| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his intention to ban the barbaric and cruel practice of hunting with hounds, which will be welcomed by the vast majority of people in the House and throughout the country. Will he confirm once and for all that, once the House has made its wish clear, the Bill will be a Government Bill subject to all the ramifications to which such a Bill is subject, including the Parliament Act 1949?
Mr. Straw: The Bill will be a Government Bill at all stages and will leave the House for the other place as a Government Bill, a clear view on its contents having been expressed by the House. As I have already made clear, all the procedural arrangements for Government Bills will apply to it, as to any other Government Bill.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): I am sure that the report is excellent and makes a vital contribution to the debate. I am sure, too, that changes for rural areas are on the way. Nevertheless, the report contains a mistake, as Wales and England are not one country. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will include an option to allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide the issue of hunting for itself, as the Scottish Parliament can do?
Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that Wales and England are not one country. However, with respect, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Wales and England are one common law jurisdiction. Indeed, one Crown court circuit extends across the border and, historically, has always done so. The criminal law has always applied in the same way in England and Wales so, in my judgment, there would have to be strong arguments for seeking to impose a territorial distinction solely on the grounds of their being different countries, although that is a matter for the House as a whole to decide.
The report brings out a separate argument about whether there should be any objective differences between, for example, the regimes that should apply in upland and lowland areas. Finally, the issue is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly, but it would be open to the hon. Gentleman to table amendments suggesting that it should be during the passage of the Bill.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, given the vagaries of the private Members' Bill system, in the many years that we have been around in this place on a Friday, there was never a cat in hell's chance of getting a Bill banning hunting with
dogs through the House of Commons? Will he also confirm that, at the election, the Labour party made a distinct promise to give the Government and its Members an opportunity to vote to ban hunting with dogs?Governments must be seen to be carry out their promises: that is one of the most important things in today's politics. I can therefore only wish my right hon. Friend well in this endeavour and trust that we make sure that we get the Bill on the statute book, which is something that no other Labour Government have been able to achieve.
Mr. Straw: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and subscribe to his view that Governments should carry out their promises. We promised to provide a free vote, with the obvious implication that that vote would have a conclusion, as we are not just a debating society. We are doing that, and the merits of the case are a matter for free votes. As we have seen, opinions on the matter differ on both sides of the House.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): Will the Home Secretary reflect carefully on the points made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours) on the special circumstances in the Cumbrian fells? Is he aware that hunting there takes place not on horseback but exclusively on foot and that there is no drag-hunting alternative? Hill farmers, who have suffered enough in recent years, would feel that they had been stabbed in the back if their ability to protect their livestock were to be removed in this way. How does the Home Secretary reconcile the Government's declared wish to create one nation with the introduction of legislation that will arouse feelings of anger, bitterness and betrayal among many millions of our fellow citizens?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's last remark is particularly realistic. Many hon. Members in his party take the same view as us, including, famously, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is not present in the House, even though--[Interruption.] The Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), is not the shadow Home Secretary or the Home Secretary, and she is not responsible for this issue; she is fully entitled to her view.
On the hon. Gentleman's main point, the report, which I commend to him, contains many interesting insights into hunting with dogs, but not on horseback, in upland areas such as those represented by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, as well as its effect on animal welfare and the effect of any ban. As the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the report, its conclusions for upland areas are different from those for other areas.
Orders of the Day
Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 9
Community sentences: electronic monitoring of requirements
'. After section 36A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 there is inserted--
"Electronic monitoring of requirements in community orders
36B.--(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, a community order may include requirements for securing the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any other requirements imposed by the order.
(2) A court shall not include in a community order a requirement under subsection (1) above unless the court--
(a) has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant areas specified in subsections (7) to (10) below; and
(b) is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under those arrangements.
(3) Where--
(a) it is proposed to include in an exclusion order a requirement for securing electronic monitoring in accordance with this section; but
(b) there is a person (other than the offender) without whose co-operation it will not be practicable to secure the monitoring,
the requirement shall not be included in the order without that person's consent.
(4) Where--
(a) it is proposed to include in a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order a requirement for securing the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2; but
(b) there is a person (other than the offender) without whose co-operation it will not be practicable to secure the monitoring,
the requirement shall not be included in the order without that person's consent.
(5) An order which includes requirements under subsection (1) above shall include provision for making a person responsible for the monitoring; and a person who is made so responsible shall be of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating--
(a) the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements included in a community order; and
(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the functions of persons made responsible for securing the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements included in the order.
(7) In the case of a curfew order or an exclusion order, the relevant area is the area in which the place proposed to be specified in the order is situated.
In this subsection "place", in relation to an exclusion order, has the same meaning as in section 40A below.
(8) In the case of a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order, the relevant areas are each of the following--
(a) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, the area mentioned in sub- paragraph (6) of that paragraph,
(b) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of that Schedule, the area mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph,
(c) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with any other requirement, the area proposed to be specified under section 41(3) below.
(9) In the case of a community punishment order, a drug treatment and testing order, a drug abstinence order, a supervision order or an action plan order, the relevant area is the petty sessions area proposed to be specified in the order.
(10) In the case of an attendance centre order, the relevant area is the petty sessions area in which the attendance centre proposed to be specified in the order is situated.".'.--[Mr. Boateng.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |