|
Mr. Oaten: I do not necessarily subscribe to a conspiracy theory, but will the Minister admit that the categories are very different? That is the critical issue.
Paul Goggins: I accept that they are different categories. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) both dealt with each category separately, but the principles are the same and it was important that we had one debate about the principles that lie behind the categories as well as having the opportunity to discuss them separately. It is important that the Committee has been able to see the whole picture.
Mr. Grieve: I do not want to labour the point. I have no problem with a single debate, but we need to have two votes. We need one vote on the sexual offences category and one on the theft category. Otherwise we cannot do justice to the arguments in respect of each. For the future—I assume we shall not have the opportunity for two votes today—will the Minister tell the Home Secretary and his officials that seeing the nature of the debate and the votes that must take place, it is indispensable that each category must be considered and voted upon? They may be considered together, but must be voted on separately.
Paul Goggins: I shall certainly consider carefully the hon. Gentlemen's remarks. It may be that it is more appropriate to consider such matters separately. I remind the Committee, however, that the general powers in relation to the admission of evidence of bad character come into operation on 15th of this month, and it is important that the two categories and the guidance that accompanies them are in place.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend think that Opposition Members have not turned up because there are not two votes today?
The Chairman: The Minister can only speculate on that, so I hope that he will move forward.
Column Number: 15
Paul Goggins: I am always interested in the views of my hon. Friend in relation to the proceedings of the House.
Ultimately, I think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield accepted that theft was a legitimate category to include in the order. He was slightly grudging at times, but he accepts that the evidence that we have is quite compelling.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister misunderstood what I said. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no difficulty in accepting the premise that it may be correct to use propensity in theft cases. If someone is being tried for theft and has carried out four or five previous thefts, that may show propensity. I also have no difficulty with the idea of creating a theft category. What I do have difficulty with, and I hope that the Minister will address it, is the correlation linking theft with, for example, burglary and vehicle taking, particularly when, as acknowledged by Baroness Scotland, burglary is not necessarily an acquisitive offence. I mentioned to the Minister some forms of dishonesty offences that are acquisitive that are not included in the category, so I do not understand the logic that has built up the category.
Paul Goggins: The logic is that we need to keep the category as narrowly focused as possible, particularly at these early stages, in order to introduce it as fairly as possible. That is why we introduced the category in the way that we have: we want to keep the focus narrow. It may be that because someone has a propensity to commit acts of theft, they also have an inclination to commit crimes of different kinds, such as burglary and others, but in to this category of evidence we want to keep the focus narrow in relation to the Theft Act 1968.
The hon. Gentleman made remarks about the Government and human rights that I thought were misplaced. I was somewhat surprised to hear them, because the Government have a very strong record on human rights. It is because of the need to enhance and protect the human rights of victims of crime that we have introduced these measures. I am sure that that view is shared throughout the House. All support the human rights of the victims.
Mr. Grieve: The reason why, at the end of the day, I relax a bit about the issue is twofold: first, judges will have a residual power to exclude; secondly, if the order is indeed not Human Rights Act-compliant, it will be struck down by a legal challenge. That may well be the case if the Joint Committee on Human Rights is correct. I am sure the Minister agrees that if that rather distinguished Committee raises so categorical an anxiety, as it has done, the Government need to take that seriously.
Paul Goggins: The Joint Committee is indeed an esteemed body and it contains many people who have a very proud record on human rights. We take their evidence and opinion very seriously indeed, as did my right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland in framing her reply to the Committee. We look forward to further discussions with members of the Joint Committee.
Column Number: 16
If I may, I will now turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Winchester. He is right to say that we need to ensure that all the normal rules apply in the investigation of crimes by the police, the gathering of evidence, the decision making of the Crown Prosecution Service, and the workings of the court. Of course, all the normal rules of evidence must apply. There must be no shortcuts; people must not be singled out for particular attention because they have a propensity. It may well be that there is evidence to suggest that they did commit a particular crime and it is that evidence, not reputation, that should lead to an eventual prosecution and conviction. However, once someone is in court, the fact that they have a considerable record of offences of a certain kind might need to be admitted as evidence in the case. None the less, we want no shortcuts and we want the normal rules and processes to apply.
The hon. Gentleman was right to acknowledge that paedophilia is a lifelong condition, not something that comes and goes. There is an inbuilt propensity that we must take very seriously, and when we are seeking to protect our children that is an important thing. I emphasise to him, however, that we are talking about a propensity and not a certainty. Therefore, in relation to the research and the statistics on theft, we are not suggesting for a minute that it is a certainty that because somebody has committed an act of theft, they will go on to commit further acts of theft. We are not saying that. We are saying that there is a propensity that we must examine. The research to which we have been referring this afternoon indicates a correlation over a period of two years, but over as much as six years similar rates of re-offending can be seen. I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to set that out in slightly more detail and I hope that that will satisfy him.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether judges and other important actors within the criminal justice system would be prepared for the introduction of the new categories. I can confirm—indeed, the letter from my right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland does so as well—that prosecutors, judges, and magistrates' clerks have all been, and are all, involved in appropriate training guidance, so that the new system can come into operation as smoothly as possible. Clearly, whenever new powers are being introduced—there are many arising from the 2003 Act—it is important that we provide the appropriate training.
Mr. Oaten: The letter states that judges
''will . . . attend a two-day seminar''.
I imagine that they are fairly busy, but I am not quite sure how we will get all the judges through such a seminar by 14 December.
Paul Goggins: It may be that not all of them will have submitted to the training by that date, but my right hon. Friend says ''has'' ''or will'' in her letter. Therefore, if a particular judge has not yet had the training, they will in the near future. Clearly, many changes arise from the 2003 Act. A series of training events and a whole programme of training are ongoing. It is very important that we do that.
Column Number: 17
Mr. Grieve: My understanding, which the Minister might be able to confirm, is that it was originally intended that the part of the Act that we are discussing would come into force in March, the reason being that that would allow time for judicial training in the period before March. Why, in view of the fact that the Government set that time frame, has a decision been taken unilaterally—without further consultation, as far as I am aware—to move it to 15 December, which, as I think the Minister will admit, will necessarily lead to some judges not having been trained before the start?
Paul Goggins: I have referred to the many changes arising from the 2003 Act. A great many of the new powers require training of the judiciary, including magistrates, magistrates clerks, and so on. Over the next year or so, decisions will be taken on a range of issues about the right time to introduce new powers and new orders. We consider this to be the right time to introduce the new power. In spring 2005, new orders and provisions will come into operation in relation to other aspects of the 2003 Act. Although I am sure that the whole Committee would like to bring all those things into play as soon as possible, it is not possible to do so, because we need to do it in a measured and careful way. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister has not answered my question, which was perfectly clear and specific. Why was the decision made to move the start date from March to December? He has given all sorts of interesting explanations, but has not answered that question.
Paul Goggins: I simply ask the hon. Gentleman to produce the piece of paper that confirms that it was supposed to be in March.
Mr. Oaten: That is what the Law Society said.
Mr. Grieve: Yes, that is what the Law Society said.
Paul Goggins: Well, people may have opinions about when they thought the powers were going to be introduced, but an announcement was made, we are
Column Number: 18
debating the order today and the general powers will come into operation from 15 December. That is the position. People can speculate about what may or may not have been the plan, but all I deal with is the reality of when the Government introduce new powers and when we debate orders in Committee. I confirm that the new powers come into operation, as hon. Members know, on 15 December.
By way of a final response to the hon. Members for Winchester and for Beaconsfield, it seems that both put in a firm early bid for the next category of offending that we might want to consider. I cannot confirm what will be the next category. However, I am pleased that they are eager to see us use the new powers to identify other categories to ensure, as I have argued throughout the sitting, that we rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victims by making sure that juries have all the relevant evidence. The two categories with which we have been dealing this afternoon are ones in which there is clear evidence of propensity and clear concern among the public. I am pleased to recommend the order to the Committee, so that we may progress to implementation of the two categories.
The Chairman: Before I put the Question, I think that it would be appropriate for me from the Chair to ask the usual channels to ensure that some of the points made about the provision of documents to Committee members are followed up and that there is an agreement whereby, if documents are late and orders are being presented, there is an option of deferring a deliberation to give Committee members proper time to consider. I hope that the usual channels will take that up. I hope that Committee members present accept the Minister's apologies for what happened and my reason for asking for everyone's forbearance while we awaited the arrival of the papers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Categories of Offences) Order 2004.
Committee rose at twenty-eight minutes past Three o'clock.
| 
