Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his sterling performance, but I disagree with most of what he said. I hope that the House welcomes this debate, and I am trying to find the head of the pin on which the Secretary of State for Justice was dancing so that I can join him there. I hope that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will press new clauses 8 and 9 to a vote. In supporting the Opposition's arguments, I want briefly to show why new clause 6 is defective. As the shadow Attorney-General has said, the law should be simple, precise and easy to apply, and that is why the Secretary of State has had the hindsight to come forward with the new clause, which I welcome. However, as the shadow Justice Secretary has said, it simply does not go far enough. I want to focus on the two tests. One is the test of force—we are arguing about whether force is grossly disproportionate or disproportionate, so it is a matter of semantics—and the other is reasonableness. The main reason why new clause 6 is defective is that it does not give enough guidance. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify for the House how the joint Association of Chief Police Officers/Crown Prosecution Service statement is to be amended. I believe that new clause 8, in particular, is clearer and would make it easier for a jury or court to reach a decision. New clause 6(1)(b) contains the phrase ““reasonable in the circumstances””, but what would those circumstances be and who would judge? Would the reasonable man on the jury decide, or would the reasonable prosecutor decide whether a prosecution would be brought? Furthermore, subsection (4) states:"““The degree of force…is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in those circumstances””." Again, the Secretary of State's argument is flimsy and unconvincing in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman is such a nice person; perhaps that is why he chose the word ““nicety”” for subsection (5)(a). However, ““nicety”” is not even as clear as the current joint statement, one of whose sentences starts:"““So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment””." I do not believe that new clause 6 brings anything extra to that. Subsection 5(b) states:"““only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose””—" presumably, self-defence. New clause 6 is simply too weak.