| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the Minister for having set out with such clarity the Government's thinking on this matter. The question that I asked him in the course of what he had to say was designed not to be hostile but to explore some of the issues.
There are undoubtedly different and, to my mind, perfectly legitimate ways of approaching the issue. That of the Opposition, as set out in amendment No. 51, is designed to bring the matter in line with judicial review and then allow the usual exceptions which would be considered on any judicial review application to apply if the application were out of time. It is well enough known that many applications in judicial review are made out of time and accepted out of time.
The one matter that concerns me slightly--I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's view on it--is that it seems that one perhaps unintended consequence of the way in which the Government have seen fit to put in a limitation period is that we may well start seeing new and creative ways of trying to litigate the question of a human rights breach because the three-month period has expired before the complainant goes to his solicitor to complain. I shall widen that a little, so that the Minister understands what I am saying.
It seems that, if we have a three-month period, which is the same as that for judicial review, it will normally be incumbent upon the litigant to go within that period. However, as often happens, there will be occasions when the three-month period cannot be met. An application will be made to the court, explaining and stating the reasons, and the court will exercise its discretion.
I am bound to say that, with the one-year limitation period being inserted, which is really incompatible with the judicial review period of three months, I anticipate that there may be a slight inclination, if a solicitor is approached after five months by a potential litigant seeking redress, to say, "You are outside the time for judicial review, although we could apply and ask for that time to be waived, but should we be looking for some other mechanism by which we should be seeking redress?" Is it not the case that, if someone is to launch proceedings, he or she will want some certainty? No one would want the first set to be knocked out of touch, which would mean trying to initiate a second set of parallel proceedings in another form.
I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's comments, because it seems that there is a potential problem. For instance, someone might-seek to bring judicial review proceedings after five months, find that he is not given the discretion and then go away and think whether there might be some other means by which those proceedings may still be initiated within the 12-month period. That is why earlier I asked whether it is not the case that, in 99 per cent. of those cases, judicial review will be the normal
means of seeking redress. I should like the Minister to respond to that. Although I accept that there may be occasions when other proceedings apply, I am bound to say that they do not readily spring to mind, and I would therefore expect judicial review to be the normal procedure.
The Government amendment suggests a twin-track approach, which may create much more complex litigation that will clog up the courts as they start to determine what other means might be legitimate within the 12-month period to bring proceedings that are other than proceedings for judicial review. I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. I do not want to labour the point. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on this matter because the key point is that the redress should be as simple as possible. If we start creating enormous complexities for the method of redress, it will not be in the interests of those who have justifiable grounds for seeking redress under the Bill.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I know that he supports the Bill and that he is trying to be helpful. He is trying to ask whether we would be creating novel legal procedures to circumvent judicial review. In considering any application that sought to do that, the courts would take account not only of the wording of the Bill, but, under Pepper v. Hart, what I said as the Minister presenting the Bill.
It is not our intention to create a vast array of novel features that would allow litigants to pursue cases in courts in a way that the courts and Parliament had not intended. However, someone with a genuine human rights grievance will be entitled to pursue it under clause 7(1)(a), whether or not he is within the time limit for judicial review. We accept that that should be so. The amendment seeks to insert a one-year time limit for clause 7(1)(a) so that the courts have time to make a judgment. We have not sought to constrain that time too much because paragraph (b) of our amendment allows the courts to decide when they wish to go beyond the 12-month period, should it be equitable to do so.
We are conscious that it is important that the person is allowed to pursue any action under clause 7(1)(a). We do not want to create an artificial time limit of three months, as the Opposition seek to do, without giving the level of flexibility that is needed. The amendment would tie the procedure too tightly to the judicial review procedure. The courts will develop their own jurisprudence on this issue, over time. I agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that we want to keep matters simple and straightforward,
but the courts will take note of what Parliament has said, and will be able to consider the points that I have made as Minister at the Dispatch Box. They will understand that we are seeking not to create novel areas of litigation, but to continue to pursue matters in the proper and most appropriate way.
Mr. Garnier:
We have not seen the Chamber this full since Prime Minister's Question Time, and I can only assume that it is either because the Minister and I have made particularly novel comments that have drawn hon. Members from their offices into the Chamber, or because the Minister without Portfolio is here, and every Labour Back-Bencher should know where the Minister without Portfolio is. We are delighted that he is here to bless the proceedings.
In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that the limitation constriction in the Government amendment applied only to proceedings under clause 7(1)(a), which is true of our amendment. He said that the Government amendment was intended to strike a balance between applicants and respondents. I suggest that ours does, too.
The more I hear the name Pepper v. Hart being bandied about by Ministers or Back Benchers, the more I wish that the judgment could be overturned. It is, and will increasingly be seen as, a highly dangerous judicial intervention into this country's law making. If the Government do nothing else during the next five years--and I dare say they will do other things--I hope that they will consider the case of Pepper v. Hart so that Ministers are not permanently inhibited in their discussions for fear that they may say something that the courts will use in arguments before them.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
There is much to be said for being inhibited.
Mr. Garnier:
I can think of many better ways of inhibiting Ministers than the case of Pepper v. Hart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), in his typically helpful way, drew the Committee's attention to a number of points that the Minister courteously dealt with a few moments ago. In the light of the broad agreement in the Committee on the principle behind the amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 42, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert--
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The Committee divided: Ayes 35, Noes 243.
Tellers for the Ayes:
Tellers for the Noes:
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 125, in clause 7, page 5, line 9, at end insert--
'(3) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent an applicant from bringing an application for judicial review provided that the court considers that he has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.'--[Mr. Maclennan.]
AYES
Allan, Richard
Baker, Norman
Ballard, Jackie
Beith, Rt Hon A J
Brake, Tom
Breed, Colin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cable, Dr Vincent
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Cotter, Brian
Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Fearn, Ronnie
Foster, Don (Bath)
Harris, Dr Evan
Harvey, Nick
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Keetch, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy
Livsey, Richard
Llwyd, Elfyn
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Moore, Michael
Oaten, Mark
Rendel, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Sanders, Adrian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tyler, Paul
Wallace, James
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Willis, Phil
Mr. Andrew Stunell and
Mr. John Burnett.
NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Ashton, Joe
Atkins, Charlotte
Banks, Tony
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beard, Nigel
Begg, Miss Anne
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, Andrew F
Bermingham, Gerald
Berry, Roger
Betts, Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blears, Ms Hazel
Blizzard, Bob
Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Borrow, David
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Bradshaw, Ben
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Browne, Desmond
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Butler, Mrs Christine
Caborn, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cann, Jamie
Caplin, Ivor
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Dr Lynda
(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Corston, Ms Jean
Cranston, Ross
Crausby, David
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Darvill, Keith
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Dawson, Hilton
Denham, John
Dismore, Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Brian H
Doran, Frank
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Edwards, Huw
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fitzsimons, Lorna
Flint, Caroline
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Foulkes, George
Galloway, George
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Gerrard, Neil
Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Godsiff, Roger
Goggins, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin
Grant, Bernie
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Gunnell, John
Hain, Peter
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Hanson, David
Healey, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Hepburn, Stephen
Hesford, Stephen
Hill, Keith
Hodge, Ms Margaret
Hoey, Kate
Home Robertson, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howells, Dr Kim
Hoyle, Lindsay
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Hurst, Alan
Hutton, John
Iddon, Dr Brian
Illsley, Eric
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Johnson, Miss Melanie
(Welwyn Hatfield)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Kemp, Fraser
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Khabra, Piara S
Kidney, David
Kilfoyle, Peter
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Kingham, Ms Tess
Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Laxton, Bob
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Liddell, Mrs Helen
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Lock, David
Love, Andrew
McAvoy, Thomas
McCafferty, Ms Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain
Macdonald, Calum
McFall, John
McIsaac, Shona
McNulty, Tony
Mactaggart, Fiona
McWalter, Tony
McWilliam, John
Mandelson, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Martlew, Eric
Maxton, John
Meale, Alan
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Miller, Andrew
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Moran, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mudie, George
Mullin, Chris
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Olner, Bill
O'Neill, Martin
Organ, Mrs Diana
Palmer, Dr Nick
Pendry, Tom
Pickthall, Colin
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Prescott, Rt Hon John
Primarolo, Dawn
Purchase, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce
Quinn, Lawrie
Radice, Giles
Rammell, Bill
Rapson, Syd
Raynsford, Nick
Robertson, Rt Hon George
(Hamilton S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Rooker, Jeff
Rooney, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Rowlands, Ted
Roy, Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan
Ryan, Ms Joan
Sawford, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian
Sheerman, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Short, Rt Hon Clare
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Singh, Marsha
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Soley, Clive
Southworth, Ms Helen
Spellar, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Steinberg, Gerry
Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Stinchcombe, Paul
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
(Dewsbury)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mark
Touhig, Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Vaz, Keith
Walley, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Winnick, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. David Jamieson and
Mr. Greg Pope.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |