| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: It may help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I tell him that reading the transcript would not give a full account of the offensiveness. In one case, the defendant wore identical clothes to those he wore during the rape and deported himself in a similar way. The transcript does not give the full picture of the evil that he was committing in the court.
Mr. Campbell: There is no substitute for being present in the case. One often reads reports of cases in which one has been involved which seem to bear little resemblance to reality. I accept that there is a problem, and my only question is why a firmer hand was not taken. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor should issue some clearer directives on what is permissible.
Mr. Campbell: I must make progress, because I know that the Committee is of that mind.
There are some instances in which the accused commences the case being represented but, as the case progresses, it becomes impossible for his or her legal representatives to continue, either because the nature of the instructions changes dramatically and puts the professional position of the legal representative in jeopardy or because the instructions change so as to suggest an approach that does not amount to a defence in law. If legal representatives have withdrawn, it might be difficult to force the appointment of other legal representatives, who might find themselves faced with the same problem.
There might be almost a pantomime: the case would be adjourned so that fresh counsel could be instructed and that fresh counsel would turn up the following morning saying, "We have had a consultation with the accused, but, unfortunately, we are unable to represent him." Such circumstances could bedevil proceedings in a way that would not add to the dignity of the court.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 985
There are complicated issues involved in not just the constitutional principle but the practicality of making a rule such as that proposed in the new clause. I hope that the motion is not pressed to a Division, because I do not believe that, in the present state of our knowledge and the consultation, we would be able to reach an informed decision.
Mr. Stephen:
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned cases in which judges deal quickly and decisively with defendants who represent themselves and break the rules of procedure. Like him, I have some experience in the courts, and I fear that, in many such cases, judges are reluctant to interfere with the conduct of a defence by a defendant in person lest that be used as a ground of appeal leading to a subsequent hearing in the Court of Appeal.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's other point--if the defendant were to run a defence that is not a defence in law--there is no more reason for allowing him to run that defence in person than if he were represented by a lawyer.
Ms Janet Anderson:
This is obviously a very difficult issue, and we have no intention of pressing the motion to a Division--although I am grateful for having had the opportunity to air the subject. I am also grateful to the Minister for his concern about the problem. We are thankful that his Department is conducting its review, and we look forward to a speedy response. We hope that it will be possible to do something to end the type of problem experienced by those women.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Maclean:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in yesterday's debate on Second Reading that the Bill had one simple aim: to protect the victims of harassment. The Bill aims to give that protection, not by defining activities that are known as stalking--as we believe that such a definition will inevitably omit some activities that are distressing, or worse, to victims--but by focusing on the harm inflicted on the victim. That harm is harassment. The benefits of proceeding in such a manner are that all forms of harassment--whether stalking, racial abuse, neighbour or work disputes--are covered.
As I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I was tempted to say that I wish that I had the benefit in England of Scotland's breach of the peace provisions, about which I learned many years ago.
The Bill adopts a twin-track approach by using the civil and criminal law, both of which have a part to play in providing effective remedies to combat harassment. The new concept of a restraining order that will be available
18 Dec 1996 : Column 986
The Opposition agreed to co-operate with the Government to pass the Bill without delay. We have made some good progress today, and I am delighted with the support and assistance that we have received today. It is a matter of regret that we got a bit bogged down yesterday and that the Bill was amended in a manner that is unacceptable to the Government and absolutely unworkable in practice. We will have to take a little time in another place to put the Bill back on the straight and narrow.
Sentencing is a matter for the criminal courts, and conditions of treatment attached to sentences are a matter for them. We believe that they have ample powers to order treatment, which might be probation, intensive therapy or counselling. I believe that counselling is of value only when it is entered into voluntarily and willingly. People seek counselling, but they cannot be forced into it. Moreover, civil courts do not sentence people at all but are a forum for the resolution of disputes. However, that issue can be addressed in another place.
Mr. George Howarth:
The Minister said that counselling is effective only if it is undertaken on a voluntary basis. He should examine some of the programmes for prisoners run by the Prison Service. Prisoners are required to attend those programmes, which often achieve very good results among those who have attended on a non-voluntary basis.
Mr. Maclean:
We do not want to get into that debate now; I merely say that there is a world of difference between the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes and prisoners whose entitlement to parole or early release depends on their participating in the prison regime and other activities, such as drying out from drug dependency. Technically, attending such a programme in prison may be voluntary, but prisoners believe that, if they do not attend, they will not be granted parole. There is a sanction in prison that will not be replicated in the outside world, particularly through civil courts. However, let us not discuss that issue on Third Reading.
We will continue to place the safety and protection of the British people at the top of our agenda for action. The Bill is one of a number of measures that the Government have recently introduced in the House or in another place that, when enacted, will make the United Kingdom a safer and a better place in which to live. As I said earlier, I have no wish to delay the Bill further. The Government have set out clearly our objections to the Opposition's amendment, and we have stated our intention to put the Bill right in the other place. Victims of stalking and of other forms of harassment should not have their hopes of protection put at risk by any further delay or unnecessary amendments to the Bill.
I believe that the Bill will provide victims of harassment with the protection that they need. The Bill's provisions strike the right balance between the need to give reassurance and protection to victims and the need not to constrain legitimate activity, whether it is the action of journalists, private investigators, debt collectors or, of course, politicians.
Ms Janet Anderson:
The Opposition had always intended to be fully co-operative on the Bill, because, like the Minister and Conservative Members, we recognise the need to bring relief to the victims of stalking as quickly as possible. The intention of our amendments, therefore--despite what some hon. Members may think--was not to obstruct. I should tell the Minister that, had we intended to be obstructive, we would have pushed our definition to a Division. We chose not to do so, because we wanted to facilitate the Bill's passage. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust agreed that our amendments were intended to improve the Bill, and that was their intention.
As the Minister has mentioned yesterday's events, I should mention the reason for what we did. Criminal courts already have powers--which have been confirmed and backed by the Government--to provide counselling to confront offenders' criminal behaviour. However, as the Bill is drafted, that power would arise only when an injunction was breached--when a defendant resumed his stalking--and would be dealt with only by applying the much higher burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt. As we know, many stalkers are obsessive, and firm action to confront their offending behaviour may have to be taken as quickly as possible. The threat of imprisonment is also necessary if victims are to be properly protected.
That is why, last night, the Opposition moved amendment No. 13, to provide county courts with power to order counselling when making an anti-stalking injunction. In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said:
5.51 pm
"We mean not some pleasant chat over a cup of tea . . . but the sort of counselling that forces offenders to face up to their offending behaviour".--[Official Report, 17 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 838.]
The Minister claimed in his speech that our amendments were unworkable. I refer him to the leader page of tonight's Evening Standard, which rightly states:
"Tony Blair, promised to cooperate with the Home Secretary in getting"
the Bill
"through the House without delay",
and that the Home Secretary
"is now accusing Labour of going back on its word by putting up amendments to the Bill which would clarify what it means by harassment."
18 Dec 1996 : Column 988
The Evening Standard goes on to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Labour counterpart
"is right to insist on scrutiny. Mr. Howard's Bill, like so much of the legislation which has emerged from the Home Office during his tenure, shows signs of clumsy and over-hasty drafting."
I hope that the Minister will accept that we tabled our amendments with the best of intentions, and we hope that Ministers will give them--particularly the amendment that the House passed last night--serious consideration.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |