'.—(1) In the circumstance where a child suffers death or serious injury while two people have responsibility for it, and it is not possible to establish which party was responsible for the death or injury, the following shall apply and both parties shall be jointly liable to prosecution.

(2) After section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12), there shall be inserted the following:

''Section 1A—Illtreatment etc. of children

If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, illtreats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or causes or procures him to be assaulted, illtreated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), and as a consequence of such conduct the child or young person dies or suffers serious injury, that person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding fourteen years.''

(3) Where in any proceedings against a person who has attained the age of sixteen years and who has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, for an offence of murder, manslaughter, assault or an offence contrary to sections 1 or 1A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, upon such child or young person evidence is given that the accused at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (4) below applies.

(4) Where this subsection applies—

(a) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer; and

(b) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,

may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.

(5) Where in any proceedings against a person who has attained the age of sixteen years and who has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, for an offence of murder, manslaughter, assault or an offence contrary to sections 1 or 1A

of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, upon such child or young person evidence is given that the accused at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, made a statement which incriminated any coaccused as to that offence, that statement shall be evidence against the coaccused in any trial or other proceedings in connection with that or a related offence.'.—[Vera Baird.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

I will not detain the Committee much longer. I warn hon. Members against the trap that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) almost lurched into of thinking that to kill a baby is less serious than to murder an adult, and that it can be excused by extenuating circumstances. We must be careful not to go too far down that road, although it may be one reason why the legal profession has got itself into a Gordian knot over the issue. The time has come to cut that knot, not only in the interests of justice but to ensure public confidence in justice. I strongly urge the Minister to take whatever steps are necessary to translate into urgent action the strong desire that we know exists in the Home Office to address the problem.

The Bill is the obvious vehicle for achieving that. Failing that, one hopes that the issue will be addressed soon in another Bill. New clause 27 is not perfect, but it is a practical and workable method of addressing a problem that has been with us for far too long. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

I am genuinely pleased that new clause 27 has been tabled, and I am grateful to those of my hon. Friends who put their names to it, for the simple reason that it is evident from the debate that it covers an extremely important area of the law. This issue has proved intractable for far too long, and the Government are committed to dealing with it.

It is wholly wrong that those who abuse children, and particularly those implicated in their killing, should be able to play the system and get away with such crimes simply because it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt which part each individual played. It goes to the heart of public confidence, which my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) mentioned.

As we have heard, we are talking about circumstances where the police cannot find out which of a number of suspects—most commonly two—committed the crime. Too often, when one person shelters the other, both escape justice. We cannot allow that to continue. I have listened with great interest to the debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. There is a lot in the new clause to which the Government are attracted.

However, as the debate has clearly illustrated—this is why it has been such a good debate—we are dealing with an extremely complex and difficult aspect of the law. That is why the problem has been intractable for some time.

We must ensure that we get reform of the law right, and in explaining why I shall touch briefly on two issues that came up in the debate. First, there is nothing in the new clause that would prevent an adverse inference being decisive on guilt, a point that has been raised in the debate. That raises issues relating to European convention rights; to get things right, we must provide suitable safeguards to ensure compatibility.

Secondly, the drawing of inference under the new clause is based a failure to mention facts that one could reasonably expect to have been mentioned. I tell my hon. Friends—I think that this was acknowledged during the debate—that the provisions might not be the most effective way to tackle such cases, because by definition those cases suffer from a lack of evidence. Often it will not be possible for the prosecution to show the facts that they contend the defendants have not mentioned. If inferences are to be drawn, it may be more effective to draw them from a general failure to explain the circumstances of the injury to the child, rather than from a failure to mention specific facts.

However, we all recognise that further work is necessary to get a solution that delivers the results that every member of the Committee wants. Hon. Members have alluded to the work of the NSPCC and to the fact that the Law Commission is working on proposals that will contribute enormously to the debate. The nub of the issue is that we need to take account of the Law Commission's work. As we have heard, it published an informal document in December, and we understand that a further document will be published in the near future. I also understand that the Law Commission's thinking has evolved between publishing the document in December and preparing the document that we are promised. Given those circumstances, it is only right and proper to wait and see what the Law Commission publishes.

We should ensure that a copy of today's debate is passed to the Law Commission, so that as part of its work it can consider the comments that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made. I also give my hon. Friends the absolute assurance that the Government want to take action on the issue. We are committed to legislating on the matter, once we have found the right solution. We have made progress, but we are not quite there yet. That is why we are keen to see the Law Commission's further views, which it has promised it will publish shortly. We will then proceed with legislation as quickly as possible, either in the Bill if there is still time, or in a future Bill, because we are committed to making a difference on that aspect of the law.

In light of those clear assurances of the Government's determination to act, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will withdraw the motion. I assure my hon. Friends that we shall return to the issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for his words. I should like to compliment the participants in the debate and thank them for their help with the issue, which is not straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham made a strong contribution about public confidence, and his argument is extremely important.

I compliment the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his common-sense, lay analysis of the situation which gave me a good deal of support. I echo the question that he asked towards the end of his contribution: if not now, when? I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that the answer is ''as soon as possible''. He knows that he can rely on not being allowed to let that drift for very long. ''Possible'' is a term of which I shall remind him.

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on his contribution, and particularly on his references to clause 21. I apologise if I took rather longer to open the debate this morning than some members of the Committee may have thought appropriate. It is not a straightforward issue, and it was important to set out at some length not only the problems but the groping towards a solution. It was also slightly less perfect than I might have hoped because I had no foreknowledge that my hon. Friend's clock was not working. [Interruption.] I sense a defamation action coming on.

Finally, I thank the Law Commission, which has been as helpful as it could have been, both in allowing me to know what its deliberations were and in reserving its thoughts on, and pointers towards, what was coming until it felt able to make them public because it was satisfied that the Home Office had received its submission.

I had intended to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but he is not here. I make no point about his absence, but he summed up by saying that his only objection was to subsection (5), which gave him the heeby-jeebies. That is a difficult concept to argue against; consequently I shall not try to do so.

It is remiss of me not to have mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield cannot be with us until about 2.50 pm and, through me, sends his apologies to the Committee; no discourtesy is intended. I shall pass on any comments that the hon. and learned Lady makes.

I am grateful. The answers would have involved another trawl through a certain amount of legalism and in the absence of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield there is not much point in inflicting that on the rest of the Committee. I am content, up to a point, with the assurances that have been given.

Dr. Turner: All that I want to add to my hon. and learned Friend's comments is to ask the Minister whether his earnest endeavours will result in the issue's being addressed in new clauses tabled during the remaining, fairly long passage of the Bill or in an almost equally imminent Bill that can bear it. A nod will satisfy me.

If I may intervene, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that if we can find a solution on which there is general agreement, and if the Bill remains under consideration, we would address the matter in the Bill. However, the Whips and others would not let me give an assurance about future legislative vehicles. I meant what I said about seeking to legislate as soon as we have a policy on which we have all agreed and with which the Law Commission is happy.

I thank my hon. Friend, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.