New clause 4 - Persons under 18 years of age
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause has been touched on. I shall come clean at the beginning of the debate. We have been upbraided in Committee several times for rehashing arguments that have been advanced in another place. However, such a debate needs to be held in Committee. The other place literally spent only a few minutes discussing the impact of the Bill on young people. The Minister may suggest that it will not apply in many cases but, when considering proposed legislation, we must reflect on what might happen, not what we think will happen.

Given overseas processes, the hearing of witnesses on television and by telephone and the transfer of prisoners, which we have just debated, I argue strongly that the Bill could affect people under 18 years of age. As responsible hon. Members, we must all recognise that people under the age of 18—and those who may be significantly so—have specific needs that must be addressed. They cannot necessarily be treated in the same way as an adult. As an aside, I emphasise the point on legal advice that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made earlier, and on which he rightly forced a Division. That is even more important for young people.

There are also issues about the role of parents or guardians. Should they be present in all the circumstances that we have discussed in the many clauses that make up part 1? Should they have any role in the decision-making process, including, for example, the one that we have just debated on giving consent to being transferred abroad?

There is an issue about whether delivering by post to somebody who is not yet an adult is right. There is an alternative point, which is the reverse of what I have just said. If an individual is being charged with something that took place overseas, what happens if they would be tried in a youth court in this country but the overseas authority does not have facilities for youth courts? Would we necessarily be happy with them being tried in an adult court? There are implications with regard to human rights legislation, which must also be taken into account. Clause 30(5) requires an oath to be given. If a person gives an oath, they are opening themselves up to the accusation of perjury if they break it.

I give these examples because all of them illustrate why special measures must be put in place for young people. I am not suggesting that young people should be exempt from the provisions of part 1 because most young people should accept the responsibilities that one naturally gains as one grows up. However, provisions should be made for special arrangements. The purpose of new clause 4 is open and straightforward. It simply states that the Secretary of

State may make orders for the part of the Bill to apply with some modification. That modification could be simple. It might state that, where the individual concerned is under 18, their parent or guardian must be present at all times.

However, I am not trying to write the provisions. What I am saying is that the Bill should include recognition of the special arrangements that are necessary for young people. In light of that, I hope that the Minister will understand the import of the new clause. She might not like the words of the new clause, and I am not wedded to them, but I want her to recognise that it is a serious issue. The Committee has considered a substantial range of legal measures, many of which break new ground and could affect young people, and we have to recognise that special arrangements need to be made for them.

I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my new clause.

Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about how we should recognise the needs of child witnesses in our court procedures. This Government do recognise that. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 defines child witnesses as people under 17, rather than under 18—although, for automatic reporting restrictions, it sets the upper age limit at 18. That legislation recognised that due regard should be given to the needs of children appearing in legal proceedings under a number of different circumstances. That is why the new clause is unnecessary.

Witnesses under 17 are treated differently from older witnesses in so far as they are automatically deemed under section 16 of the 1999 Act to have the status of vulnerable witnesses. As vulnerable witnesses, they are eligible, at the court's discretion, to receive any of a range of special measures—for example, screens, removal of wigs and gowns, giving evidence in private, via video recording or live link—that are designed to help such witnesses to give their best evidence. Whether any such measures are applied is up to the court in the particular case, but it must have regard to whether any of the measures, alone or combined, would be likely to improve the quality of the witness's evidence and to protect the needs of the child as defined.

There are additional safeguards in cases involving sexual offences, violence—including threats—and cruelty, in which under–17s have the status of child witnesses in need of special protection. Giving evidence by live link and/or video recording is virtually mandatory in such cases. The 1999 Act applies to all criminal proceedings in England and Wales. In Scotland, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes provision for similar safeguards in cases involving under–16s, including the use of screens and closed circuit television.

If an overseas authority requested evidence on oath from a child witness here, the court would be required to take account of the legislation. Similarly, an authority requesting assistance from overseas from a child witness for use in domestic proceedings would

have to take into account the provisions of the legislation. There is no need for provision in the Bill to make special arrangements for the treatment of child witnesses, as that is governed by existing primary legislation.

In relation to the transfer of prisoners under chapter 5, there is no absolute bar on the transfer of prisoners under the age of 18. Under the terms of sections 5 and 6 of the 1990 Act, any person serving a sentence in a prison or other institution to which the Prison Act 1952 or the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 applies may be transferred. That includes those under 18. In such cases, a parent or guardian may give or refuse consent on behalf of a prisoner if, on account of their age, they cannot make the decision. That is the same as the situation with all prisoners. Consent must be given for transfer.

To sum up, the new clause is unnecessary. We understand the reasons why it was tabled, and it was important to have the debate, but child witnesses are already adequately protected under primary legislation. It is hoped that cases involving child witnesses will be extremely unusual, but protection does exist for such a situation.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister and congratulate her on a far more comprehensive response to the issue than Lord Bassam gave when it was debated in the other place. His response was scanty, to say the least. I also note that the hon. Lady did not fall back on the excuse that Lord Bassam gave at the time, which was to say that the matter was addressed in the 1990 Act, so it should not be changed. Perhaps my earlier ammunition has already borne fruit, but we will wait and see before we take that as read.

The Minister advances a cogent argument that the point is already covered in other legislation—I shall forget the 1990 Act for a moment—and I am grateful for her recognition that there is an issue that has to be addressed. The Government believe that it is addressed. I will not dispute that now. I will have to study what the hon. Lady said, so that I can be reassured that the point is covered, but the Government seem to understand now, even if they did not when the issue was debated in the other place, the importance of what we suggest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.