Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): I, too, was somewhat reassured by what the Minister said about the sunset clause. I was partly reassured by what I took to be an indication that there will be no pressure on the House when that major piece of legislation is introduced in the next parliamentary Session. She is nodding assent, for which I am grateful.
I am entirely persuaded of the need for the Bill, much as I accept the points that were about to be developed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) when you rightly cut him short, Mr. Speaker. That is partly because of the knowledge and experience of Northern Ireland that I have gained in the three years for which I have chaired the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am delighted that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is in the Chamber, because we both know that there are times when it is absolutely necessary to protect the anonymity of key witnesses.
Mr. Hogg: There is an interesting point to be made about Northern Ireland, because in 1992 Lord Diplock, and then Lord Gardiner, held that the anonymity of witnesses could not be allowed in Northern Ireland, because that would impugn the criminal process in the Northern Irish courts.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, but the circumstances were very different, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows far better than I do.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): I appreciate the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but does the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) accept that increasingly, the evidence in Northern Ireland suggests that those who were involved in paramilitary activity, or who are still involved in it, interfere with witnesses on a regular basis, which makes it difficult for the due process of law to be carried out?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, although we are on an allocation of time order, we have gone back to discussing the merits of the Bill.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall not do that, Mr. Speaker, save to say that I accept what the hon. Member for East Antrim says.
We are, indeed, discussing the timing, and although I accept the need for urgency andunlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykehamthe need to get the legislation through before the House rises for the summer recess, I do not accept that we have to do it all in one day. Some intricate arguments will need to take place. I am not a lawyer and I shall probably not take part in those, but I am mindful of the fact that when we legislate in haste, we often get it wrong, although, as the hon. Member for East Antrim reminded me from a sedentary position a while ago, sometimes we can take four years over legislation, as we did on hunting, and still get it wrong.
Although I accept that the legislation is urgent and necessary, the fact is that we could have had, at the very least, two days. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) quite correctly put me right when she said that the other place was having two half days rather than two days of debate, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
Harborough (Mr. Garnier) responded from the Front Bench by saying that two half days with a period for reflection in between is better than six hours on the trot.
I realise that the legislation will go through. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) made an impassioned plea for the House to assert its authority, but he knows better than I that the House cannot exert its authority if the Government have a majority and whip the legislation. It is as simple and as depressing as that. On the Liaison Committee last week, I reminded the Prime Minister that if he really wanted to put Parliament back at the centre of the nations life, he could take away the power of the Executive to impose a timetable on every Bill. I do not know precisely what happened in the usual channelsonce famously referred to as the most polluted waterways in Europebut I do know that it would have been better if the timetabling of this Bill, as of any other Bill, had been in the hands of those who are not entirely the creatures of the Executive or of the shadow Executive.
So, we will proceed with the Bill. I do not want to make a long speech and delay the debate about the substantive issues, but it is a great pity that the timetabling did not allow for a period of reflection so that we could have returned to the Bill tomorrow or on Thursday. We could have sat one day longeron 23 Julywithout any great inconvenience to people. It is fairly inconvenient to come back for two days, a Monday and a Tuesday, so to have added the Wednesday would, frankly, have made the week more justifiable. I rest my casebut I think it is a pity that we are doing things in this way.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): In the Lord Chancellors oral statement to the House on 26 June, he said that if the Bill before us were passed, it would be repealed in the next Session and subsumed into the forthcoming law reform, victims and witnesses Bill. Will the Minister assure the House that when that Bill comes before the House, we will have at least two days on Second Reading?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. My advice is that the question that the Minister has been asked has nothing to do with the matter before us. There may be an opportunity for it to be dealt with at a later stage.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Order for Second Reading read.
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In my statement to this House on 26 June, I set out the reasons why the Government found it necessary to bring forward this emergency legislation following the Law Lords judgment in the case of Davis. There is no need for me to rehearse at length the arguments that I presented to the House on that occasion. I will just outline briefly the background. It is as follows.
On 18 June, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lordsthe Law Lordsunanimously overturned an earlier and also unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal criminal division that had allowed the use of anonymised witness evidence in certain criminal trials. The senior Law Lord, the noble Lord Bingham, looked at the common law and found that the courts had arrived at a position on anonymised evidence that was
irreconcilable with long standing principle.
Their lordships also held that the processes used in the particular circumstances of Davis had rendered the trial unfair under article 6 of the European convention on human rights, although they accepted that, in principle, anonymised evidence was not inconsistent with article 6.
Overall, Lord Bingham said that the matter may now
very well call for urgent attention by Parliament.
Lord Mance endorsed that approach, to deal with what he said was
the undoubtedand there is reason to think growingthreat to the administration of justice posed by victim intimidation.
The Governmentand, I am glad to say, the Househave accepted their lordships invitation urgently to consider filling the void that was left by their judgment of 18 June. Although many points were raised when I made my statement on 26 June, there was widespread approbation across the Chamber for the necessity of introducing an emergency Bill.
There has been an intensive period of consultation since my statement, the product of which is reflected both in the Bill as introduced and in the Government amendments standing in my name. I am very grateful indeed to the spokesman for the official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for the constructive approach that they have adopted in the course of the consultation. In the intervening period, too, we have sought the most up-to-date information available from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the scale of the use of anonymous witness evidence. A paper including that information was published Thursday last alongside the Bill.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |