| Courts Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Hawkins: I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. In my practice at the Bar, I had similar experiences to those that he describes. I share his concerns. The comments of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in that leading case should be taken into account. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes it would be very helpful if the criminal courts were obliged to take into account the wording that he has referred to—the welfare of the children is the first and paramount consideration? Perhaps that should be imported in some way into the criminal law. Mr. Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those words, which are music to my ears. In the drafting of the rules that this clause permits the criminal procedure rule committee to make—and in the drafting of the family procedure rules that we are about to come on to—I would like there to be a much stronger emphasis on the welfare of the child and the principle that delays in proceedings may cause harm to children. I want to ensure that this situation is not a problem in the future. This Bill gives us flexibility. For example, when this is the situation, a High Court judge, who has the skills to ensure that there is the protection against self-incrimination for parents and that the care Column Number: 144 proceedings proceed quickly, can be drafted in to the family court premises to hear the care proceedings. We could also get on to the family court proceedings more quickly because we might have a centre in which the family proceedings and the criminal trial take place in the same building. That would help to hurry up the criminal proceedings.I am asking for urgency on behalf of children. I hope that the Committee, the Minister and those who eventually form the membership of the rule committees take the need for this urgency on board and do something about what has caused serious harm to children in the past.
10.15 amMr. Leslie: I am glad that we have had the opportunity to consider and discuss some wider aspects of policy and how those may touch on criminal procedure rules. I am not, however, entirely convinced that all the matters about which my hon. Friend spoke would be relevant to the criminal procedure rule committee—and I shall briefly explain why. The clause introduces the principle that rules of court will govern the practice and procedure to be followed in the criminal courts in England and Wales. Those rules will be made by a new criminal procedure rule committee. Such measures are necessary to reduce the variety of approaches, which are a consequence of the current fragmented arrangements for making rules of court. Hopefully, we can modernise and streamline the processes by bringing them together under the criminal procedure rule committee. The clause directs that the power to make or alter rules should be exercised with a view to ensuring that the criminal justice system is accessible, fair and efficient, and the rules are simple and simply expressed. It expresses the principles that will be central to the work of the committee. The measures are intended to ensure that new rules are developed with an underlying regard for the efficient running of a trial; it is also intended that they should be developed in such a way that the ordinary person in the street is capable of understanding how the processes and procedures work. Under the clause, criminal procedure rules may be made with different provisions for different cases or areas. It ensures that those can be made in support of new initiatives and that they may allow for pilot schemes to be established when it is necessary to do so. The clause will similarly allow for rules to be made that will govern specified courts or proceedings, such as youth courts. That was the main purpose behind the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. First, my hon. Friend explained in detail his views on care proceedings. He said that they are often delayed because the requirement for there to be a criminal aspect leads to involvement in consequential issues. He was concerned that there were perhaps undue delays caused by differences between the different processes. This is a complex matter. Without going into too much detail, I can tell the Committee that we have a general duty to reduce the Column Number: 145 number of ineffective trials and ensure that the courts system works as efficiently as possible. We should ensure, as far as possible, that the interests of children are put at the top of our agenda.I should not wish to give my hon. Friend the impression that the criminal procedure rule committee could deal with all the things that he mentioned, some of which were touched on in the White Paper, ''Justice for All''. Some of his specific points—for example, about the concern that is being shown in the system, and ensuring that the interests of children are looked after—have been brought to the forefront of policy. We must continue to ensure that that happens. Secondly, my hon. Friend spoke about the venue for hearing serious offences involving children. He talked in particular about court layout and how plain dress might be adopted. Incidentally, we are in the middle of a consultation on court dress and I would not want to pre-empt that. That matter is being considered. Mr. Hawkins: The Minister should be aware that there is resistance from the official Opposition to the constant suggestion that such things are part of a drive towards so-called modernisation. Many hon. Members who practised at the Bar for many years believe that there are good reasons, which are too difficult to discuss in this brief intervention, why court dress has survived in its present form for many hundreds of years. I hope that the Minister will take that into account in any consultation. Mr. Leslie: I only mentioned that in passing, but I should have known that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would find a way to introduce his antipathy to modernisation—indeed, to anything to do with the concept of modernity. I am sure that he is glad to have got that out of his system. I can sympathise with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who says that in certain cases involving children we have to take account of the impact of court layout and the formality and nature of the court in order to secure a fair trial. However, the issue of the venue for trial—for example, whether it is heard in a Crown court or a youth court—is a matter for primary legislation, and would not come under the remit of the rule committee, although the issue of more child-friendly procedures for a Crown court case would. I know that my hon. Friend has a number of specific suggestions, and it is valid for him to raise the subject. By putting it on the record today, we are highlighting some of the issues that the criminal procedure rule committee might well consider. Mr. Kidney: My hon. Friend the Minister says that the venue in which the court sits is a matter for primary legislation—but I referred to section 78 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which says:
Does he accept that that legislation permits a venue other than a Crown court building? Mr. Leslie: I do not want to go through every aspect of statute law, but my understanding is that there are certain restrictions on where trials for grave offences Column Number: 146 can be held. For example, murder cases have to go to the Crown court. I also understand that various Acts of Parliament, including the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, have restraining influences on where certain cases can be heard. If I am wrong, I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend and the Committee to correct myself. With that, I hope that the concept of criminal procedure rules in the clause will remain, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.Question put and agreed to. Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 July 2003 |
