far, however, they have failed to deliver. Figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department--in March 2000, in "Youth Justice Board News"--show that Crown court cases take an average of 210 days from arrest to sentence. Therefore, as so much remains to be done, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Paul Keetch, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Desmond Swayne and Mr. Christopher Fraser.

Juvenile Justice

Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to provide that a young person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 126].

16 May 2000 : Column 164

---