Maria
Eagle: I will try to deal with the point made by
the hon. Member for Cambridge in respect of amendment 463. I
understand the point that he is making. Apart from police officers,
anyone who is involved in preparing the prosecution might be affected,
such as prosecutors and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. However, it
is essentially correct that the provision will affect those preparing
the case at an early stage during the investigation. The hon. Gentleman
is right about that.
I assure the
hon. Gentleman that this is not some half-baked idea that has come from
ACPO, as he seems to be suggesting—ACPO has said that it thinks
the measure might help. However, we are restricting the provision to
the most serious end of gun-and-gang homicide, with knives and guns.
Those are the sorts of cases where the concern that witnesses have in
particular areas affected by this type of crime prevents them from
coming forward to give evidence at an early stage, even though evidence
is available. The evidence shows that there are hot-spot areas around
the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and
Sefton, East knows as well as me, because we represent some of those
areas, precisely what fear exists and the situations that can arise
from gang-related activity in particular
places. One
of the reasons why we are restricting the provision—we had this
debate at the end of the previous sitting—is to see whether it
works. I am not saying that it will definitely work, but we need to do
more to ensure the rule of law in hot spots for gangs and crime. We
believe that the provision may help and we hope that it will, as does
the hon. Gentleman. I welcome the fact that he hopes that it will work,
but I am not going to proclaim that it definitely will. If it works,
that will be a good thing, but if it does not work, it will not be
extended and may even fall into disuse. However, I do not believe, as
someone who represents an area which is affected in this way—I
am sure that I speak for my hon.
Friends—that we should throw up our hands in despair and do
nothing, when we see a situation that we think might be helped
positively by the measure. On that
basis, while I understand the somewhat academic points that the hon.
Gentleman makes—I am not insulting him—I hope that he
understands where we are coming
from.
David
Howarth: These points are not academic. They are based on
my personal experience of being brought up on an estate rather like the
one the Minister is talking about. My points have nothing to do with
intellectual game playing, because they concern what is really going to
happen in real life. My doubts concern the political game by which the
Government want to appear to do something about such a serious problem,
but are not doing
anything.
Maria
Eagle: It is not a political game, but a practical effort
to deal with a particular problem in specific hot-spot areas for
gun-and-gang homicide. We hope and believe that the provision will make
a difference. The hon. Gentleman has his doubts, whether academic or
otherwise. I hope that we are right and that he is not, but to ensure
that we do not infect the entire criminal justice system with anonymity
at investigation stages, we are restricting our effort to make a
positive difference to the highest level of offences in hot-spot,
gun-and-gang-crime-ridden
areas. Amendment
268 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 269, in clause 61, page 35, line 29,
leave out from ‘that’ to ‘the’ in line 30
and insert ‘the information disclosed is
information that might enable the specified person to be identified as
a person of the sort described in subsection (1)(a) in relation
to’. 270,
in
clause 61, page 35, line 37, leave
out from first ‘is’ to ‘willing’ and
insert ‘a person who is or was able
or’. 271,
in
clause 61, page 35, line 41, leave
out paragraphs (a) and (b) and
insert— ‘(a) the disclosure
is made to a person who is involved in the specified qualifying
criminal investigation or in the prosecution of an offence to which the
investigation relates,
and’. 272,
in
clause 61, page 36, line 4, leave
out ‘was’ and insert
‘is’. 273,
in
clause 61, page 36, line 5, after
‘prosecution’, insert ‘of an
offence to which the investigation
relates’. 274,
in
clause 61, page 36, line 6, leave
out subsection
(8). 275,
in
clause 61, page 36, line 22, leave
out from ‘liable’ to end of line 24 and insert
‘— (a) on summary
conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant
period or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or
both; (b) on conviction on
indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine,
or both. (11A) “The
relevant period”
means— (a) in relation
to England and Wales, 12
months; (b) in relation to
Northern Ireland, 6
months.’. 276,
in
clause 61, page 36, line 25, leave
out subsection (12).—(Maria
Eagle.) Clause
61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
62 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
63Conditions
for making
order
Mr.
Garnier: I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 63,
page 37, line 31, leave out subsection
(4).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 443, in clause 63,
page 37, line 34, leave out subsection
(5). Amendment
444, in
clause 63, page 37, line 37, leave
out subsection
(6). Amendment
83, in
clause 63, page 37, line 40, leave
out paragraph
(b). Amendment
445, in
clause 63, page 38, line 9, leave
out subsection
(9).
Mr.
Garnier: Again, the debate can be reasonably short. Our
amendments are intended to extract from the Government some
understanding of the thinking behind the age limits and the composition
of gangs. In case anyone gets over-excited, the amendments are
probing. The
Government are providing that, for the purposes of the clause, those
who commit qualifying offences or are suspected of committing
qualifying offences—gang members—should be between the
ages of 11 and 30. The applications can be made if—going to
subsection (9), which is affected by amendment
445—the qualifying offence is committed by two or more
persons. Why
did the Government choose those age limits— 11 at the
younger end and 30 at the older end? The right hon. Member for
Knowsley, North and Sefton, East and the Minister may have constituency
experience of unattractive people misconducting themselves in gangs who
may be over the age of 30. They may be egging youngsters on, as gang
leaders who are off the balance sheet and careful enough not to be seen
on the ground but who, none the less, may be the controlling minds of
such gangs. I appreciate that if a person is under the age of 11, they
are close to the age of absence of criminal responsibility under the
law. None the less, I think that the Government may shut themselves out
of an avenue if they think that the regime under clause 61 and the
following clauses is a good one. The age group will be limited to
between 11 and 30, albeit that I accept that most gangs are probably of
that age group; certainly, when I have visited prisons—I think,
50 or so in the past two and a half to three years—most of the
residents who are there for gangland-related offences are of that age
group.
Mr.
Boswell: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is
a problem where before the order is made, it has to appear that the
majority of persons in the group are in the age group? Given that there
is unlikely to be any formal, let alone recorded, structure, it will
put a difficult evidential test to work out how many people there were,
and who was the numerator and who was the
denominator.
Mr.
Garnier: My hon. Friend has described the problem much
more neatly than me. He has enabled me to cut short my remarks by some
measure, which is a happy thing for the hon. Member for Wrexham. The
Whips
could be submariners—the silent service. Occasionally they pop up
above the surface and fire off something, and the hon. Member for
Wrexham has just done that. Returning to my point, my hon. Friend and I
have described the issue, which now requires an explanation from the
Government. On
a further point, I may be misleading myself that I have properly read
subsection (9), but I want to be sure that, where it states that the
qualifying offence must be committed by two or more persons, it is
sufficient for the purposes of subsection (2), which will give the JP
the power to make an order if they are satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the relevant conditions in
subsections (3) to (8) have been satisfied by one person. It may be
that it is too early in the morning for my brain to engage properly
with the matter, but I need to have the numbers sorted out. Does the
court need only to be satisfied that one person has committed a
relevant offence—albeit that they are a member of a gang of two
or more—or is there something else that I have missed through my
lack of
acuity?
David
Howarth: I have little to add to what the hon. and learned
Gentleman has said, except to point out that his last point relates to
the failure of the Government to take on the whole reform of the law on
murder. Dealing with secondary parties to murder was originally part of
the Law Commission’s task, and the Government have abandoned
that effort—although, given the reaction to the
commission’s proposals, perhaps it is not quite as surprising as
what else
happened. Like
the hon. Member for Daventry, I am slightly worried about exactly how
the magistrate will approach an application where the conditions are so
detailed—the person involved has to be aged at least 11, but
under 30, at the time of the offence. It does not say “appears
to be” or “would, on reasonable grounds, we believe to
be”; it says “are”, which seems too precise.
Although subsection (2) will allow a JP to make such an order, if they
are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
conditions are fulfilled, the conditions tend to be precise, rather
than slightly vaguer, which would be more appropriate.
More
than that, there is a problem with the definition of
“gang”, which looks arbitrary. Why is the cut-off
age 30, and not 31 or 29? To pass this on rationality
grounds, the Government at least need some evidence of the nature of
gang crime and the age of the people involved. Like the hon. and
learned Member for Harborough, I visit prisons, and I agree with him
that most of the people involved in such activity are in
their 20s or younger, but some gangs, especially the more
organised ones involved in drug dealing, include slightly older people.
I am worried, therefore, about why the cut-off is as it
is.
9.45
am
Jeremy
Wright: I seek your guidance, Mr. Cook. My
point relates to clause 63(8), to which no amendments have been tabled.
Do you intend to conduct a stand part debate? If so, would you prefer
me to raise my point then, or now?
The
Chairman: I am inclined to request that any stand part
comments be made at this time, because we are discussing four
subsections, at least. Now is the moment, if the hon. Gentleman wants
to take
it.
Jeremy
Wright: Subsection (8) deals with one of the conditions
for the making of an investigation anonymity order. The first part of
the subsection is perfectly straightforward and sensible: that the
person in question be able to provide information of assistance.
However, paragraph (b) causes me some concern, so I would be
grateful for some clarification from the Minister. Paragraph
(b) states that the person in question should
be “more
likely than not, as a consequence of the making of the order, to
provide such
information.” It
is hard to conceive of an individual who might become a witness in
proceedings, who would not be more persuaded to give information if
given anonymity. What is the purpose of paragraph (b)? It seems to me
that there are two possible approaches: the Government could say either
that all those who wish to have an investigation anonymity order, in
the context of the other conditions in the clause, should be able to
have one, or that only those who need such an order—those who
would not give the information requested without such an
order—should be
covered.
Mr.
Boswell: Is not the problem with subsection (8) that it
puts in place an objective test, whereas clearly it is the wishes and
intentions of the potential witness that are relevant? If there is to
be an objective test, will it not need to be argued over in court
subsequently, because there will be no evidence either way for whether
it was better? As often seems to be the case to me, as a lay person in
the legal process, we could end up arguing again about whether process
has been fulfilled, without making any progress on the substance of the
matter.
Jeremy
Wright: I am not sure that I agree entirely with my hon.
Friend. Whatever way it is done, this is a subjective test, because it
is all about whether the person in question, who could provide
information, would be willing to do so, if certain conditions are
fulfilled and help offered. Currently, the subsection states that the
order would be available if the person would be more likely to provide
information. That is a question about whether that person is more
persuaded. However, it seems to me that that test could easily be met.
Everyone would be more persuaded to give evidence if given anonymity.
What is the utility of the subsection, therefore, and what lies behind
it? Why, if they have done so, have the Government concluded that that
is a better approach than saying that such orders are available only to
those who would not otherwise give useful
information?
Maria
Eagle: I shall try to deal with that latter point first. I
am sure that the Committee will agree that it would not be desirable to
spray around investigation anonymity orders willy-nilly. We all have
concerns about anonymity. The purpose of subsection (3) is to make the
point that if such an offer of support and assistance at an early stage
persuades somebody to give evidence that might lead to a conviction for
homicide in a gun-and-gang-related murder, for example, that makes it
worth while to allow anonymity, which is always a compromise in the
criminal justice system.
It may be that
that person, because they are offered an anonymity order at an early
stage, does not have to give evidence at the trial. The evidence that
they offer might lead to the finding of the weapon, and forensic
evidence might then be enough to tie the weapon to the
individual who committed the crime. The person who comes forward,
reassured by an investigation anonymity order, will not necessarily
have to give evidence at the trial. They might then be able to remain
anonymous, having assisted in bringing to justice a serious criminal
who might not otherwise have been brought to justice. That is the
purpose. We would not seek to make more investigation anonymity orders
than were necessary to assist people to come forward with evidence that
might help solve crimes. It is essentially a
reassurance.
| 
