Police and Justice Bill

I shall give the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General just another moment to catch his breath by saying that I was surprised as him that the previous two groups of amendments were not moved and we thereby reached a point which I thought would not be with us until Thursday. We now reach one of the most contentious parts of the Bill, where the Government seek to extend significantly the way in which conditional cautions may operate. I shall speak to my Amendment No. 92, which is grouped with Amendment No. 91E. The Minister in the other place, Hazel Blears, acknowledged in Committee that this was a ““radical departure”” from current law, at col. 167 on 23 March. The risk is that summary justice could increasingly be meted out in inappropriate cases by the police and CPS, instead of by the courts. I say that with some trepidation with the noble and learned Lord who has responsibility for the CPS before me. He is a redoubtable defender of its ability in this House. I was extremely fortunate to be able to have a meeting with the DPP a short while ago. I feel sure that he will do everything in his power to make sure that the CPS is indeed fit for purpose, to use a favourite phrase of the Government. That is not said snidely; I was certainly very impressed by his determination to lead the CPS forward. Amendment No. 91E raises interesting questions about what should be the objectives of conditional cautions. Amendment No. 92, in my name, seeks to develop that debate. It would ensure that, if punishment is to be accepted as a new condition in the terms of this Bill, then the punitive conditions that can be imposed should be confined to those specified in the Bill. Conditional cautions were, of course, introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. How could I forget? I sat through the whole Bill over its many months in this House. It specifically confined the imposition of cautions to rehabilitation or reparation. Of course, those are currently being piloted. Clause 15 of this Bill now proposes that conditions can be attached for the purpose of punishing the offender. The Bill includes financial penalties and community service as examples of punitive conditions that could be imposed on cautions. It does not prevent other conditions being imposed in future. If this clause is to be in the Bill, the punitive conditions should be confined to those included in it now. I do not believe that the Government have yet justified the case for allowing an extension of punitive conditions in future by order. There has been no public debate on the matter. What consultation has there been of those who represent the interests of victims on the future extension of punitive conditions to other disposals? When and what was their response? What consultation has there been with the Magistrates’ Association on these specific matters? Again, what was its advice? We are taking a very serious step by accepting Clause 15 wholesale; it is a clause that should not be taken lightly. I have sought to group my amendments in four separate groups, in order that we may have—I hope—a constructive debate on the major issues we need to face in deciding whether we accept all the provisions of Clause 15. I very much look forward to the debates we will have tonight and, in particular, on Thursday and at later stages. I hope that by the end of those debates we will have a conditional caution system that is robust and fair, but does not seek to encroach too far on the proper role of the courts.