| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Webb: The Minister shakes his head. I am not clear who will take the decision, and I am happy to give way if he can tell me who will.
Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the discussions, of course, because he was not in Committee. The court makes the judgment as to whether behaviour is antisocial. There will then be an automatic sanction policy. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the details instead of trying to hold up proceedings, he would understand that point.
Mr. Webb: I am not sure whether my five-minute contribution has played a major part in this delay. Indeed, it was certainly not my hon. Friends who delayed the debate in Committee.
When cutting housing benefit is considered, the test should be whether such action would help. We should all agree on that. We believe that the court should make that decision because it is the only place where all the information about the person accused of the offences is present. The court has access to what the probation officers say and the social inquiry report. No one else has that information.
Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman believe, to take a parallel situation, that the fixed penalty for a speeding offence should be imposed only if the court is convinced that it will reduce someone's speed in future?
Mr. Webb: The difference is that, under these measures, people will lose the roof over their heads. That is more likely to affect the possibility of someone reoffending than whether they incur a fine for speeding. The order of magnitude is completely different.
Mr. Frank Field: I just wanted to take the hon. Gentleman back to his argument. It is clear who makes the decision—it is the court.
Mr. Webb: We are saying that the court should make that decision based on a further test which, according to
the right hon. Gentleman, will always be passed. If the right hon. Gentleman is empirically correct that imposing these sanctions will reduce the likelihood of further antisocial behaviour, the test that we are trying to impose will never stop things. We believe that if the court considers the evidence independently and decides that imposing a penalty will not make a difference or will actually make things worse, it will not have to do so. That is the discretion that we want for the courts, which have the ability to consider all the circumstances.
Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Webb: No, I do not want to delay the House any further.
There are issues in this group of amendments that need further scrutiny. However, we cannot say that the Bill has come to the House completely different from how it was on Second Reading and the first day of its Committee stage. It has had one day of Committee scrutiny and an hour or so today. We should never let legislation go any further without proper scrutiny, especially when it is bad legislation like this Bill.
Mr. Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'and provide written evidence of that anti–social conduct'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 13, after "convictions", insert—
'and by reason of the written evidence it has considered as to the specific anti–social conduct concerned,'.
No. 20, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "behaved", insert—
'and has considered written evidence of the anti–social conduct'.
No. 23, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(6) Where a court is minded to make an order under this section and it forms the view that any person against whom the order is intended is unable to represent himself properly and is not otherwise represented, the court shall adjourn the proceedings to give any such person the opportunity of securing legal representation.'.
Mr. Davey: The amendments seek to ensure that the court has written evidence of antisocial conduct. As the Bill stands, the court will make the declaration following discussions on whether the person should be convicted of the crime of which they are accused, not related to any antisocial behaviour. The only test for antisocial behaviour is whether someone could have been responsible for antisocial behaviour at the same time as committing a crime. No evidence is required for the court to judge whether antisocial behaviour occurred. All we want to do is to ensure that there is written evidence before the court, so I would like—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.
Remaining Private Members Bills
PENSIONS ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order read for further consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid–Bedfordshire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Energy (Conservation) Bill seems to have disappeared from the Order Paper. Can you confirm that it was withdrawn by order of the promoter of the Bill, under pressure from Government Whips? How much has it cost the taxpayer for the Bill to go through so many of its parliamentary stages, and would you agree that it is a denial of the sovereignty of Parliament that a Bill supported by the votes of a majority of the House should be cut by a Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman has obviously not consulted the Official Report as I ruled on that matter on a point of order yesterday. The later questions that he asked cannot possibly be matters on which the Chair could comment.
Further consideration what day? No day named.
PRIME MINISTER (OFFICE, ROLE AND FUNCTIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
FOOD POVERTY (ERADICATION) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
HOUSING (WALES) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
MOTOR VEHICLES (PROHIBITION ON USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 15 November.
FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
ENDANGERED SPECIES (ILLEGAL TRADE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
MUSEUMS BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
ALCOHOL SERVICES BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
WASTE BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in our rules or procedures to protect the House against Members who allow their Bills to be on the Order Paper, thus raising expectations among other Members and people outside, but who gratuitously fail to be here on the day so that their Bill has no chance of making progress? Is there anything that can protect us from that casual attitude of Members to the House of Commons?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As in all matters, all hon. Members are expected to behave in a responsible way and are entirely responsible for their conduct in the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that one can place on record the fact that, so far at least, the vast majority of Members who have not shown up to move their Bills—if not all of them—are Labour Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Official Report will show precisely what has happened and people may make their own interpretation.
David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If some Members have
been unavoidably detained and thus unable to be here to move their Bills, would it be possible for other Members, who may have an interest in the matter to move the Bills in their place?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |