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.