Question proposed, That this schedule be the fourth schedule to the Bill.

Very briefly, for reasons that I think were made obvious in the earlier debate, we reserve our position on the schedule. We would like to see what the Minister can provide us with. It may well be that, on Report, the key amendment will aim to restrict the number of offences on which retrial can take place.

I have indicated our view. If there is a vote, we shall oppose the schedule because we have a clear view that it ought to be limited to the offences that the Law Commission recommended and not apply more widely.

The Minister earlier gave as an example the number of acquittals and convictions on the wounding offence. As I recollect, there were 2,000 or so convictions in a total of more than 3,000 cases; therefore, basing my calculation on the figures supplied by the Minister, there were more than 1,000 acquittals—in one year, I believe. My understanding is that if we extend the offences as proposed, from the two or three suggested by the Law Commission to the 29 now suggested by the Government, and taking only the offence for which there is the largest number of trials—although there will be a large number for aggravated robbery—we are looking at thousands of offences and thousands of acquittals a year. The Government's proposals seem to me to have changed the case entirely so that the provision will not be exclusive, but will apply in general circumstances.

Can the Minister confirm that he will at some stage put in the Library, or on the record in another way, the best existing evidence for the number of trials, convictions and acquittals that have taken place on those 29 offences during a reasonable recent period? I apologise to him if he has already done that.

I want to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think that the Committee as a whole has accepted that in cases involving DNA, there is a real argument for re-examining murder and other offences. Even the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Say that, in future, DNA evidence comes to light in a case of really brutal gang rape. Is it his position that such an offence should not be included in the schedule?

I am personally very sympathetic towards including rape. I am on the record as saying that, for example in the earlier Westminster Hall debate. Others take the view that we should limit the offences to those that the Law Commission has recommended, but I do not feel bound to hold that view. The other categories that I want to be included are rape and attempted rape offences.

I am conscious that, in that grouping, four of the 29 offences are sexual offences. The others referred to are intercourse with a girl under 13, and incest with a girl aged under 13. I am sympathetic to including those offences, as well. To be blunt and honest, apart from the general proposition that we should consider all

offences for which there is life imprisonment by statute, I have never seen any proposition in favour of the two offences in the list that trouble me: the wounding offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; and No. 15 in the list, which covers robbery offences under the Theft Act 1968, and the Firearms Act 1968. The reason that I am most nervous about those is the huge number of such offences that are tried every year.

I will deal with the point raised about narrowing the list of offences in schedule 4 and adding gang rape. Something as controversial as gang rape, murder, genocide or any such high-profile case will attract an enormous amount of publicity at the outset. When an application is made to the Court of Appeal, it has to be based on the first criterion in the interests of justice under clause 66, and the court must be persuaded that it is likely that a fair trial will follow. Given that there will be so much publicity at the first trial, how in heaven's name can the hon. Gentleman be convinced that the Court of Appeal will be able to make the clause workable?

The hon. Lady knows that that is our greatest concern, and that the Ministers have not answered it, even though they are the people responsible for putting the Bill through Parliament.

There is a paradox. The cases that one will most want to be retried are the very cases about which there will have been the most publicity beforehand. Because woundings and robberies are less likely to attract media publicity to the same extent, and fewer people will remember the case, it is theoretically more possible to get a fair trial. There will therefore be a twin-track change in the justice system whereby very serious cases cannot be retried, but less serious cases can be.

Our party collectively took a majority view—I will read it on the record to be fair to my colleagues—that we should allow the prosecution to appeal against future acquittals in very serious cases where fresh and compelling evidence of guilt emerges that could not have been presented at the original trial. The view was taken of the options in the debate was that the provisions should not be retrospective. The Liberal Democrats did not form a view that limited the number of offences to a particular one or two. They took the view that ''very serious cases'' was an appropriate category.

To avoid a false impression being generated by the numbers, it is a commonplace in the criminal courts that when people are charged under section 18—wounding with intent, or causing grievous bodily harm with intent—they plead guilty to section 20, which covers ordinary wounding. Many of the acquittals involving section 18 offences would not be candidates for the new provision. Similarly, but not so often, robbery is charged and theft, or theft plus an assault, is accepted as a plea. That would technically be acquittal, but it would not be a candidate for these provisions. To look at the figures and say that we shall be inundated is not so easy. I do not believe that we shall.

I understand the hon. Lady's point. A considerable number of wounding cases came my

way when I practised criminal law. Very frequently, the more serious offence was put on the indictment so that the guilty plea to the less serious offence would be accepted.

That leads us to the general issue of overt plea bargaining, which goes to the heart of the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service works. My honest view, which has the demerit of simplicity, is that if the CPS believes that a charge merits going to trial because there is a greater than 50 per cent. chance of conviction and it is in the public interest, only in exceptional circumstances should that charge not be the charge that is tried. I would deviate from that procedure only if something came to the attention of the CPS that made the evidence on which it had made its assessment shaky—for example, if somebody who was expected to be available became unavailable, or a person who was expected to come up to proof did not.

I have a problem with the arbitrary way in which charges are accepted and pleaded to. More than anything else in the criminal justice system, it depends on the lawyers on both sides and, to a lesser extent, on the judge of the day. It is the most unpredictable bit of the system. Therefore, I absolutely accept what the hon. and learned Lady says about the reasonableness of not regarding numbers as everything. However, I still have a great concern that, by including robbery and wounding, we are including matters that, in the public domain, are not in the category of the most serious offences.

I have no doubt that we shall return to the matter when we consider later stages of the Bill. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall provide the information that he has requested on convictions and acquittals, as far as it is available.

Might I have some clarification in respect of offences Nos. 9 and 10—intercourse with a girl aged under 13 and incest by a man with a girl aged under 13? What is the technical or political reason for the absence of reference to equivalent offences against boys?

That is an absolutely—

Would the Minister like to give way?

If the hon. Gentleman is going to make a helpful intervention, I shall be delighted to give way.

First, I do not think that there is an equivalent offence. Secondly, in any event, it is odd that that should be in the Bill, because it is going to be turned over by the sexual offences Bill.

That was a most helpful intervention, as I anticipated it would be. The second point is really the answer; the will be subject to further legislation that some of us may spend yet more happy hours considering in another Committee.

Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

I now intend to suspend the Committee for 15 minutes so that I can recover, even if nobody else does.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—