| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a fair amount of latitude because I am aware of the position in which he finds himself, but he is somewhat anticipating events. He should address his remarks to the new clause before the House.
Mr. Taylor: Very good, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to discern that I was moving into the sunset. If the House wishes, there is half an hour for me to do so. Let me try.
The amendments deal with offences under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 33, 75 and 102 relate to defences against conviction. Amendment No. 33 would remove from the Bill the general defence that a person had done everything that could be expected of him. That defence provides an important safeguard--for example, in cases where someone is prevented from complying because of the terms of his tenancy or lease--and it should stay.
2 pm
I do not favour amendment No. 102, which would provide a defence against conviction for people who have been away for only one day during the period that is set for compliance with the remedial notice, provided that they can show that they were unaware of the notice and were not sent a copy of it by the local authority. In my experience, local authorities will not generally rush into enforcement action. They will usually investigate the matter first and will often give people additional time to comply if the circumstances justify it.
The penalties in the Bill for failure to comply with the remedial notice, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, strike the correct balance. They have the potential to hit the most recalcitrant hedge owner hard in the pocket with daily fines until the hedge is cut, and they are tough enough to persuade such a person that the best course is to cut back the hedge; but they do not go over the top. Conversely, amendments Nos. 32, 34, 35, 101, 103, 105 and 108, which seek to increase the fines, appear disproportionate to the crime and would be unlikely to provide a more effective deterrent.
I am sure that the Government will keep the legislation under review and that they will consider strengthening the penalties if experience shows that they are insufficient to
encourage compliance. I believe that most of the people involved will be law abiding and will readily comply with the legal order of their local councils, so I am confident that there will be no need for us to return to the matter in future.We would have to return to the question of enforcement if we agreed to amendment No. 49, however, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. The amendment would require a local authority to exercise its powers under clause 11 to carry out the required work itself before someone could be convicted of failing to comply with a remedial notice. That arrangement would neuter the criminal penalties for failure to comply with the notice. The local authority would have done the work required by the notice, so neither of the offences in subsections (1) or (5) of clause 10 would apply. The amendment would, therefore, allow a hedge owner to abdicate responsibility for the hedge and pass the burden on to the local authority, which would have used its good offices to help to resolve a private dispute. Such provision is not fair and would not encourage compliance.
Mr. Chope: Surely, clause 11 ensures that it will be open to local authorities to recover their costs and to be indemnified against them. Are we not in the business of trying to get the offending hedge cut rather than of trying to make criminals out of people?
Mr. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am prepared to undertake to review the matter, and I may have made some alterations to the Bill by the time it returns to the House to be finished off on Third Reading.
The new clause and amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 110 seem to be intended to ensure that enforcement action for failure to comply with a remedial notice could be taken only against the individual officers of a body corporate who had committed the offence and not against the body corporate itself. The option should be available to prosecute the corporate body, its officers or people who are purporting to be its officers when they are at fault, as it ensures that those who bear most responsibility for the offence can be held liable.
I hope that the hon. Members concerned will not press the new clause or amendments, but I ask the House to resist the motion if they will not reconsider their position. Of course, that is their prerogative. I hope that, if my prescience was correct--I claim a tiny bit more of your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker--the grievance that underlies today's debate will resonate and cause action; and that, if it does not do so today, it will do so very soon.
Mr. Forth: We appreciate the background to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). His forecast that the Bill may not make sufficient progress today to reach the statute book is probably right. However, as he knows, this Parliament has a year to run, and many more Fridays stretch ahead of us for considering private Members' Bills. If the Bill does not complete its stages today, he can look forward to its consideration on a subsequent Friday unless some event intervenes to prevent that. In that case, we would know who to blame.
My hon. Friend was kind enough to reply to the debate on new clause 11. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was kind enough to say that he perceived some merit in it. I believe that it makes an important point, and corrects an error in the Bill. Despite my hon. Friend's comments, I want to press it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:--
The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 26.
AYES
Dismore, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Eric Forth and
Mr. Christopher Chope.
NOES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Brady, Graham
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Darvill, Keith
Dowd, Jim
Foster, Don (Bath)
Harris, Dr Evan
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
McCabe, Steve
Mackinlay, Andrew
Olner, Bill
Pearson, Ian
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Soley, Clive
Swayne, Desmond
Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. John M. Taylor and
Mr. Jim Cunningham.
It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
As amended in the Committee, considered.
Clause 1
2.17 pm
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 28, at end insert--
', and provided that the obtaining of the sperm was lawful, and that the storage, if any, and treatment were lawful under this Act.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 2, line 25, at end insert--
', and provided that the obtaining of the sperm was lawful, and that the storage, if any, and treatment were lawful under this Act.'.
No. 20, in page 2, line 46, at end insert--
', and provided that the obtaining of the sperm was lawful, and that the storage, if any, and treatment were lawful under this Act.'.
No. 21, in page 3, line 18, at end insert--
', and provided that the obtaining of the sperm was lawful, and that the storage, if any, and treatment were lawful under this Act.'.
No. 17, in page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert--
'(2) This Act shall apply to any case where the sperm or embryo is stored or used on or after the coming into force of this Act.
(2A) This Act shall apply to any case where the sperm of a man, or any embryo the creation of which was brought about with the sperm of a man, was stored or used on or after 1st August 1991 and before the coming into force of this Act.
(2B) In those circumstances where section 2(2A) of this Act applies, the provisions relating to the obtaining and saving of the sperm in section 28(5A), section 28(5B), section 28(5C) and section 28(5D) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 shall not apply.'.
No. 22, in page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert--
'(2) This Act shall apply to any case where the sperm or embryo is used on or after the coming into force of this Act.
(2A) This Act shall apply to any case where the sperm of a man, or any embryo the creation of which was brought about with the sperm of a man, was used on or after 1st August 1991 and before the coming into force of this Act.
(2B) In those circumstances where section 2(2A) of this Act applies, the provisions relating to the obtaining and saving of the sperm in section 28(5A), section 28(5B), section 28(5C) and section 28(5D) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 shall not apply.'.
Dr. Harris: I am delighted to speak briefly on the amendments and to pay tribute to the tenacity of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) in bringing the Bill to this stage. I support the Bill, with some limited concerns, and I hope that we can make some progress. If we are successful in doing so this afternoon, I wish him well with its passage in the other place.
The amendments seek to clarify the provisions regarding the use of sperm or an embryo in the future, as opposed to in the past when the need for consent was not as clear. I accept that the amendments are probably not in
the necessary form to achieve my aims, and they may need further consideration in the other place. Amendment No. 18 seeks to ensure that the Bill will enable children who are the product of sperm from a deceased father and the mother's gametes to have symbolic recognition of paternity generally in circumstances in which the storage and use of the sperm were lawful under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as it would be amended by the Bill. That is important because of the signals that we wish to send about not providing a benefit following actions that are now known, in the wake of legal action, to be unlawful if appropriate consent has not been obtained, although that is not the only basis on which such actions may be unlawful.The other amendments in the group, specifically amendment No. 22, would ensure that where the law has not been clear on the need for consent in obtaining sperm, the provisions that would be inserted by amendment No. 18 will not apply. However, from the moment of the Bill's enactment, we are in new territory and, subject to such a provision being consistent with European convention law on discrimination and United Nations convention law on the rights of the child, we can be clear that such consent is needed.
I look forward to hearing the response of the Bill's promoter to the thrust of my remarks in the hope that some agreement can be reached on a way forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |