House of Commons
Friday 30 April 1999
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
SPEAKER'S STATEMENT
9.33 am
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
On 19 April, I announced to the House that I had asked the Attorney-General to seek an authoritative ruling from the courts on whether the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) was entitled to resume her seat, following the quashing of her conviction by the Court of Appeal. The court's determination was sought by way of an answer to the following question:
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for what you have said, but would it be at all proper for me to ask whether you have given any indication to the Government of your view that an urgent review of the law in this area is required, following this matter? I think that, following the events that have just culminated happily, there is a strong feeling that the matter has become urgent. I am sure that you will have a view on that, although I accept that it would not necessarily be proper for you to express it now.
Madam Speaker:
If the right hon. Gentleman looks in Hansard, I think he will find that, when I first made a statement about this, I indicated to the Government that it might be wise to look at these matters in future, for the sake of Members in all parts of the House.
"Is the defendant now entitled, according to the proper construction of the Representation of the People Act 1983, to resume her seat in Parliament as Member of Parliament for Newark?"
The decision yesterday of Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr. Justice Mitchell was that the answer to the question was yes. The court accordingly granted a declaration that the defendant was so entitled. The hon. Lady has therefore resumed her seat.
Orders of the Day
Protection of Children Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It was clear from the beginning, on Second Reading, that there was broad consensus throughout the House in support of the principles of the Bill, but that there were considerable concerns about its implications for the rights of individuals, about the way in which it gave powers to the Executive branch rather than the judicial branch, so that decisions would be taken by the Executive rather than the judiciary, and about the availability of access to a proper appeal mechanism within the scope of the Bill.
The Standing Committee was one of the most constructive and effective on which I have had the pleasure to serve. Sadly, Standing Committees do not always perform their intended function of considering a Bill in detail with the clear intention of improving the way that it works and reaching consensus on aspects where there is controversy or disagreement, but in this case Members on both sides of the Committee--and the Government--engaged in an effective debate to try to improve the Bill, not only to fulfil its principal purpose of protecting children, but to protect the rights of those whose name may be placed on the list to be kept by the Secretary of State.
The Bill was considerably strengthened in Committee by the inclusion of additional safeguards, by the assurances given by the Minister from the Dispatch Box, and by the deletion of certain words and phrases that had caused concern in certain parts of the House that the Bill's scope might be too wide.
The amended version of the Bill is undoubtedly an improvement on the original version. Some amendments, although not made, were debated in Committee, and in some cases the issues were argued out to the satisfaction
of all concerned. In other cases, the Minister gave the Committee assurances that went some way--if not all the way--to satisfy Members' concerns.
My perception is that, when the Committee finished its consideration of the Bill, its members felt that, on balance, the Bill, while certainly not perfect, made a worthwhile contribution to the very important cause of ensuring the protection of vulnerable children, although they acknowledged that it could not be a comprehensive measure in that respect. It is only part of the solution to a very wide and, sadly, intransigent problem, but an important part none the less.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
The use of the phrase "not perfect" troubles me. I wonder whether a Bill that operates in that most important and sensitive area, the civil liberties of individuals, is safe to proceed if it is, in that sense, less than perfect. I hope that my hon. Friend will be sensitive about that during these proceedings, and will at least by the end of the day be able to tell me and the rest of the House that he is satisfied that the Bill is sufficiently perfect to be acceptable and to proceed with its passage through Parliament.
Mr. Hammond:
"Perfect" is a term that I use sparingly, particularly with regard to legislation. I am not sure that perfect legislation exists. I think that we should be testing the robustness of the proposed legislation, in terms of its ability to deliver on its principal purpose and its ability to protect the interests of those individuals who find themselves, for one reason or another, placed on the list that the Secretary of State will keep. However, my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Bill touches on the issue of fundamental human rights. It is incumbent on us to satisfy ourselves, by the end of our consideration of the Bill, that fundamental human rights have been protected. I hope that a combination of amendments to the Bill, measures that are to be set out in the Bill and assurances that perhaps, in some instances, the Minister can give us from the Government Dispatch Box, will create a climate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that it is safe to proceed with the Bill.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
On the character of the Bill as it has emerged from Committee, does my hon. Friend agree that we are hoping to move to legislation that is, if not perfect, fit for its purpose? Does he further agree that we should not entertain the notion that the Bill deals in every sense with the problem of securing children against abuse, even from those who are in a position of trust and responsibility, and that alongside it every other possible measure should be considered, such as the safe and alert practice in volunteering, which I know has been piloted in a number of places? That approach, which goes beyond the protections in the Bill, gives additional security to children where people other than their parents are responsible for them.
Mr. Hammond:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we recognise--I think all members of the Committee did--that, although the Bill can make an important contribution to the protection of children, it is certainly not possible for it to provide total protection. It would be dangerous if anyone were to believe that it did.
We discussed in Committee the dangers that might arise through a false sense of security developing as a result of the Bill. It is essential that those who are employing people in positions of trust in relation to children are aware that the Bill is not a complete solution to the issue and that they must remain vigilant and carry out the normal checks that one would expect of a respectable employer in such a sensitive area.
'.--The Secretary of State shall, within eighteen months of the date on which sections 1 to 4 of this Act are brought into force (or, if those sections are brought into force on different dates, the latest of those dates), lay before Parliament a written report stating, in relation to the first twelve months after those sections entered into force--
(a) the number of people placed on the list kept under section 1, otherwise than provisionally;
(b) the number of people provisionally placed in the list kept under section 1;
(c) the number of people on the list who have initiated appeal procedures;
(d) the average length of time taken to confirm the inclusion of individuals on the list kept under section 1; and
(e) the average length of time elapsing between the commencement of appeal proceedings and determination by the Tribunal of the appeal in question.'.--[Mr. Hammond.]
9.35 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |