---

7.50 pm

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's remarks about our approach to the Bill. We promised on Second Reading that we would give it constructive scrutiny. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his comment that our contribution has been constructive. I believe that we have also been comprehensive. We have managed to make speedy progress, but we have looked carefully at all aspects of the Bill, even though at times, as now, it has been something of a solo effort on my part.

The Home Secretary has clearly not acquainted himself with all the Committee Hansard reports, because his comments about lawyers are in stark contrast to what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1278

(Mr. Howarth), said in Committee. When we approached the more contentious and complex issues in part II relating to the conduct of rape trials, he agreed that not being a lawyer was an advantage. There is a reshuffle coming, but I felt that, for the benefit of all of us who are not lawyers, I ought to remind the Home Secretary that we can make a valid and important contribution, as I believe that we have done.

We broadly support the Bill and agree with its objectives but we have some concerns, which have been well rehearsed in Committee and today. There is a lack of flexibility on youth justice, but we shall see how matters progress. We also have concerns about the Bill's impact on the immediate problem of youth offending in our communities. Like the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the youth justice provisions in the Bill will be subject to extensive piloting. No one is saying that making sure that they get it right is not the way for the Government to proceed, but they must accept that that approach means that there is little immediate relief in prospect for communities throughout Britain blighted by the petty crime, vandalism and rowdy behaviour of youngsters. Even where the plans are piloted, only first-time offenders who plead guilty will be sent to a youth offender panel.

It is clear from other exchanges that we have had--not on this Bill--that there is still scant evidence that the Government's other measures are having much impact on persistent young offenders. I am sure that the Home Secretary expects me to tell him that we shall make sure that when, in the usual fanfare of publicity, the Government announce the pilot areas for the youth offender panel reforms, we shall make sure that the rest of the country is aware that, for all the Government's talk about getting tough on the young thugs who terrorise housing estates and the wider community, the Government's plans are for the very long term and there is very little prospect of immediate relief. If our roles were reversed I am sure that the Home Secretary would be assuring me of the same.

We welcome the provisions on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and we remain profoundly committed to a criminal justice system that encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes and enables them to give evidence easily and without intimidation. Although we have some questions about whether it was right to remove all discretion from the court on unrepresented defendants, we believe that it is right to protect victims, particularly victims of rape, from cross-examination by the defendant.

On evidence of previous sexual behaviour, we agree that some changes in this area were long overdue, and that questions that were merely designed to embarrass, humiliate or blacken the complainant in the eyes of the jury should not be permitted.

We have residual concerns--as will have been evident from the debate on new clause 2--about the clause 44 reporting restrictions. That is one element of the Bill about which I hope we have heard the last, and we hope that the order never sees the light of day. I still think that the Bill is deficient in that regard, but no matter. There is at least a mechanism within the Bill to give some comfort to the media. I hope that their confidence in that does not turn out to be misplaced.

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1279

7.56 pm

Mr. Beith: We support the Bill, and we have long campaigned for a fundamental reform of the youth justice system. We think that the Bill is an important step in that direction. Seventy per cent. of adults with a conviction started offending as young offenders. We have to address that problem of young offenders, and the Bill--particularly in its attempts to deal with first offenders among young offenders--is a valuable step in that direction.

We welcome the second part of the Bill, particularly the proposals on complainants and witnesses in sexual offence cases. I strongly welcome the clauses that provide that defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences who choose to conduct their own defence, as is their right, may not cross-examine the alleged victim. Recent cases have made it clear that that provision was necessary, and I strongly welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

The only aspect of the Bill about which we had serious doubts was the third part, dealing with reporting. The Government responded to our concerns and those of others, but they have taken what we considered to be a blunt instrument to be used against responsible sections of the press as well as irresponsible sections and, instead of refining it, have put it in a cupboard. It can be got out when they want it, but it is still a blunt instrument. If the Government attempt to bring in the orders, it will be unsatisfactory, as we will not be able to amend the provisions--it will be take it or leave it. That is the weakest feature of the Bill, and I hope that we will not see those powers brought in. That is one drawback in a Bill that we generally welcome and that we will support.

7.58 pm

Caroline Flint: May I say how much I and my colleagues welcome the Bill, which is historic and is about progress?

We welcomed the assurances given in Committee, as well as the further support to be given to victims of domestic violence and adults with learning disabilities--something that has not been discussed this afternoon.

Legislation is only as good as those who implement it. The Bill came about because the provisions that were made the last time the matter was discussed were not being implemented in the spirit in which they were discussed. We have been tackling that, and I was pleased to receive assurances from Ministers on that.

In Committee, we received two assurances. The first was that we must give training to those judges who are in charge of implementing the legislation. The other was that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, there will be effective monitoring and evaluation of the law. We do not want to wait three or four years to call for a review, and we must make sure that the law is monitored and evaluated as it is implemented. In that way, we can make sure that there is good law.

I thank the ministerial team for the way in which they have presented the Bill and worked with Committee members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1280

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Ec Preliminary Draft Budget for 2000

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. COM(99)200, the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB) of the European Communities for 2000, and SEC(99)600, the Commission's Overview of the PDB; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community; and European Union Document No. 7698/99, Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 6th May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure; and supports the Government in welcoming the renewal of the IIA as an important contribution to increasing the efficiency of the budgetary procedure and to maintaining budgetary discipline.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That paragraph 2(a) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) shall not apply at the sitting on Monday 12th July, insofar as any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to the Eighth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607) shall stand as first business.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]

PETITIONS

Hunting with Dogs

8 pm

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 42,500 people from throughout the United Kingdom, including many from my constituency, on the issue of hunting with dogs. The petition is sponsored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The petition is yet another part of the jigsaw that is being put together that will, we hope, ultimately bring about the end of hunting in this country. Among the signatories are Anne Ruach from London and Dean and Jodi Hancock from Porchester in Hampshire. It gives me great pleasure to present the petition to the House.

The petition

Declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in modern Britain.


The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from Honourable Members and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition.

To lie upon the Table.

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1281

---