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

I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one question, although it is not a specific consequence of the suggested wording to amend the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

I shall use an example without prejudice to the issues, although I am conscious that this case has not yet been tried. There is concern, which has been expressed from many quarters over a considerable time, that delay can occur in the preliminary stages of criminal proceedings at the instigation of solicitors, defendants or those advising on the medical condition of defendants. Such delay prevents the normal time limits from running within which certain steps must be taken—the time limit for the bringing of charges and the time limit on holding someone at a police station. It is publicly known that that was the case in relation to the arrests that followed the deaths of the two young girls in Cambridgeshire last year. I am not saying anything that was not in the public domain. As a result of applications by the defence for regular adjournments and applications to do with mental health and so on, the dates on which the defendants were taken back to the magistrates court were put back for a considerable time. It is a common issue; that was not a unique experience.

The normal provision that a person can be held for no longer than a certain time protects people's civil liberties and prevents them from being held indefinitely, but that is abused—I use the word widely—if the two issues are not interrelated. For example, there should always be a requirement for someone to be interviewed. If one is imposing a requirement on the prosecution to interview a person by a certain time in order to decide whether a charge should proceed, the defence should properly be expected to attend an interview in the same time. At least there should be a limit: the defence should not be able to continue to delay the proceeding.

Someone who is arrested may say that they want to see not just a solicitor but a doctor, or the solicitor may say, ''I want the person to see a doctor, because I am not sure that they would be fit, whether physically or mentally, to plead or to answer questions''. My understanding—I do not pretend to be an expert on this procedural set of issues—is that again there can be considerable delays, which conflict with the idea that there is a time limit and that everyone will proceed quickly.

I have not given the Solicitor-General notice; I am not trying to trap her into a quick answer. She may not have thought about the issue or discussed it with her colleague, the Attorney-General, or with the Director of Public Prosecutions, but there is concern that there can be an indefinite delay to the current time requirements because people use arguments to do with inability to attend or to get translators or medical evidence. I ask the Solicitor-General to write to me and colleagues before Report, saying whether the Government are alert to those concerns, have received other representations and are minded to make a proposal to deal with the issue. In principle, proposals to deal with it would be welcome. I should be happy to be consulted, as I am sure Conservative Members would be, if the Government thought fit.

The clause looks a bit obscure at first sight, but its purpose is straightforward. It relates to the situation where the prosecutor appeals before the beginning of the trial.

Section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 allows the Secretary of State to set time limits, both general and, more specifically, relating to the custody of the defendant, which apply to the preliminary stages of criminal proceedings. The time limits do not apply to the trial itself. If the prosecution were to appeal against a terminating ruling made before the start of the trial, the time limits prescribed under section 22 of the 1985 Act would continue to apply. The time allowed for the preliminary stages, or for the defendant's custody, would expire, thus bringing them to an end or requiring the defendant to be released before the appeal had been concluded. The clause remedies that potential problem by suspending the time limits pending the outcome of the appeal.

I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's additional points about issues of delay. I give an undertaking to write to him, and we shall consult him if we consider making new proposals on Report or later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.