Criminal Justice Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Grieve: In welcoming the presence on the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), I wish to say much of the same. This clause will potentially be important. Since we consider drug addiction to be a major cause of crime, we support finding a device to tackle it, and I welcome the clause.

I have a slight difference with my hon. Friend about drafting: I would stick to the preference of my earlier amendment, because it is important that the clause stand up to legal scrutiny. Above all, I do not want us to waste time on legal challenges—I want the clause to work smoothly and effectively. Even at this late stage, I put in a plea to the Minister, when he leaves with his officials, to review the drafting. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the clause is complex. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North made that clear also.

The clause tries to insert into the Bail Act 1976 something that its draftsman would not in a month of Sundays have imagined likely. That is one reason why it reads so inelegantly. As I said earlier, it is also contrary the entire thrust of the Bail Act. That may be a good thing in this particular exception, but in my limited experience of drafting Bills it is always wise to marry the amendments to an existing piece of legislation to the spirit of that legislation, if the same end can be achieved by doing so.

I hope that the Minister may ponder that when he leaves the Committee today and before we go any further. I doubt whether it will be revisited at some later stage, because it is ultimately, as he said, a matter that may be resolved in the courts. However, I want the clause to work, and to work effectively. I wish it well, because it is an important component in trying to tackle crime.

Column Number: 020

Hilary Benn: Let me deal with the two substantive points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey in relation to comments made in the Home Affairs Committee report. We shall respond to that report in due course. I accept the point made by the Select Committee about enforceability. That, and especially managing breach, is a matter of practicality. We shall have to learn from the experience of implementing criminal justice interventions, in particular in the high crime areas. Presumption against bail is part of a package of changes to the criminal justice system identified in the updated drugs strategy.

I referred earlier to additional resources, but I accept the point of the hon. Member for Witney that it is not simply a question of resources. However, part of the answer to the reasonable questions that have been asked about whether the arrangements can work in practice is that we should ensure that the resources are available to provide appropriate treatment. So far as the areas are concerned, I am not in a position to give the list that he has asked for, but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman. I have also undertaken that we shall cover the matter in response to the Home Affairs Committee.

10.30 am

Simon Hughes: When are the Government expecting to respond to the Home Affairs Committee report? We are in the slightly complicated position that the Bill has been produced and scrutinised and suggestions have been made, but we are in Committee and have not had a response.

Hilary Benn: I am tempted to give the answer that my late mother always gave when we asked when supper would be. She said, ''When it's ready.'' That is the honest answer, and I shall attempt to give an indication in the letter that I have promised to send the hon. Gentleman in response to his very fair point.

I welcome the contribution—in both senses, because it was his first—of the hon. Member for Witney. He helpfully reminded us of the Home Affairs Committee's support for the changes and set out most cogently the case for them. I am with him in the Ronseal camp. Having had discussions with parliamentary draftsmen, I know that there is a tension between the purity of wording and ensuring that it is spare and does not include anything that does not need to be there. That is useful one respect, but it does not always help lay people, myself included, to understand Parliament's intentions. Where these amendments are concerned, I acknowledge that, because the Bail Act has been amended a number of times, things are becoming complicated. We aim to consolidate when time allows.

Mr. Stinchcombe: My hon. Friend mentioned the parliamentary draftsmen. Could he ask them, or others who advise him, whether there would be any difference in the interpretation of the clause if amendments Nos. 116 and 117 were made?

Hilary Benn: That is a very helpful intervention, because I have already asked the question. The advice I received was that it would make no difference. That is why I voted no—

Column Number: 021

Mr. Grieve: When we discussed those amendments, perhaps because he was concentrating on amendment No. 140, the Minister did not say that. I am grateful that he has said it now. I understand his argument, but I still think that the wording that I proposed was better.

Hilary Benn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. When I first read those amendments, I thought that they were further grammatical improvements. However, we shall let the matter rest.

In response to the first of the three points raised by the hon. Member for Witney, I am 100 per cent. with him. It is an extremely sensible observation: we should not be too prescriptive. If something helps a person with a drug problem to get off it, we should try it. In relation to the under-18s, clause 10 is being piloted for those aged 14-plus. However, we recognise that there are differences in young people's needs and in the provision of effective treatment. The drug testing pilots will ensure that we have the evidence that we need to decide the most appropriate ways of intervening with the relevant age ranges.

Mr. Cameron: My understanding is that clause 10 is about extending DTTOs to young people. What would be wrong with considering attaching conditions to young people's bail in the same way?

Hilary Benn: Clause 10 is about testing, not extending DTTOs to under-18s. Tests would be followed up by the provision of assessment and treatment for young people. The purpose of clause 10 is therefore different from what the hon. Gentleman thought.

As regards police bail, I understand the motivation, but the difficulty is that there must be assessment if the clause is to work. It is rather hard to see how one could marry effective assessment with timely decisions on police bail.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 1.

Division No. 6]

AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham Baird, Vera Benn, Hilary Clark, Paul Harman, Ms Harriet Heppell, Mr. John Hermon, Lady
Humble, Mrs. Joan Kidney, Mr. David Lucas, Ian Mann, John Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul Taylor, Ms Dari Turner, Dr. Desmond

NOES
Hughes, Simon

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Interpretation of Part 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Allen: Interpretation clauses are normally pretty dry and boring, but it is important to put one

Column Number: 022

point on the record. The Bill is not just for lawyers and judges but for everyone. Some of the debates between Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues from all parties have been very learned, and the lawyers among us have really got stuck in, but few people outside the House will understand much of what we have said. Indeed, there have been times when I have got lost, and I am sure that other non-lawyer colleagues have felt the same.

Interpretation means getting across to people what the law means. The law is owned and used by people outside the House; it is not simply an issue for those involved with the courts in some capacity or another. Although the Minister will not be able to say much in his immediate response—I do not expect it to be lengthy—I urge him to take away with him the concept of making our law more comprehensible to the ordinary person and to end people's alienation from the criminal justice system.

We can all give examples of the problem as regards policing, but we are now considering how our courts interpret policy. I beg the Minister and his colleagues, during their tenure in government, to bear in mind the fact that that they are passing law to make people's lives better, so please will they explain what they are doing in terminology that ordinary police officers, probation officers and lay people can understand? We talk about Crown courts instead of regional criminal courts, magistrates courts instead of local courts, and stipendiaries and magistrates instead of local judges. We almost delight in making our criminal justice system obscure. That is particularly true in respect of clause 17.

The famous case of Pepper v. Hart allows the courts to use Hansard as a guide to interpreting the law in certain circumstances. Will my hon. Friend the Minister think about the suggestion that the explanatory notes, when carefully crafted, should be used to explain some of the more obscure legal concepts in the Bill? That would help everyone else to understand what we are doing here and what Parliament is doing on their behalf. It would save millions of pounds in court time and head off many expensive disputes. Perhaps I am too cynical about the legal profession, but that might be why we have not made as much progress as we should have done. Will he consider whether there is a better way of reconnecting with people outside? These are important issues, and we need the public to understand what we are doing.

Hilary Benn: As my hon. Friend will have detected from my comments to the hon. Member for Witney about what is described as the Ronseal approach, I have considerable sympathy for his point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General looks puzzled. Ronseal does exactly what it says on the tin. In other words, the wording is very clear. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend on that point. Here, we are having a clause stand part discussion, yet if someone wandered in and sat in the Public Gallery, they would wonder what we were up to. The language has developed from the way in which things were done in the past, but that does not mean that we should not constantly ask ourselves whether we are explaining

Column Number: 023

things and legislating in a way that will allow the courts to make precise interpretations. In some cases, it is necessary for the language to be obscure, but we should always ask whether we are doing things in a way that helps people to understand the job that we are doing on their behalf.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

---

Prepared 9 January 2003