I beg to move amendment No. 954, in

clause 60, page 37, line 44, after 'of', insert—

'(i) before the relevant date,'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 955.

The amendments are straightforward and wholly consequential upon part 2 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Section 22(1) provides that the Attorney-General for England and Wales shall no longer be the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Clause 60(10)(b) of the Bill provides that prosecutions for breaches of reporting restrictions can only be brought in Northern Ireland with the consent of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Therefore, the subsection is no longer apt.

We have decided that any prosecutions under this clause should be brought in Northern Ireland instead, with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. That will provide sufficient safeguard on the use of the powers.

I hope that it is not arrogant or improper of me, but I know that the hon. Member for North Down, were she here, would greatly welcome the amendments. If I may, I should like to do so on her behalf. Having heard her hold forth on the subject, I will report back to her so that she can reprimand me if I am acting improperly. The provisions seem constitutionally proper, and it is important to get the matter right. There has been concern in Northern Ireland about the lack of integrity and separation of the system, given that the decision was taken some

time ago to have a separate prosecutorial process to maintain the independence of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that the hon. Member for North Down will be glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has championed her cause in her absence.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 955, in

clause 60, page 37, line 45, at end insert

'or

(ii) on or after the relevant date, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

(11) In subsection (10) ''the relevant date'' means the date on which section 22(1) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c.26) comes into force.'.—[Ms Harman.]

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

This is my fourth and last contribution of the day, and it goes back to my debate with the Solicitor-General on the previous clause. It is welcome that proceedings for an offence under the clause require the consent of the Attorney-General in England and Wales or of the equivalent officer for Northern Ireland, and that is clearly proper. However, the clause raises a number of substantive issues.

First, the penalty envisaged in subsection (9) is a fine on summary conviction, which will not exceed level 5. Given that we are talking about a corporate offence, that seems unduly lenient. I take a hard view of those who interfere with the criminal justice system, and we must reserve significant penalties for them, including imprisonment.

That raises another issue, on which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) touched when he made a parallel with health and safety legislation. Indeed, other colleagues also made similar points a couple of weeks ago. The provisions are quite properly intended to ensure that individuals are held liable, and there can be no escape from liability simply because everyone in an organisation says ''It's nothing do with us, guv.'' If that happens, responsibility can be passed up and down the management tree and across the boardroom, only to go out of the window at the end of the day.

The provisions are welcome, and I ask the Solicitor-General simply to note and reflect on the punishment point and to seek a more agreeable consensus. However, will she ask her Home Office colleagues—it is they who will be leading on this issue, although there will be other departmental interest—what has happened to similar proposals on corporate manslaughter? The Government are committed to them in principle, and they would provide for us to hold firms responsible for the most serious crimes in a way that is realistic and makes people take notice. You will recall, Mr. Cran, that that was the major issue after the ''Herald of Free Enterprise'' incident, and it arose again after the ''Marchioness'' incident, which occurred much closer to the Solicitor-General's home and mine.

I have three questions in that regard. First, will the Government look again at the appropriateness of the maximum fine? It is too low, and imprisonment should be permitted. Secondly, will they look at the issue in the context of punishment across the board for those who interfere with the course of justice to ensure that penalties are tough enough for breaches? Thirdly, will the perfectly proper way of holding corporate Britain to account under the system before us be reflected in an early announcement and early progress on corporate manslaughter? That could be adequately reflected in the Bill if the Government were minded to introduce such an offence, although I appreciate that consultation would be needed and it may not possible to introduce it before Report, because that would raise concerns about there not having been proper debate.

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions corporate manslaughter, and I readily acknowledge that there are difficulties in prosecuting it. Indeed, the first example that I sent him of terminal rulings that had finished a case but were not currently appealable was that of a corporate manslaughter case. Rulings in corporate manslaughter cases, as with all other rulings, will be able to be appealed against under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we are planning any changes with regard to corporate manslaughter. As he knows, my fellow Ministers have made statements about the issue being under continuous review. However, I take the point, as will my colleagues, that he is pressing for progress.

I think that my colleagues will also reflect on the point about the £5,000 punishment. That, again, has been a recurring theme, and as we draw to the twilight of the Bill, I can say that there has been consistency with all the other times that the Committee has voted on penalties at this level, on many of which concerns have been expressed. We want consistency, but the points made stand.

Clause 60 imposes sanctions for breaching the reporting restrictions set out in clause 59. Obviously, there cannot be restrictions without a sanction for breaking them. The clause defines in detail in subsections (2) to (4) who is guilty of an offence if clause 59 is breached.

Subsections (5) to (7) deal with situations when the breach has been committed by a body corporate. That

is required because any media containing a breach of the restrictions are likely to be operated by companies.

Subsection (8) applies the same general principles as subsection (5) to partnerships under Scottish law. The restrictions and the offences are United Kingdomwide so there is no question, for example, of a breach of English reporting restrictions being lawful in Northern Ireland.

I draw particular attention, as did the hon. Gentleman, to subsection (10) as amended. Proceedings in England and Wales under this clause may not be instituted without the permission of the Attorney-General. Proceedings in Northern Ireland may not be instituted without the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

A person who is guilty of the offence is liable on summary conviction to a maximum of a level 5 fine which is, as the hon. Gentleman said, currently £5,000.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.