| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 120.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 121:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): Amendment No. 122: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 123 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 122:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
Clause 98 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 126:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [The Police Information Technology Organisation]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 127:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 127 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 188. These two amendments are technical in nature and among other things paragraph 80 of Schedule 9 provides that the Police Technology Organisation shall be liable for torts committed by police officers while on secondment to the organisation. The provision is defective in that it only makes PITO liable for torts committed by officers on secondment from forces in England and Wales. The replacement provision to be inserted in Schedule 8 ensures that PITO is liable for torts committed by seconded constables from all parts of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Criminal conviction certificates]:
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 128:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I were to pause a moment that might enable the Government Chief Whip to do the wise and sensible thing. As we have completed one part of the Bill, may I invite the noble Earl the Whip to rise in his place and, in the interests of the way in which we conduct our business and the regard in which this House is held, suggest that the very important issues which still lie before us should not be taken today but should be postponed until next week. We have already made it clear that the important decisions taken earlier today by the House need careful thought by the Home Secretary. I shall give the Whip the opportunity to rise and to suggest that instead of proceeding with Third Reading next week, we should deal with the rest of Report stage. I shall pause for a moment to enable some response to be given.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can speak for my noble friend. I know that he has given serious consideration to this question. He is not only aware that it has already been raised in the Chamber, but
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if this is to be an endurance test, we are up to it. We shall continue to debate these important issues, but it should be on the record that we are letting down the public and all those who are closely interested in the Bill by debating it at this hour. I believe that that was never the Government's intention in the first instance. The Government Chief Whip has now entered the Chamber, so I give him the opportunity which I gave earlier to one of his colleagues because I know that he wishes to rise to suggest that we should now conclude the business for today.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the House knows, I have just entered the Chamber and heard my name being called. I think that the noble Lord is complaining that we are sitting rather late and is suggesting that we should stop. I believe that that is the broad thrust of what the noble Lord has been saying. I am happy that we should continue to finish Report stage, which is what we intended to do when we started this afternoon. Nothing has happened to change my opinion so, rather than discussing whether or not we should continue, I hope that we shall get on and complete the Bill tonight.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I was not complaining at all. I was saying that the Government Chief Whip should have regard to the high standing in which this Chamber is held and to the very widespread belief that if we discuss these important matters at this late hour, inevitably they will not receive the scrutiny they deserve and we shall not be performing our proper scrutiny under the constitution. I have no complaint. As I have said, our endurance is at least as great as that of Ministers. However, I believe that the Chief Whip should have some thought for the hard work which the noble Baroness the Minister has put in today and that he should assume that, despite all her denials, it is time to go home. If the noble Lord refuses to let us go home, then let us get on with the business, which is what I now propose to do.
At Second Reading, in reference to what was then Clause 100, I referred to the extent to which what is now Clause 102 was unacceptable. We strongly support Clauses 103 and 104 in so far as they provide for criminal record certificates and in so far as they protect young people and other vulnerable groups. Therefore, in Committee I sought to delete what is now Clause 102. Further amendments (which we shall now be discussing in the early hours of tomorrow) are designed to postpone the coming into operation of Clause 102 for good and sufficient reasons. This amendment is without prejudice to that view.
At Second Reading, I referred to the possibility of introducing such an amendment in order at least in part to ridicule the unfairness of this clause and to
I do not believe that any noble Lord denies that trust in Members of Parliament is something for which we must all ask. There is no better way of safeguarding trust in Members of Parliament than for it to become essential that they deposit criminal conviction certificates at the time of their nomination. If building and factory workers are required, as they will be, to produce such certificates, surely it is reasonable to ask any candidate to deposit such a certificate at the time of his nomination.
It was argued by the Minister, and referred to by other Members of your Lordships' House, that candidates for Parliament appear before selection conferences. That is not wholly true. If at the next election there are about 3,000 candidates, on past evidence at least 500 of them will not have been before selection conferences. Noble Lords know that the procedures to enable people to be nominated and stand for election are very liberal in this country, and rightly so. But they are so liberal that any individual who properly gets himself or herself nominated can stand for Parliament without a party label. In those circumstances, it is not possible to argue that a selection conference provides a natural obstacle that a candidate has to overcome. Therefore, it is for a selection conference to require the production of a criminal conviction certificate.
I believe I said in Committee that during a normal party hearing it would be ridiculous to expect someone at the back of the hall to pipe up and say, "Can we see the candidate's criminal conviction certificate?" That is not the way of the world or the way that we want it to be. My amendment does not refer to Members of Parliament. It would be improper to seek to legislate on their behalf. However, the amendment refers to parliamentary candidates. It is within the capacity of your Lordships' House as a second chamber in our parliamentary system to express a view on that matter without any possibility of a conflict with another place.
The case for the amendment is simple. There should not be one rule for a voter seeking a job and another for a candidate seeking election to Parliament. Although that is not what the Bill says, that is the purport of what will happen. A voter seeking a job will increasingly be required by his employer to show a clean criminal conviction certificate while a candidate who seeks election to Parliament has no such safeguard to demonstrate.
I do not believe that a failure to take account of this matter will win support for the institution of democracy. The appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and the well justified stories of sleaze in another place have brought Parliament into disrepute. The acceptance of this amendment by the
Page 39, line 2, after ("to") insert ("the prevention or detection of serious crime or otherwise to").
Page 39, line 8, after ("the") insert ("Chief").
Page 39, line 10, at end insert--
("( ) In this section, "serious crime" shall be construed in accordance with section 91(5).").
Page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (5).
Page 39, line 17, at end insert--
(""criminal proceedings" includes--
(i) proceedings in the United Kingdom or elsewhere before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted under section 50 of the Act of 1957,
(ii) proceedings before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, and
(iii) proceedings before a Standing Civilian Court;").
Page 71, line 10, at end insert--
(".--(1) The Organisation shall be liable in respect of a tort committed by a member of a police force engaged on service with the Organisation in the performance or purported performance of his functions in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.
(2) In relation to Scotland, sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply but the Organisation shall be liable in reparation in respect of a wrongful act or omission on the part of a member of a police force engaged on service with the Organisation in the performance or purported performance of his functions in like manner as a master is so liable in respect of any wrongful act or omission on the part of his servant in the course of the servant's employment.").
Page 40, line 42, at end insert--
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall issue a Criminal Conviction Certificate to any individual who seeks nomination for election to Parliament under the Representation of the People Act 1983, which certificate shall require to be lodged with the Returning Officer as a condition of nomination and to be open to public inspection.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page