| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab):
It is a privilege to speak in a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), especially two days running—by which I mean two days running in parliamentary terms. It is appropriate that I seem to be the last speaker before the wind-up speeches from the Front Benches, because what I want to say is merely a footnote to the debate. The serious issues and examples that people have been raising are not part of the area that I wish to cover, except by inference.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 606
I want to flag up a particular concern. Given the time and the nature of the wind-up speeches, I realise that the Minister is unlikely to be able to respond now to what I say, but I hope that it will be considered and that I might receive a letter explaining the Government's position.
When victims of crime, especially victims of domestic crime, have made claims to the authorities about their problems, and when it is decided that, although they might receive some sympathy, no action is to be taken, they should always be given the fullest explanation of why that decision has been taken. If full explanations have to be given, it is more likely that action will be taken.
I realise that in many cases, that may already be provided for in the Bill. There is a code of practice under clause 21, and there will be investigations by the parliamentary commissioner under schedule 4; there are procedures to go through, and one would expect responses to be given. Under schedule 5, there is also a role for the commissioner for victims and witnesses. Unfortunately, as the Bill stands none of that applies to Northern Ireland, but perhaps that could be subject to amendments at a later stage.
The victims charter as updated in 1996 says that where victims have made claims but action is not to be taken, or a case is to be dropped, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will give an explanation. However, in some cases, especially when Departments are involved, the code of practice on access to Government information can be used to prevent that explanation from being given. Schedule 4(4) points out that the Parliamentary Commissioner will not deal with certain matters. It states that
"the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation pursuant to a complaint under subsection (1A ) of this section in respect of—
(a) action taken by or with the authority of the Secretary of State for the purposes of protecting the security of the State, including action so taken with respect to passports".
Other possible exclusions are mentioned concerning the ruling of the Government and their agencies, and it is exactly those matters that could be subject to the code of practice for access to Government information, to which I referred. That code of practice should itself be subject to the 1996 victims charter and to previous measures, so that explanations are given and people know where they stand. Such pressure for explanation would mean that action was much more likely to be taken to defend victims, including victims of domestic crime, the details of which have been explained fully by other Members.
9.26 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): This has been a fascinating debate. It is sometimes said that this Chamber is not very well attended, but I am bound to say that, in my experience, if one can be bothered to sit through six hours of debate one learns a tremendous amount. Today has been no exception, because it has become apparent that many Members from all parts of the House have come along to contribute their experiences, including their constituency experiences, and their knowledge to a difficult topic.
As the Minister is aware, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said earlier, we welcome the Bill greatly in its generality.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 607
That welcome is genuine and we will do all that we can—as, indeed, our colleagues did in the other place—to co-operate in the Bill's legislative passage and to ensure that, once it is on the statute book, it makes a powerful contribution to dealing with this difficult problem and, we hope, to reducing the incidence of domestic violence as a result.
There have been some fascinating contributions, and although it is perhaps invidious to single out individual speeches, one or two did strike me very forcefully. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) appositely pointed out that it is extraordinary that we have more animal sanctuaries in this country than refuges for those who suffer domestic violence. That is indeed an extraordinary state of affairs, and I am afraid that it probably highlights the extent to which we have failed to take this problem sufficiently seriously.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird)—I listened to her contribution carefully and I shall return to it—made some very powerful points. I wholly support her desire for a review of the law of provocation; indeed, I am also in favour of the simultaneous review of the law of self-defence, because in my view the two need to be looked at together. I fear, however, that the Bill might not be the appropriate place to do that. The subject is a complicated one, and in embarking on such a process at this late stage in the Bill's passage—a Bill that has already been considered extensively elsewhere—we might be doing it a disservice. However, if the Minister wants to look at that issue at a later date, he will undoubtedly have the ready co-operation of Conservatives in trying to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar also offered an interesting and trenchant critique of the way in which trial by jury of sample counts only has been inserted in the Bill, a point to which I shall return briefly. I do not entirely share her pessimistic view of the intention behind this change, which I can support in some measure. However, I certainly do share some anxiety about the Government's approach as reflected in the text. I shall want to examine that very carefully in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a powerful speech about the fact that men, too, are affected by the phenomenon of domestic violence, which should not be forgotten, irrespective of the context in which it takes place. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) also made a powerful case, demonstrating how attitudes had changed.
I greatly appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who spoke about the experience of disabled people. We know from recent headlines in the press and in one particular case that there is clear evidence that those who are disabled and in a position of dependency on others may suffer serious abuse without it being properly looked into, and I hope that the Bill may make a contribution to dealing with that problem.
I move on now to discuss some of the key issues posed by the Bill and to highlight those areas that seem to require some very careful thought. At the outset, the
14 Jun 2004 : Column 608
Government set out to change the law by making breaches of non-molestation orders a criminal offence. We support that aim, but I am anxious that the Government are seeking to overturn some minor changes made in the other place, which sought to ensure that those powers could not be abused in respect of the rights of cohabitants regarding the occupation of property. The Minister may be able to help us; otherwise, we shall have to examine it further in Committee.
Most importantly, as commented on by many hon. Members in the debate, there is the whole question of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. The House will be aware of numerous cases in recent years where it proved impossible to secure a conviction in circumstances where two people were the only two who could possibly have inflicted violence on a child or vulnerable adult. In those cases, one blamed the other, and, because it could not be shown which of the two had committed the offence, both had to be acquitted. The Government have our entire support in seeking to deal with that problem by providing a framework within which it is possible to convict the people who were involved.
The House may wish to bear in mind some problems in the provisions as drafted that might be inevitable in the light of what the Bill is designed to achieve. I do not necessarily complain about it, because it may be difficult to draft the provisions any differently, but clauses 5 and 6 provide for a completely new offence of death by negligence. Those provisions could be applied not only as an alternative to homicide where it was impossible to demonstrate which of two people perpetrated the injuries—the public largely understand that—but could be used where it was simply desired to prosecute someone for having been negligent.
That may not be a bad thing. Under clause 5(1), a parent or adult can be deemed guilty according to certain criteria, whereby he
"was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned . . . failed to take steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect"
"from the risk, and . . . the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that"
"foresaw or ought to have foreseen."
Doubtless, few in the House would quibble with that. However, it is noteworthy that it does not apply only to the victim's father or mother: it applies to another member of the household, even to one as young as 16 at the time of the act that caused the death. If it involves the mother or father, it could apply, as I read it, to someone under the age of 16. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) commented on 14-year-old mothers in her constituency. As drafted, clause 5 provides that, in circumstances where the husband was perpetrating an assault on the child, someone could be committing an offence if they did not report it, even though they were of that age. There are saving provisions in the Bill, because the courts would take into account whether the person had suffered domestic violence and any other circumstances, which would include the age of the person accused.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 609
I highlight those points because we will wish to return to them in Committee. We should be careful not to place in statute provisions that extend further than we originally envisaged. Under clause 5(6), the extent of the negligence could include an attack on a sibling by a young child in the household who was known to have a propensity for misbehaviour. That is a far-reaching provision and I point that out to the Minister to highlight the extent of the change in the law that the Bill will bring about. I hope that we will be able to look at that matter constructively, so that we hit the target we are aiming for and do not legislate in a manner that we did not intend.
The second point of concern was highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. The Bill includes provision on specimen counts and trial by jury on sample counts only. That is perfectly appropriate, although it is not specifically related to domestic violence. The hon. and learned Lady and the Home Secretary will remember that last year I argued vociferously at the Dispatch Box against any restriction on the right to trial by jury. I said then that I had read—and, I thought, understood—the Law Commission's proposals on the difficulties that are encountered with indictments on multiple counts. A sample of counts can be tried and, theoretically, if the defendant is convicted, he should be willing to have all the other counts taken into consideration. If he does not, they cannot, under current law, be taken into consideration without his consent. That is the mischief that we seek to tackle, and that is why we take the view that it would be appropriate to try to shorten the process, even if it meant that a judge resolved the issue after sample counts had been tried and convicted before a jury.
We will co-operate with the Government to try to achieve that end, but as originally drafted it appeared that the Bill—perhaps unintentionally—would go much further and lead to a situation in which someone who had been convicted of an offence of a particular type, such as credit card fraud, could be tried by a judge alone on other counts that might relate to a completely separate series of incidents. That was not my intention when I signalled my willingness to co-operate on the issue to the Home Secretary. It is still not my intention and I therefore note with pleasure that after the Bill's passage through the other place it expressly provides, in clause 12(9)(b), that the
"evidence in respect of each count is admissible at the trial of the sample count".
That provides an important and much needed protection.
I am not sure of the Government's position on the issue. It has been rumoured that they intend to reverse that provision and I would regret that. We would be constrained to oppose the deletion of clause 12(9)(b). I hope that we can consider the matter overall, and if the Home Secretary has other ways of approaching the matter by altering the Bill in some other way we will consider them with an open mind. We share the Government's desire to achieve the end I have described and we will work hard with the Minister on that issue. However, we will not allow a situation to arise in which trying a defendant on one count makes it possible to admit a catalogue of other largely unrelated offences to
14 Jun 2004 : Column 610
be tried by judge alone. If that is what the Government are trying to do, I regret it and I hope to receive some assurance that that is not the case.
I do not understand why the Government seek to withdraw—I think that is their aim—the question of a person's fitness to plead from decision by a jury. My experience suggests that it is a decision that juries can take easily, in proceedings that take place rapidly but provide, nevertheless, an important reassurance that cuts two ways. The first is that the state will not avoid a trial by locking somebody up, or putting them into a hospital, on the basis that they are insane, to punish them when, in fact, they have not committed an offence and might be perfectly sane. I might describe that as the Soviet Union problem. Secondly, the state might decide to avoid the trial of someone who is palpably guilty of an offence by saying that they are unfit to plead and subsequently releasing them soon thereafter by administrative procedure, or by imposing a community supervision order even though the person should have been tried in the first place.
I do not understand why the Bill, sensibly amended in the other place, cannot be preserved in its current form. I very much hope that the Government will allow it to remain as it is, substantially improved by consideration in the House of Lords.
We now come to what is not yet in the Bill but will be: the victims' fund, which was discussed earlier today. I ask the Minister and the Home Secretary to give us soon details about the provisions for the make-up of the victims' fund. The issue is important for the wider public. I remain without a full understanding of what the Home Secretary envisages. At the Dispatch Box earlier, he gave the impression that certain sorts of offence, such as a first-time speeding offence, would be excluded from the victims' fund levy, but will that apply to someone who is receiving his third fixed penalty speeding notice? Will the differentiation be between the first and the third or whether someone has been summoned to the magistrates court for sentence because it is considered that the circumstances are such that he might be disqualified?
We need some clarity soon. A large number of people in my constituency and elsewhere are deeply dissatisfied with the administration of justice. They see the police, the appointed guardian sheepdogs who should look after them, as incapable of protecting them from predators but extraordinarily efficient at nipping their heels every time they step out of line. My fear is that the Home Secretary's proposal will lead to the problem that the people who pay for the victims' fund will be the generally law-abiding, while the people who never pay a penny will be the serial offenders. That is the risk. Enforcement will be against the softest targets, with the danger of bringing the whole process of the administration of justice into disrepute, which I know is not what the Home Secretary intends. We really need reassurance on that subject.
With those comments, I move from my critique back to my general approval of what the Government are trying to do. Much in the Bill commands support. We shall look carefully at the detail and do our best to improve the measure if necessary. We shall certainly not waste the Committee's time where the job has already been well done. I hope that we end up with an extremely
14 Jun 2004 : Column 611
good piece of legislation, but let us try to ensure that we do not put into the Bill things that we subsequently regret.
9.44 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |