The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan
Ryan): As this is the first time I rise in this Committee
I welcome you, Mr. Bercow, to the role of overseeing our
proceedings. The
provisions set out in section 43 will enable the criminal justice
system to deal more effectively with what we might call white-collar
crime and will enable the full criminality of cases to be exposed. They
will therefore result in more efficient trials and relieve the
excessive burden on jurors, who have to have their lives disrupted on
end, as we have already discussed. These are, in the
Government’s view, substantial benefits. I can therefore see no
reason why they should not be realised in Northern Ireland as well as
in England and Wales. That is the justification I give to right hon.
and hon. Members of this Committee.
This is a simple issue. It is
not about inflicting something on Northern Ireland; it is about
extending a benefit to Northern Ireland, in the interests of justice.
The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey talked about
normalisation in Northern Ireland, which is a process that hon. Members
in all parts of the House welcome. Given that part 7 of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 already applies to Northern Ireland, it would seem
strange if these changes were not made in parallel. Part 7 applies to
Northern Ireland because the 2003 Act extends there. That is normal
procedure. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the prospect of
changes to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the
Diplock courts, but that is a process of normalisation. Northern
Ireland is moving from difficult times to better times, which hopefully
will become even better. That process should not affect our desire to
see serious and complex fraud detected and successfully prosecuted in
Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales.
The clause ensures simply that
the Bill will extend to Northern Ireland. It is not a matter of tagging
it on, which is the expression that the hon. Gentleman used. Part 7
applies, so it is not an extraordinary measure that is tagged on. I
recommend that the Committee support the clause and that the provision
be applied to Northern Ireland. Serious and complex fraud cases
currently have little chance of resulting in a conviction that reflects
their full criminality. If we are to apply a measure in England and
Wales that allows such cases to be prosecuted before only a judge,
there is no justification for not applying it in Northern
Ireland.
Mr.
Hogg: I am rising to support my hon. Friend the Member for
Beaconsfield. To begin with, let us put an end to the idea of full
criminality going before a court. It is a thoroughly bad concept.
Anybody who knows anything about judicial processes knows that it is
deprecated by the judges: they do not want to have full criminality
brought before them as it extends trials unnecessarily. Let us put an
end to that nonsense—I know that it comes from the Home Office,
but it is nonsense.
Much more
importantly, this is ultimately a matter of democracy.
[Interruption.] I am sorry, I have something stuck
in my throat. I wish it were whisky. We have been reminded by the hon.
Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that legislation that will
affect the legal system in Northern Ireland is about to go through the
House. The process will inevitably be attended very closely by Northern
Ireland Members. Most importantly, they will be heavily represented at
the Committee stage. Whether the benefits of these provisions should be
extended to Northern Ireland is essentially a matter for Northern
Ireland representatives. They are necessarily squeezed out of the
process on this Bill because of their limited number and the fact that
the main thrust of the Bill is directed towards England and Wales. They
have every right to feel excluded. I therefore entirely agree with the
point made by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for
Beaconsfield that the matter should be dealt with in legislation that
applies exclusively to Northern Ireland, so that the hon.
Memberswho represent that Province have an opportunity
comprehensively to put their
arguments.
Simon
Hughes: The Minister made the general point, but can she
tell us, just so that we are all clear, what exactly the Government are
proposing for Northern Ireland? We have not heard that from Ministers,
and it is relevant. They are proposing changes to the criminal justice
system. I do not pretend to be an expert yet, because I have not looked
at the Bill in detail, so it would be helpful to know what they
propose. We could then form a judgment about whether it is appropriate
to link it with this
provision. Secondly,
another relevant point about full criminality has been raised. I
absolutely support the argument that the right hon. and learned
Gentleman made. In addition, it is an argument applicable not only to
the criminal law in that context but, for example, to fraud or
financial insider dealing. One does not list every offence for some
horrible sex offender and bring to court all the victims. Strong cases
are taken, such offenders are convicted, and they will then ask for
further offences to be taken into consideration. Those
cases can then be taken off the file, as it were. That is absolutely
normal for a taking and driving away, as it used to be called, or for a
burglary or shoplifting offence. By definition, the full criminality
never gets to the jury, because it does not need to. There is a
verdict of guilty and one of not guilty; there is a maximum sentence
set by Parliament, and that maximum is the same whether an offender
commits one of those offences or seven of them. The last bit of the
full criminality emerges between conviction and sentence, when matters
of previous conviction are read out and litigation is done. We have the
process for dealing with that, and it could not be otherwise, or the
courts would come to a grinding halt, and many people would be put to
particular disadvantage by having to give evidence and take time being
exposed to cross-examination, when the case does not need them to be
brought to the witness
stand.
Mr.
Grieve: There is another point. I cannot remember,
although the hon. Gentleman may, whether Northern Ireland benefits from
the provisions of the recent legislation allowing specimen counts to be
tabled in cases and the judge alone to deal with the remaining counts
after conviction. My memory is not sufficiently good, but the Minister
may be able to enlighten us further. In the English context, that is a
powerful reason why the legislation is completely
unnecessary.
Simon
Hughes: I do not remember either. I was
not leading for us on that Bill, so I do not have all the details of
that in my head. However, I revert to my general point. Legislation for
the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland should, for the sake of
the people and the representatives of Northern Ireland, be looked at in
one place at one time. It is a nonsense for Parliament, in the same
Session, to be dealing with criminal justice in Northern Ireland in two
different pieces of legislation, which appear to be going in different
directions, and which have so far been presented to us here without any
explanation of how they fit into the wider context of what has just
happened, if there have been recent changes, or what is about to
happen, if the Government get their
way.
Joan
Ryan: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman’s
last point. As I have explained to him, because part 7 of the 2003 Act
applies to Northern Ireland, we have to deal with the connection with
Northern Ireland here in this Bill in order for this measure to apply.
That is why clause 3 is here. That is common practice, and is perfectly
understandable. I do
not think that the Committee is the place to discuss legislation that
is before the other place. The Bill extends to Northern Ireland for
exactly the reason that has been given. As I have already said, and as
he said, some of the current discussions about Northern Ireland have
been about the continuation or otherwise of the Diplock
courts. 12.45
pm
Mr.
Hogg: The hon. Lady is arguing the case for extending the
provision to Northern Ireland. Will she be good enough to tell us
whether Northern Ireland representatives were involved in the
consultation of the
kind that was promised by the then Home Secretary and that took place to
examine alternative possibilities involving special juries or lay
assessors?
Joan
Ryan: I can confirm to the right hon. and learned
Gentleman what he already knows, which is that I am not aware that
representatives from Northern Ireland parties were present. I can also
tell him that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is aware of
both the Bill and the clause, and has expressed no misgivings about it
whatever. That
touches on another point that has been mentioned—that
legislation applying to Northern Ireland should appear in a specific
Northern Ireland Bill, and be considered by a Committee containing
Northern Ireland Members. Hon. Members will know that there is never
any attempt to exclude elected representatives from Northern Ireland
from any proceedings. They sit on many Committees, particularly those
in which they express an interest, and the usual channels on both sides
of the House work hard to ensure that that is achievable. I can assure
all members of the Committee that Northern Ireland Members are well
aware of our proceedings, including the Bill’s Second Reading.
Had they requested a place in the Committee, we would all have made
every effort to facilitate it, and I am not sure that the point is as
significant as may have appeared to the hon. Member for North Southwark
and
Bermondsey. On
full criminality, I shall just have to beg to differ with the right
hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I accept that
his view is that full criminality is not a fundamental issue, but that
is not my view, nor is it the view on the Government Benches. I think
that the interests of justice make it important to expose full
criminality in court—that is the case for all blue-collar crime,
and there is no reason why the same should not be true for white-collar
crime as well. Severing or truncating a charge is not the same as
taking other offences into account, such as the theft of another 30
motor cars, or joyriding. There is a fundamental difference, and full
criminality is important to
justice.
Robert
Neill: Does the Minister accept that the area in which
full criminality becomes important is in sentencing? For example,
within the bracket of sentences available to the judge—the
maximum, and the tariff indicated by the Court of Appeal—the
judge can decide which sentence is appropriate. The point that I
believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and
North Hykeham is making is that that is separate from the trial
process, and the availability of full criminality to the sentencing
judge does not make it necessary to have full criminality presented to
the jury. That is the real point. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Beaconsfield said, it would entirely meet the Minister’s
argument if current procedures such as those for specimen counts were
severed, so that they were dealt with on sentencing, after the trial on
indictment. That would avoid overloading the
indictment.
The
Chairman: Order. Interventions must be
brief.
Robert
Neill: I apologise. I shall revert to that
point.
Joan
Ryan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiastic
intervention. Full criminality is important on sentencing, but
sentencing is based on evidence that is exposed during trial, so I
stand by what I have said. In serious and complex fraud cases, it is a
matter not of filling the indictment with a lot of minor counts, but of
avoiding the need to sever the indictment, which results in two trials
instead of one. Full criminality is also an important point
there.
Mr.
Grieve: I may have missed this, and I apologise if I did,
but I raised the question of whether the new provisions regarding
specimen counts, and the judge being able to consider the remaining
outstanding counts by himself, apply to Northern Ireland as well. Can
the Minister deal with that point?
Joan
Ryan: I was coming to that point, and it
is as the hon. Gentleman says. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act 2004 applies to Northern Ireland, but it has not yet commenced;
that is planned for January 2007. I do not accept that any valid
argument has been made that should prevent us applying these measures,
which bring substantial benefits. There is absolutely no reason why
those should not be realised in Northern Ireland as well as in England
and Wales.
Mr.
Hogg: I have two brief points. First, on the full
criminality point, the Minister is suffering under an illusion. Nobody
who practises in criminal courts thinks it desirable to overload
indictments, and judges will not permit it. If the thought is that
every offence will be reflected in account on the indictment, that is
illusory; the judges will stop it. If those at the Home Office are
labouring under that illusion, I wish that they would put it out of
their tiny little minds.
Secondly, on a quite different
point, it is clear from what the Minister said that the Northern
Ireland representatives were not involved in the discussions that were
held—in so far as they were—pursuant to the undertaking
given by the then Home Secretary. They have every reason to feel
aggrieved, which is a further reason for not allowing this particular
Bill to apply to Northern Ireland.
Joan
Ryan: I have very little to add, because I have answered
the points made and stand by what I have already said in relation to
full criminality. Had Northern Ireland representatives wished to be
present, first, my understanding is that they can be present and speak
even if they are not named members of the Committee. Secondly, like all
of us, they know how to make representations to be members of the
Committee. I have said that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland
has made clear that there are no issues with this matter. That should
satisfy the Committee, and I urge that this clause stands part of the
Bill. Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
6.
Division
No.
2]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
|
