| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Grammar Schools (Ballots and Consultation)
David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to amend the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in order to remove the powers to hold grammar school ballots and to require the Secretary of State for Education and Skills before the end of the next Parliament to consult all maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England on the future arrangements for secondary school admissions within that authority; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 182].
SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to get the Speaker's selection list for the next Bill on the Order Paper. I had hoped to participate in the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill and that the selection
list would be available before it began, because it is difficult to prepare for the Criminal Justice Bill without it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one reason why the Speaker is not in the Chair and that I, as Chairman of Ways Means, am occupying his place is that he is currently engaged on that matter. I expect the selection list to be published imminently.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that, but surely the situation highlights the desirability of the Government not cramming and compressing business in such a way, because if they did not, the Speaker would not be in the difficulty in which he finds himself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only express sympathy to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is not an uncommon occurrence in the annals of parliamentary history.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you and Mr. Speaker might consider a brief suspension of the sitting between consideration of one Bill and another. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, it is unreasonable to expect hon. Members to participate in the proceedings on the next item without knowing what will be selected for the subsequent item. Would not a brief suspension be appropriate so that hon. Members could acquaint themselves with the selection and prepare for the following debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that a suspension would be helpful. I am sure that once the Speaker's selection is known, hon. Members can ascertain the extent of the business that faces the House later.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Speaker has made the selection and it is in the Vote Office, could you make a statement to that effect so that those of us who are participating in the debate on the first Bill can go and get it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall arrange for that to be done.
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
- That the following provisions shall apply to the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15th July 2003.
Consideration of Lords Message
1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
New Clause
1.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we may discuss amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1A and consequential amendment (c).
Paul Goggins: As I said on Report, both Houses and all parties should take the credit for progress on a difficult Bill and for the consensus that was reached. As I also pointed out on Report, the consensus includes agreement on pre-charge anonymity. However, we continue to disagree about the route that we should take to secure our objective.
The Government strongly maintain the view that we wish to follow the route of strengthened guidance and effective codes of conduct. As I said previously, we have held discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the media to attain the objective. We also strongly believe that even if it were right to legislate on the issue, it would not be right to do that in the Bill.
Amendment (a) would provide anonymity to persons suspected of an offence under the Bill up to the point of charge. It specifies the details of a suspect that should not be published. It also provides for circumstances in which reporting restrictions could be lifted upon the application by a police officer of the rank of chief inspector or above.
Amendment (b) would provide anonymity for those being investigated for an offence under new schedule 8 so that their names could not be reported until and unless they had been charged or a decision had been made not to prefer charges.
Although we appear to be considering a narrow policy, there are many discrepancies between amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (b) is limited to cases about which a police investigation is under way up to the point of charge or when an investigation results in a decision to take no action. Amendment (a) but not amendment (b) would cover cases in which speculation was rife but no complaint was made or police investigation instigated.
The penalties in amendment (a), including imprisonment up to a maximum of two years, are inconsistent with penalties that have been set for other reporting restrictions, which the level 5 fine limit in amendment (b) reflects. Amendment (b) lists the sex offences to which the reporting restrictions should apply but amendment (a) limits its scope to offences in the Bill. That means that the reporting restrictions would cover neither other sexual offences in previous Acts nor
offences relating to child pornography under the Protection of Children Act 1978. There is no obvious reason for that.The effect of amendment (b) is that the proprietor of a newspaper would commit a criminal offence if a member of staff revealed a defendant's identity, even if the proprietor had no knowledge of that. The amendment provides a defence when a programme is broadcast live, but not in any other circumstances.
Both amendments provide that anonymity can be lifted by the court only on application by police of the rank of inspector or chief inspector, depending on the amendment. I believe that that would place an undue burden and difficulty on the police who investigate the crime. It could slow down progress in identifying and locating a dangerous offender. It would also mean that a victim could not apply for lifting the defendant's anonymity.
Given the nature and tone of the debate throughout the Bill's passage, it would be unfortunate for any amendment on anonymity to be placed in clause 2, which immediately follows a clause on rape. That would fail to show sensitivity to the victims of such a crime and give the issue undue prominence. That would be an unfortunate outcome.
We have listened carefully to representations from those who are worried about the genuine harm that can be caused by reporting defendants' details. We also recognise that much anxiety arises from the damaging publicity that is often generated pre charge. However, we firmly believe that informed and strengthened guidance to the police and the media is preferable to any change in legislation.
The police code of conduct provides that information that comes into police possession should be treated as confidential. It should not be used for personal benefit or divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty. The code also demands that police officers have a specific responsibility to act fairly and impartially in all their dealings with the public and their colleagues, regardless of whether they are on duty. They should not behave in a way that is likely to bring discredit to the police service. Unauthorised disclosure of information about a suspect by a police officer is likely to be considered a breach of the code. Disciplinary proceedings may commence. An officer could face dismissal or even prosecution, depending on the circumstances of the case. In 2002–03, approximately 61 such cases were substantiated.
An agreement has been reached with ACPO to amend its media and disciplinary guidelines to all forces to give greater prominence to the rules that govern the release of information about anyone suspected but not yet charged with an offence.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): Given the general acceptance of the principle of anonymity for a complainant in a rape case or similar, and that the Minister understands that many potential defendants
suffer great unfairness through publicity, will he give us hope that, if not today, at some stage in the future, important measures will be introduced to protect potential defendants who are never charged but often ruined?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |