---

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my hon. Friend agree that at least one charge that cannot be made against the Labour party is that of inconsistency? Have not Labour Members been consistent in opposing all measures in which we have tried to crack down on crime, and, indeed, on terrorism? They either vote against such measures--

The Chairman: Order. The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

9.45 pm

Mr. Hughes: That was indeed a disgraceful intervention, but my hon. Friend is right. Bills that are currently being delayed in Committee--I shall not list them--could be rushed through the House if we could take the Labour party at its word.

Amendment No. 4 proposes that we leave out a whole lump of the Bill. Why are those exclusions in the Bill in the first place? I think that it comes down to something that we see time and again. In this place, it is easy to be critical of judges and magistrates and the arguments advanced by lawyers, and to say, "Surely they must have

17 Dec 1996 : Column 849

understood what we were trying to do; surely they understand what sort of criminals we are trying to catch. Why have they interpreted the law in that way?"

We all know that it is sometimes difficult to understand the exact intent of a Bill. That does not imply that Ministers do not mean to introduce clauses whose intent is clear, or that the lawyers--the parliamentary draftsmen--do not sweat blood to try to ensure that clauses are comprehensible and will have the desired effect. In the lines that the Labour party wants to leave out, exclusions have been made with the aim of clarifying the legislation, so that matters will be clear when a case comes to court--so that we know why and how people will be convicted, and there will be no let-out in the small print of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) wants to leave out those lines, and, for all I know, he is supported by Opposition Front Benchers. If he is not, Opposition Front Benchers will no doubt explain why. The hon. Gentleman seeks to make a muddle of what is currently a very clear Bill.

Amendment No. 25 would insert in clause 8, at line 36, the words:

"In considering whether to order an interdict or interim interdict in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests".

We all see what those who tabled the amendment are trying to protect. We all know that people who could come into that category might well have a legitimate interest, although some of us would find it rather hard to believe that certain journalists have a legitimate interest, given the pursuing that they do.

Because of the form in which those who tabled the amendment are seeking to insert it in the Bill, however, it would have a wrecking effect--although, in procedural terms, it is not a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Committee will resist it, and that the Labour party will not seek to press it. Labour Members found themselves in a numerical majority earlier tonight, and no doubt they are now seeking to make hay with that; but seeking to add amendments such as this to the Bill, and to delete important parts of it, is highly irresponsible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): I have been following my hon. Friend's interesting argument. Does he not accept that the Bill has widespread support, not only in the House but outside, and that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber--indeed, members of all parties--seek to enact it as early as possible, establishing clear, firm law? Why does he think that the amendments were tabled? They certainly do not add to the strength or reason of the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: Characteristically, my hon. Friend makes his points clearly. He is a clear-spoken man. He knows what he wants, sets out to achieve those things and is much admired in the House of Commons for that.

Mr. Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am confused by the drafting of the amendments, which is self-contradictory. Amendment No. 14 talks about

"the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests."

Amendment No. 25 talks about

17 Dec 1996 : Column 850

"the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests".

I fully understand that that may refer to someone pursuing something in a court of law, but it is highly ambiguous in the context of someone referring to stalking, as it is called, because the pursuer may be seen in the court as a person who is persistently harassing someone. Are we not therefore deliberately and wilfully drawing up ambiguous legislation that may be misinterpreted in a court of law?

The Chairman: In relation to my selection, the guiding factor is whether the amendments are sufficiently cognate to be discussed together, and they are.

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wish to raise an important point of order for the whole Committee.

As you know, a few minutes ago, the Government were defeated on amendment No. 13, the effect of which is to require county courts to be able to order, where they so wish, counselling with a view to requiring the offenders to confront their offending behaviour. The aim is for the provision to be piloted by courts before coming fully into force throughout Britain. It is unusual, first, for the Government to be defeated by seven votes, as they have been, and, secondly, for progress without agreement to be made so swiftly on a Bill.

As we know, the Report stage will take place tomorrow. In view of that, Mr. Morris, do you agree that, before the 10 o'clock motion, we need a statement from Ministers explaining what their provisional attitude is to the amendment--after all, they have had many days to consider the amendment since it was tabled--and what their intentions are tomorrow when they come before the House? Do they intend to accept the amendment which, properly drafted, can be incorporated into the Bill or to try to remove it?

The Chairman: This is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman and will seek to respond as they believe appropriate.

Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister of State has now come into the Chamber. He is in charge of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. That part of the proceedings is due to finish at 10 o'clock. May we hear from him whether he intends to make a statement tonight, bearing it in mind that, for the convenience of the House, amendments for the Report stage will need to be tabled tonight or, at the latest, tomorrow morning? May I have your clarification on that as well?

The Chairman: Hon. Members will have heard my ruling, and it remains unchanged.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: Is this another point of order?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, it is. It is on the proceedings of the House.

I understand that amendments for Report stage cannot be tabled until the Committee has reported. That means, therefore, that Members have to have, in manuscript form,

17 Dec 1996 : Column 851

the amendments that they would like to table, to hand in as soon as you move from one Chair to another. At that point, it is necessary for the House to have some idea of what is going to happen. I should have thought that it would be helpful, in making the selection, for the occupant of the Chair to have some idea of what is going to happen. It would appear to be difficult for the occupant of the Chair, in moving from one Chair to the other to start the Report stage, to make the selection, as it were, on the hoof. Would you give us some guidance on how we can make sensible progress on this issue?

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing such concern for the Chair. I confirm that what he said on procedure is entirely correct, but I learned long ago to cross bridges when they are in front of me, not in anticipation of them.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. To those of us sitting here, it rather looks as though the Opposition do not want to carry on with the Bill. I do not know whether they are inviting you to do something to stop the proceedings, but if they are, the country ought to know that the Opposition are opposing an extremely important Bill.

The Chairman: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Chair is here to serve the House until such hour as the House chooses to cease its debate.

Several hon. Members rose--

The Chairman: Order all round. I have given some helpful rulings, I think, and fair points of order have been raised. I would rather get on with the Bill, but if there are new dimensions to discuss, I will accept further points of order. They had better be new ones.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have scanned the Bill and I can see no definition of the word "pursuer". Could you enlighten the House whether pursuer--

The Chairman: Order. That is nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Straw: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Morris, on one more occasion. Further to that point of order, and in response to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), may I make it clear that we have agreed, and we stick by the agreement, to co-operate with the Government in getting the Bill through? However, it is also for the Government to co-operate with the House in ensuring that the Bill gets through. The Committee has expressed its will this evening by 179 votes to 172 in respect of amendment No. 13. It is incumbent on Ministers on the Treasury Bench to facilitate progress on the Bill tomorrow.

---