Plenary, 05 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, December 5, 2002

Official Report 682KB pdf

---

Criminal Justice Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3671, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the Criminal Justice Bill, which is proposed United Kingdom legislation. I invite those members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. It would be helpful if members who are leaving the chamber would do so quickly and quietly.

The Criminal Justice Bill, which was introduced at Westminster on 21 November, represents the UK Government's proposals to bring about change across a range of provision in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is inevitable that such a bill raises many issues.

However, in the context of today's debate and the motion before the Parliament, most of those matters need not concern us. The motion seeks to permit the UK Parliament to legislate on matters in the bill that are within devolved competence and which it is proposed to extend to Scotland. The fact that those matters are limited to a few areas is not surprising, given that the bill is essentially about proposed changes in England and Wales rather than in Scotland. At this stage, it would be useful to highlight those areas, for the sake of clarity.

Part 1 of the bill makes provision to amend section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, so that an appropriate person who carries out a search where serious criminal activity related to fraud is suspected, and who is accompanied by police officers, has the same powers as the police in relation to executing the warrant and seizing anything to which the warrant relates. Although the provision relates to fraud investigations that have a locus in England and Wales, section 2 already applies to Scotland. That is to enable effective action to be taken quickly in a situation in which it becomes clear that there might be valuable information in Scotland that is relevant to the case.

The purpose of the amendment of the 1987 act is to enable someone who might have a particular expertise—in computing or finance, for example—to contribute effectively to the search. A police officer might not have the specialist expertise that is required to identify criminal material that might be held on a computer hard drive. A financial expert would be much more able than a police officer to assess the significance of financial documents. It is therefore proposed that the amended provisions should apply in Scotland. I should point out that fraud investigations that have a locus in Scotland are carried out under Scottish legislation—the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995—and that there are reciprocal arrangements that allow our authorities to initiate searches south of the border.

In parts 9, 10 and 13, the bill makes provision in relation to reporting restrictions. The proposed provision relates to proposals in England and Wales for a prosecution right of appeal against judicial rulings that terminate a case early and for the ability to bring fresh prosecutions in serious cases, where there is new evidence that might cast doubt on an acquittal. There is also provision in connection with the holding of preparatory hearings in certain fraud cases. That provision already extends to Scotland. The purpose of the re-enactment of those provisions in the bill is to extend them to Northern Ireland. The aim of the provisions is to ensure that fair judicial process takes place, for example, by ensuring that potential juries will not be influenced by the media and that the provisions will be time limited.

Part 12 makes extensive provision on sentencing. I must mention two matters in that regard, although the amendments and re-enactments concerned maintain the status quo as far as Scotland is concerned. The first relates to situations in which a suspended sentence that has been given out in England or Wales is breached in Scotland. The bill seeks to re-enact provisions that impose a duty on the court in Scotland to intimate the breach to the court in England or Wales that gave out the original sentence, provided that the court in Scotland is aware of the suspended sentence. The second relates to situations in which it is proposed that a sentencing provision within the European Communities Act 1972, which applies to Scotland, is to be changed, but only with regard to England and Wales.

The Executive believes that it makes good sense for the provisions in the bill that are within devolved competence, and which it is proposed should extend to Scotland, to be legislated for in the UK Parliament.

In relation to some of the bill's provisions, although there is what might be described as a rearrangement of the furniture within existing statutory provision in England and Wales, arrangements in Scotland are left unchanged. That is the case with the provisions that relate to sentencing and reporting restrictions in certain preparatory hearings. The Executive believes that it makes sense for those provisions within devolved competence to be re-included in the bill, where no change in relation to Scotland is proposed and where there are no other issues at hand.

In the interests of combating serious financial crime, it makes sense for the proposed changes for search operations in connection with serious fraud to extend to Scotland.

Although the provisions on reporting restrictions in relation to prosecution appeals and the proposal to allow fresh trials in England and Wales are new proposals, it is already accepted that—in the overall interests of justice—it is correct, in certain circumstances, that the media should not report certain things at certain times. Such matters are dealt with generally under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, but there are other specific provisions that relate to criminal proceedings in which children are involved, for example.

Members will have personal views on the merits or demerits of the proposals on prosecution appeals and fresh trials.

I seek clarification on part 9. I am reading the Executive's memorandum on the bill, which says:

"Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal will have power to vary the restriction"—

on reporting—

"after taking into account any objections from the defendant."

Is it the Court of Appeal in England that is being referred to?

I will clarify that point in my summing up.

I doubt that anyone could argue with the proposition that, if such reporting restrictions are agreed to in England and Wales, in the interests of justice, they should apply throughout the UK, according to the same timetable. If that is agreed, the only realistic means of achieving that goal is by including the provisions in relation to Scotland in the bill.

It can fairly be said that the matters that fall within devolved competence in the bill are straightforward and limited and do not have any significant implications for Scots law. They are a good example of why the Sewel convention exists. Therefore, I hope that the Parliament will support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The minister will be well aware of the Scottish National Party's concerns about the use of Sewel motions. Although it was intended that the mechanism would be used on the odd occasion, the Executive now appears to use it frequently. Four Sewel motions have been moved in three weeks.

Today's Sewel motion seeks to obtain the Parliament's agreement that Westminster should legislate on devolved matters. It is interesting to note that the second reading of the Criminal Justice Bill has already taken place in Westminster—it was voted on last night. Before the Scottish Parliament has had an opportunity to debate the issue, Westminster is proceeding with its consideration of the bill.

Another matter for concern is that the issues pertaining to the Criminal Justice Bill have never been discussed in the four meetings that Scottish Executive ministers have had with Home Office ministers over the past couple of years. I wonder why that is the case.

As the bill has received only its second reading south of the border, is it not the case that there will be plenty of time for ministers and members to table amendments at the committee stage, which means that there is no insult to the Scottish Parliament?

It may be true that there is still an opportunity to amend the bill, but this Parliament should at least be allowed the courtesy of coming to an agreement on the issue before Westminster decides to move ahead with it. Ministers seem to have decided to leave the matter to Westminster.

The Executive's memorandum on the bill states:

"The Bill itself is concerned with changes to the criminal justice system in England and Wales, and there are no substantive changes to Scots law."

That may be true, but that is not to say that the bill will not have a substantial impact on Scots law. I will pick up on a couple of the issues, which I hope that the minister will be able to clarify.

Schedule 20 to the bill contains provisions to increase the sentence for a number of offences in connection with category C drugs from five years to 14 years. All members would recognise the need to take a tough stance in tackling drug dealing within our communities, but will the minister clarify how section 1(3)(d) is to be applied? The bill will make it an offence for property owners knowingly to permit or suffer the use of controlled drugs within their properties. Does that mean that someone who runs a hostel for the homeless and suffers the use of cannabis on their premises could face a 14-year jail sentence? Might parents face a similar jail term if they suffer the use of cannabis by their 19-year-old in their room upstairs? Some prison governors have said to me off the record that drugs are a necessary evil within our prison system. Will the bill mean that some prison governors could face a jail sentence? I hope that the minister will clarify exactly how that provision will be implemented.

The bill will also introduce reporting restrictions that have drawn considerable concern from a number of parties. The restrictions that the bill proposes are draconian and go well beyond those that have previously been imposed in Scotland. The National Union of Journalists in Scotland has expressed concern that the proposals lack clarity and could cause uncertainty. The bill suggests that the procedure for the reporting restrictions on prosecution appeals and retrials will apply to England and Wales but not to Scotland, although the reporting restrictions for a case in England and Wales would also apply in Scotland. How will that work? A national Scottish paper that has an office in England will be under the jurisdiction of the English courts. However, if a Scottish paper or magazine that does not have a base anywhere in England were to choose to report the case, it would be outwith the jurisdiction of the English courts. Would it therefore be for the Scottish courts to implement such an order if it were granted by an English court? I hope that the minister will take the opportunity to explain exactly how that provision will apply.

The provisions on reporting restrictions need to be read in conjunction with section 60(10), which states that the proceedings can be instituted, in England and Wales, only by or with the consent of the Attorney General or, in Northern Ireland, by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. What provision is there for the Solicitor General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate to be involved in deciding whether a case should be instituted? There appears to be no suggestion that any such safeguard will be provided for in Scotland.

The minister will be aware that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 already provides a number of measures that provide restrictions on reporting where that is necessary. We should listen to Scotland's leading judge, Lord Rodger, who is the Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session. He has stated that such orders under the 1981 act should be "no wider than necessary". However, the bill appears to intend that a blanket ban will be applied through the reporting restrictions that it will introduce. I hope that the minister will clarify how the restrictions on the media are to be applied.

In conclusion, if ministers or other members are under any illusion that Scots MPs in Westminster are dealing with the issue effectively, they should know that, during the bill's second reading yesterday, only two such Labour MPs attended the debate for half an hour. No Scots Lib Dem MPs bothered to turn up for the debate, nor did the Scots Tory MP. The only Scots MP to contribute to the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill was an SNP member, Annabel Ewing. As we know, the only people who are interested in protecting the interests of the Scottish justice system are SNP members.

As the minister rather humorously—and not without a touch of irony—conceded yesterday, the Conservatives will always back proposals that ensure that the voice of the victim is heard above that of the criminal. As such, we will certainly support today's motion on the Criminal Justice Bill. It is significant that our colleagues south of the border have generally welcomed the bill, although they have flagged up the difficulties that will potentially arise from the proposals on trial by jury, double jeopardy and the provision of information relating to previous convictions prior to a determination of guilt.

Some of the proposals, such as those relating to double jeopardy, are contentious, but the minister has correctly pointed out that those will not apply to Scotland. We welcome the Sewel motion for the very reason that the bill will not impinge greatly on Scots law. Scots law may have its little imperfections but, for all that, it is probably the best legal system in the world. It does not require much adjustment from other jurisdictions.

In the main, the bill's provisions do not relate to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, but a number of the measures that the bill will introduce are sensible and should be implemented here. The one spectacular omission is the bill's proposals on dealing with the collection of fines south of the border. I seem to recall that, when I suggested similar proposals in this Parliament, they received scant respect or agreement from the Labour-Liberal coalition. Perhaps for once, the coalition should listen to what is being said down south and learn from it.

The minister mentioned the Criminal Justice Act 1987, which already applies in Scotland, and how the proposed amendment to section 2 of that act will provide an enabling power. When the minister sums up, will he confirm that the term "document" in that section of that act includes computer records? The wording of the section is currently rather open, so I suggest that it would be advantageous if that could be looked at, as it was previously necessary to do so after yet another problem at the now infamous Linlithgow sheriff court, which heard a case that went to appeal.

I do not share Michael Matheson's foreboding about the operation of part 9 of the bill, which includes provisions on media restrictions. It is probably better that the Criminal Justice Bill deal with the issue rather than the Contempt of Court Act 1981 because the terms of the 1981 act are vague and have been open to varying interpretations. The bill undoubtedly tightens up those provisions.

We have heard Mr Matheson and his colleagues before on the subject of Sewel motions. On this side of the house, we have no difficulty with them and we believe that there is no dramatic requirement to revisit the operation of the Scotland Act 1998. However, in this instance, I concede to Mr Matheson that the timing of the debate down south was perhaps rather unfortunate.

In general, we welcome the bill and believe that it should be imposed. I point out to Mr Matheson that all prosecutions in Scotland are required to be carried out in the name of the Lord Advocate, so there would be a Scottish input into a prosecution that was carried out due to a breach of the media restrictions. Basically, there is no particular problem on that issue. The legislation, such as it is, is to be generally welcomed. It will impinge in a very limited manner on Scots law.

The Liberal Democrats, too, support the Sewel motion in Jim Wallace's name on the UK Criminal Justice Bill. I do not doubt that my colleague Simon Hughes would have been at the Westminster debate—the Liberal Democrats at Westminster support many of the proposals in the bill. In particular, they support custody-plus orders, which offer an opportunity for more effective sentencing, provided that the probation service is properly funded and that sentencers make better use of probation-based alternatives to custody.

However, my Westminster colleagues will be disputing the Government's basic assertion that the criminal justice system is skewed in favour of the offender. They believe that the Government is undermining essential judicial safeguards for populist reasons, as Bill Aitken suggested. My colleagues will accept the arguments in favour of non-retrospective abolition of double jeopardy but they will strongly oppose the proposals for the disclosure of previous convictions and the abolition of juries for complex cases.

Will the Liberal Democrat spokesperson be following his Westminster colleagues who voted against the bill last night?

No. That was Westminster; this is the Scottish Parliament. Mr Matheson does not seem to be able to distinguish between the two. The motion before the chamber is a Sewel motion that will allow my Westminster colleagues to have input into the bill. Westminster is the right place to argue the points that I mentioned; we will make sure that we are judicious in arguing the points that we believe should be changed. My Westminster colleagues are likely to argue that the public's main concern is not trial procedure but local crime rates and effective policing.

With regard to matters of devolved competence, the proposals all appear to be sensible and should be implemented UK-wide. They deserve the Parliament's support. I restate the Liberal Democrats' support for the Sewel motion.

In supporting the motion, I remind the chamber of some of the reforms of the criminal justice system that are making progress in the rest of the country. Labour members and, I suspect, others in the chamber will be looking for similar progress in Scotland, because those matters are of equal concern in Scotland, not least in relation to part 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which seeks to make provision for the retrial of serious offences where there is compelling new evidence and a fair trial can be secured.

It is important that reporting restrictions can be properly imposed in the rest of the United Kingdom. That should not be subverted by what takes place in Scotland. Those provisions relate to the securing of justice throughout the United Kingdom and we should be pleased to support them.

On the provisions for retrials, we should not just tut and move on. We should not just extend sympathy to the Lawrence family and others in similar situations and then do nothing. We have a highly adversarial criminal justice system, but it must not be reduced to a mere game. It is a justice system and justice has failed when the guilty walk free as well as when the innocent are wrongly convicted. I understand from a written answer that we will be keeping the proposals for the rest of the UK under consideration. I suggest to the minister that early consideration would be welcomed.

I also urge ministers to consider the proposals for the rest of the UK on presumption against bail for people who have tested positive for class A drugs and who refuse treatment.

Ministers should also consider part 9 of the bill, which provides for circumstances in which a criminal trial has been halted and a ruling is made that the trial should be terminated. Ministers will be aware of my concerns about the impact of the majority decision in R v (1) Her Majesty's Advocate and (2) the Advocate General for Scotland, a judgment that was delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 28 November. Aside from the somewhat unusual comments by Lord Rodger—incidentally, he ceased being the Lord Justice General for Scotland some considerable time ago—and Lord Hope, Lord Steyn's comments made clear the potentially draconian effects of that decision for prosecutors. I hope that ministers will respond to that in early course.

All those matters might have been appropriate for discussion about the Criminal Justice Bill and what we are doing about it. When we come to the chamber, however, we know that all we will hear is an argument about Sewel motions—it is groundhog day again. The SNP does not want to talk about the substance or the principle—

Oh God.

Ms Grahame makes the usual sighing noises from a sedentary position.

Only when Brian Fitzpatrick is speaking.

Christine Grahame will not rise to the challenge. We do not hear a word about the SNP's position on the details of the bill. Does the SNP want to duplicate the provisions? Does it want different provisions? We heard from Michael Matheson that the provisions on class C drugs are too severe. Does the SNP want more lenient provisions and a more lenient regime in Scotland? Of course, it will not own up to any of that. All its members will do is come to the chamber, have their usual whinge and bleat and then move on. We are told that whingeing and moaning no longer feature on the nationalist agenda for the Parliament. Sadly, the evidence for that is lacking.

I am grateful to Bill Aitken for giving the view from St Andrew's Square and I am grateful for his pragmatic view that we should consider the efficacy of the provisions. If other members want to exercise their constitutional obsession and navel gaze, we should let them. Those of us who are interested in securing justice and playing our part in the United Kingdom in relation to serious crime, serious fraud and the like should support the motion.

My contribution will be brief because I recognise that the effects on Scotland of the Criminal Justice Bill are minimal.

I ask the minister to comment on the interaction between the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill on search warrants and provisions in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which we will be considering later.

Bill Aitken referred to the fact that my colleagues down south have some reservations about double jeopardy. However, I would have liked more in the Criminal Justice Bill to be carried over into Scotland in that respect. I have argued strongly over many years about double jeopardy. I will work with my colleagues down south and try to persuade them to change their view, although I realise that they will have the final word on the bill.

I recognise the necessity of reporting restrictions; it would be nonsense not to go along with them. However, although we are talking about the rights of the prosecution, I am led to think about whether the rights of the defence should also be protected. I refer to an abuse case in Ayrshire, in which the judge determined that he would end the trial early. That meant that the accused did not get the chance to prove their innocence. There was still a stain on their names because they had not gone through the whole judicial process.

However, I recognise that, in that case, the application of reporting restrictions might have worked to the disadvantage of the defendants. At the time, the Lord Advocate stated that all was well with the prosecution. I have since found out that the two individuals who made the allegations have been paid something in the region of £22,000 for the failure of the judicial system to give them justice. In my view, the situation should have been reversed. I suspect that that is not relevant to today's debate, Presiding Officer, but I thank you for allowing me to raise the issue.

We move to some brief final comments. I call George Lyon for the Liberal Democrats.

I pass.

I call Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for the Conservatives

First, I apologise to the minister for not being present at the beginning of the debate—I was in Glasgow at the launch by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the report by the cross-party working group on religious hatred, of which I was a member.

I am glad to speak in support of the Sewel motion on the Criminal Justice Bill. On 14 November, I assured the then Deputy Minister for Justice that we would give a fair wind to measures that are designed to give greater protection to the public and to make the voices of victims louder than those of criminals. Some of the proposals, such as the one on double jeopardy, are contentious. I note that at this stage they do not relate to Scotland. If it is proposed to relate them to Scotland, it would be appropriate to put them forward in the context of Scottish Parliament legislation.

Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill relates to double jeopardy. Those provisions are not being applied to Scotland, but the proposal to introduce reporting restrictions, such that the media cannot report an application for a retrial or the details, will extend to Scotland. The aim of the Government is to avoid prejudicing future trials. I would be grateful if the minister could reassure me that such restrictions will be applied only before the application has been dismissed or before the retrial has been brought to an end.

If the minister has time, he might like to explain to us the technical difference between a deferred sentence in Scotland and a suspended sentence in England and Wales. It seems that in practice there is relatively little to choose between them. However, I understand that the relevant measure is a sensible one: it is a re-enactment and an enabling measure that will allow criminal measures to be kept up to date throughout Britain.

There are a number of drafting amendments—such as the one to take into account the new definition of community orders in England and Wales—to ensure that sentences will apply and be implemented effectively north and south of the border.

The key to the Sewel motion is that there are no fundamental changes to Scottish law. We will be content to let the Sewel motion go through.

Well, here we are again. We missed a birthday last week: it was happy 40th birthday to Sewel motions. I have a list of Sewel motions from the Scottish Parliament information centre website; it comprises sheets and sheets. What Donald Dewar thought would be a trickle has become a veritable flood. The SPICe website says that a Sewel convention is

"A colloquial term sometimes used".

Well, it is used very frequently in this chamber.

There are problems with Sewel motions. First, I will tackle the jurisdictional and constitutional issues that arise. One issue arose from a question that I asked ministers about which court would deal with the appeal process. I was told that it would be the Court of Appeal. If that court is the final court of appeal for anything, that will be in breach of the treaty of union, because the final court of appeal in Scotland on criminal matters is the High Court, sitting as the court of appeal. That is the first issue that arises from the Criminal Justice Bill. The unionists say that the bill does not impact on Scots law, but it goes to the heart of the treaty of union. I would like some answers.

Secondly, on reporting restrictions, it seems that the law of the—I always forget the English word for it.

Thingummy.

Brian Fitzpatrick can call it that if he likes; my mum was English, and she was not my enemy.

The bill encroaches on the Scots law of the interdict by the back door. At the moment, injunctions—that is the word—in England do not apply to Scotland. That has been a problem for English jurisdiction in relation to Scottish newspapers based in Scotland. By extending the law to Scotland, the bill will encroach on the interdict procedure in Scotland. That is another jurisdictional issue.

Will the member give way?

No, I have no time for Mr Fitzpatrick at any time. I do not want to hear from him.

We have problems with the scrutiny of the Criminal Justice Bill. I have hardly had an opportunity to look at the bill, because it has been rushed to this Parliament. It is being put through in England in a rush. There is no chance to look at it. Legislation in Scotland goes to a committee; it has a stage 1 procedure, a stage 2 procedure and a stage 3 procedure. There is also the opportunity to take written and oral evidence. What evidence have we had in this chamber about how our courts feel about the Criminal Justice Bill, how our sheriffs feel about it and how the Faculty of Advocates feels about it? We do not know how they feel. There are huge problems with scrutinising the bill.

We should not just sit here rubber-stamping Sewel motion after Sewel motion. Of course, I expect nothing else from Bill Aitken, who does not want us to do anything here. He wants us to pack up and go back to his home, which is Westminster. As for George Lyon, he speaks for the Janus-like Liberal Democrats, who have two faces: a face for Westminster and a face for here. They are in opposition down the road but they are going to get married up here. They can face both ways, but neither way is worth listening to. As for the Executive, it is letting the little independence that we have with devolution trickle through our fingers because of the flood of Sewel motions back to Westminster. Before the end of the debate, I want an answer to the question about the treaty of union.

I doubt that I will be the source of definitive arguments on the treaty of union. At least, I could not give an answer that Christine Grahame and others would accept. I will return to that matter shortly.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked about, among other things, the difference between a deferred sentence in Scotland and a suspended sentence in England. Far be it from me to give a legal tutorial or legal revision to someone of Lord James's expertise and experience, but I believe that, in Scotland, a deferred sentence means that no sentence is passed and the accused returns to court later for the court to determine whether they have been of good behaviour. In England, with a suspended sentence, the court imposes a sentence, which will bite if the accused behaves badly. If there is anything else that we can help with at a later stage, we surely will.

Phil Gallie and others referred to measures that they would like to see introduced in Scotland. It is interesting that the Conservatives had 18 years in which to enact some of the measures that he desperately wishes to be introduced. The Labour Government at Westminster is to be commended for moving on some of the measures that the Conservatives chose to ignore over the years.

Does the minister agree that there is some inconsistency with regard to the collection of fines? The Westminster Government is prepared to take the steps that I have proposed in this Parliament, yet the minister and his colleagues have steadfastly opposed doing so. Can he explain that inconsistency?

It is easily explained: we have a different legal system and a different set of political responsibilities. The Westminster Government is doing what is appropriate for England and Wales. We are doing what is appropriate for Scotland. The Westminster Government will learn from some of the things that we do here and, equally, there will be times when we learn from what it does in England. If anything comes from the English experience that is of benefit to Scotland, we will reflect on that.

Bill Aitken probably misquoted me when he said that I gave him some faint praise for supporting the victim ahead of the criminal. I was probably referring more to his enthusiasm for draconian sentencing in all cases and at all times. However, I confirm for him that the Home Office proposes that the word "document" should include computer material; it covers anything that is listed in the warrant. If there are any other issues, I will investigate them.

I confirm for Christine Grahame—to whom I passed a note, but I will confirm it for the record—that the Court of Appeal that is referred to in the Criminal Justice Bill is the Court of Appeal in England, as she said.

There have been some useful, specific and technical comments from SNP members. Inevitably, however, some of their comments were predictable political posturing—SNP members have not welcomed the opportunity to improve legislative operations in Scotland.

I was intrigued by Michael Matheson's conclusion that, because Annabel Ewing was the only Scottish member who spoke in the debate and because she is an SNP member, that means that the SNP is the only party interested in criminal justice. If we accept that, we must draw the conclusion that, because no SNP member participated in the debates on the minimum wage, the SNP has no interest in the minimum wage.

Michael Matheson raised a number of issues, which I will try to address. On reporting restrictions and clarity, the question is not about the jurisdiction of the court. The bill provides for reporting restrictions throughout the United Kingdom—for example, the Edinburgh and London editions of any newspaper would be affected.

In relation to comments on hostel owners and parents, it has been said that the provision in the bill increases the maximum penalty available to courts. However, the sentence passed in any specific case is a matter for the court, which will take into account the particular circumstances of the case.

Christine Grahame talked about the Court of Appeal. The equivalent reporting restrictions made, for example, by a Scottish court under section 47 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 will apply in England.

Generally, although there might be particular issues of concern—

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am just finishing.

What has been proposed has not only been largely welcomed, but is of benefit to us, despite the SNP's concerns about Sewel motions.