| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I said. Our party has been reproached for obstructing this Bill because we have put down amendments. I thought that was an unfair approach and I hope that it is now abandoned. That is all I was concerned about. I do not believe that the noble Lord need take offence because it was not aimed at him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that any of us should be criticised for tabling amendments to any legislation. We are clearly anxious to have the best legislation. I did not take offence. I was just pointing out the difference between the very much less radical approach that Mrs. Maddock took to the extremely radical one taken by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, today. I cannot quote her, but all she said was that she had made a speech at the Liberal Democrat conference earlier, in 1996. To paraphrase her, she was satisfied that the Bill broadly fits the description of what she wanted in her conference speech.
The consistent and coherent attack which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made on the Bill raises the question of whether this is the time to do so. If he felt so strongly about it, did he respond to the consultation paper himself? Was there any discussion as a result of that response? Has he made his views public on any occasion before? I ask out of ignorance and not in any sense as criticism. If he is taking such a radical approach to this Bill then it would have been helpful to all of us to have known about it when the Bill, or even the consultation paper, was first published because discussion could have been that much more comprehensive.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. In the Liberal Democrat
conference to which he and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have already referred, the party adopted a two-stage approach of a civil situation followed by a criminal offence in the way that I have put forward as a broad framework. The details that I have put forward today are really flesh on the bones.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that I am taking his criticisms extremely seriously. I am not in any way brushing them aside. Just because I am not qualified to judge whether or not they are correct, I do not wish them to be brushed aside in any way in the consideration of the Bill in this House. All I want to see is legislation which takes the best from all possible sources. If that includes the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, as it may well do, then we must see his amendments very quickly. We must also consider whether the timetable for this Bill is correct for proper consideration because I have agreed to the Committee stage being taken in the Moses Room without Divisions. We shall have to consider whether that is the right solution.
I am now getting out of my depth on this Bill. I thought that I understood the concept of stalking. I thought that my introduction to it last summer gave me some authority to speak on it. It is quite clear that consideration of this Bill from these Benches will have to be carried on by lawyers rather than by myself. Under those circumstances it is better that I do not continue to contribute except perhaps to express my gratitude to all those--particularly my noble friend Lady Gould--who have underlined the necessity for effective legislation on this important subject.
12.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I personally should regret it if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, felt disinclined to continue, because although lawyers certainly have an important contribution to make it is extremely important that those with broader experience, which the noble Lord has of these matters, should also play a part. Lawyers are not always the only people whose views are valuable on matters of this kind. I very warmly welcome the participation in debates of this kind, and in all other debates affecting the law and the legal profession, those who are not lawyers because from time to time I have found that contributions from others are extremely useful and effective. I do not mean in any way to exclude the contribution of lawyers from the noble Lord's Front Bench.
I think I am right in saying that, without exception, all noble Lords who have spoken have agreed that the problem requires to be dealt with by legislation. Even the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with his latest thoughts, supports that point of view. Therefore, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to give the Bill its Second Reading and I do not therefore need to address that point in too much detail.
I await with great interest the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is to propose. For my part, I consider that they will be perfectly suitable amendments to be dealt with in a Moses Room Committee without Divisions because in such situations
we try to achieve as good a solution to the problem as possible. I hope that that will be the attitude here. If there are still problems at the end of such a Committee, Divisions will be appropriate at Report stage. The substance of the matter, however, can be dealt with in that way. I think that all are agreed that we should now deal with the problem with a degree of urgency. I am sure that we would all regret it if this Session of Parliament came to an end without the matter going to Royal Assent. I am certainly willing to do all that I can to bring the matter to a successful conclusion.The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated that at the Liberal Assembly the idea that was put forward was to start with civil proceedings and to build criminal proceedings on them. That was basically my approach to the matter from an early stage. The Bill does that to some extent because the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the power of arrest is that a breach of a civil injunction is an arrestable offence under the Bill. It was pointed out to me forcefully as a result of the consultation and otherwise that starting with the civil law and building on it has shortcomings where the stalker is not known to the individual being stalked. The intervention of the criminal authorities in the shape of the police may be necessary in that connection. That is why I believe that we need criminal sanctions as well as civil sanctions, although there is a great deal to be said for building on civil sanction-type provisions, which is not what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is proposing today but is based on the same idea--namely, in civil proceedings one can very much fashion the order to the circumstances. It is difficult to do that with criminal proceedings because one has to define criminal conduct in advance. The Bill seeks to build on that.
I must advise my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that where criminal proceedings are started there will be a question of remand and that bail conditions can very much be tailored to the circumstances of the case and can be applied from the very beginning of the proceedings. I believe that that deals with my noble friend's point.
No one who has looked at the problem with any degree of concentration could possibly think that it is easy to define the basic elements of a criminal offence. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the advice that he was given by a student. I believe that he found it even more valuable than the multitude of legal advice to which he had access. It was a useful analysis of the concept. He said first, "It is driving me round the bend". That is harassment. It is a continuation of the matter. Secondly, it was unwelcome. That is an important criterion. He said that the activity went on and on. That makes for a course of conduct. He also said, "I did not want it". Those are the elements of harassment. There is a lot to be said for that analysis, but the same conditions might apply to an investigative journalist seeking to interview some magnate who is accused of a corrupt practice. The journalist may be seeking to unearth evidence of that in an interview with the person in question. That is why we need some form of defence to deal with legitimate activities of that sort.
The Bill is the best that we have been able to achieve. I am anxious to seek improvements. The Government are not claiming infallibility in this matter and any help that your Lordships can give us to improve the Bill will be most welcome.
The noble Earl mentioned the fact that Clause 12 refers to conclusive evidence. My answer to his suggestion is that the instances will be covered by the provisions of Clause 12. There is no general exemption in saying, "This was done on behalf of the Crown". The clause states:
- "in his opinion anything done by a specified person on a specified occasion related to"--
- "and was done on behalf of the Crown".
On the point about consultation, my understanding is that the consultation document did not expressly state that any responses would be made public. Accordingly, I understand that in answer to a question, my colleague has given a list of all those who responded. Therefore, anyone who wants to know the answer that was given can get it. I have encountered such a problem in the past and it is a matter about which we must be careful because some people give advice on the understanding that it is available to those who asked for it and to none other.
I am sure that I would have no difficulty in getting the consent of the Law Commission in that regard. I am sure that it would regard its contribution as completely public. My recollection is that the Law Commission would prefer the problem to be dealt with in the codified structure of its Bill on offences against the person. That was reported on a long time ago and the Law Commission had hoped that it would receive parliamentary time but until now it has not. That is a much bigger structure and I do not think that it would offer a solution to the problem that we have here if we were to deal with it in the present Session of Parliament. I am sure that I shall be able to secure such information being made available to anyone who wants it as soon as possible. I am less sure about the other respondents, but I shall do what I can. Those who want to ask any group that has responded can approach the group directly for its response, if that is what they want to do. In the meantime, I shall try to pursue the point, but I am sure that your Lordships will understand that I cannot give an absolute undertaking to put the whole lot in the Library.
This has been an extremely constructive debate, out of which comes the feeling that we must now deal with the problem in such a way that the measure can reach the statute book. In the course of doing that, we shall be able to consider all possible solutions if we take the route which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has indicated and have the Committee in the Moses Room. That would give us the flexibility to look at solutions in a spirit of seeking the best available answer, which might not be possible in the sort of time that
could be allocated to the measure on the Floor of the House. I hope that all of your Lordships will agree to pursue that course.The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and myself have experience of working on related problems in such Committee proceedings and, speaking without reference to my own participation, I think that the quality of the outcome has generally been extremely high and has carried a high degree of consent right across the membership of your Lordships' House. I hope that we can pursue that course. In the meantime, it is with a degree of confidence that I renew my Motion to your Lordships that the Bill should be read a second time, and that it should be understood that the proceedings on the Committee stage will be taken in the Moses Room with the hope that we can secure as much consensus across the House as is possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page