Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Interpretation clauses are normally pretty dry and boring, but it is important to put one

point on the record. The Bill is not just for lawyers and judges but for everyone. Some of the debates between Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues from all parties have been very learned, and the lawyers among us have really got stuck in, but few people outside the House will understand much of what we have said. Indeed, there have been times when I have got lost, and I am sure that other non-lawyer colleagues have felt the same.

Interpretation means getting across to people what the law means. The law is owned and used by people outside the House; it is not simply an issue for those involved with the courts in some capacity or another. Although the Minister will not be able to say much in his immediate response—I do not expect it to be lengthy—I urge him to take away with him the concept of making our law more comprehensible to the ordinary person and to end people's alienation from the criminal justice system.

We can all give examples of the problem as regards policing, but we are now considering how our courts interpret policy. I beg the Minister and his colleagues, during their tenure in government, to bear in mind the fact that that they are passing law to make people's lives better, so please will they explain what they are doing in terminology that ordinary police officers, probation officers and lay people can understand? We talk about Crown courts instead of regional criminal courts, magistrates courts instead of local courts, and stipendiaries and magistrates instead of local judges. We almost delight in making our criminal justice system obscure. That is particularly true in respect of clause 17.

The famous case of Pepper v. Hart allows the courts to use Hansard as a guide to interpreting the law in certain circumstances. Will my hon. Friend the Minister think about the suggestion that the explanatory notes, when carefully crafted, should be used to explain some of the more obscure legal concepts in the Bill? That would help everyone else to understand what we are doing here and what Parliament is doing on their behalf. It would save millions of pounds in court time and head off many expensive disputes. Perhaps I am too cynical about the legal profession, but that might be why we have not made as much progress as we should have done. Will he consider whether there is a better way of reconnecting with people outside? These are important issues, and we need the public to understand what we are doing.

As my hon. Friend will have detected from my comments to the hon. Member for Witney about what is described as the Ronseal approach, I have considerable sympathy for his point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General looks puzzled. Ronseal does exactly what it says on the tin. In other words, the wording is very clear. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend on that point. Here, we are having a clause stand part discussion, yet if someone wandered in and sat in the Public Gallery, they would wonder what we were up to. The language has developed from the way in which things were done in the past, but that does not mean that we should not constantly ask ourselves whether we are explaining

things and legislating in a way that will allow the courts to make precise interpretations. In some cases, it is necessary for the language to be obscure, but we should always ask whether we are doing things in a way that helps people to understand the job that we are doing on their behalf.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.