| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the points that have been raised in this cameo debate, as it has become. I should tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that I have rarely been as entertained by a speech as I was by his.
I should reply first to an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked whether the review group that I have established to examine the issue of breach of trust--which was raised first by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)--will also be concerned with Scots law.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the Scottish Office will be represented on the group and will take account of its conclusions, as the matter deals with an area of law that will be devolved when the Scottish Parliament comes into being. Meanwhile, it is theoretically open to the Westminster Parliament to legislate on matters relating to Scots criminal law. However, we would do so only on essential issues, and when it is clear that such changes would have the full consent of the Scottish people. We shall consult with our Scottish colleagues in the light of the review. I hope that that satisfactorily reassures my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dalyell:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Straw:
That is the first time than an hon. Member has intervened in a speech only to thank me and nothing else.
In his very entertaining speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked a question that I should perhaps deal with briefly by telling him of a wholly unexpected duty that I assumed when I became Home Secretary--administering the Oath of Homage that full bishops have to make to Her Majesty before taking their see. Although the oath surprised me, it is not an affront to democracy; it is rather a natural consequence of the Anglican Church being the Church by law established. I am not proposing that the Government should introduce a Bill on that matter to be decided on a free vote.
I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield that the oath is not quite as harsh as he described--it is a little more mellow--although it certainly ensures that there is no ambiguity about new bishops of the Church of England recognising Her Majesty and no one else as the head of the Church. I have had some research done on the oath that I am now required to administer to new bishops, and my right hon. Friend may be interested to know that it was drafted--to my surprise--not by Henry VIII, but by Elizabeth I, in the first year of her reign, in 1558.
My right hon. Friend said that democracy is more important than the Bill. I think that it would be a defeat for democracy if we were to lose the Crime and Disorder Bill. At the general election, every Labour Member stood on a manifesto stating that, if we were elected, this Bill implementing 12 manifesto commitments would be implemented as soon as possible. I tell the House, with respect, that the problem about following any advice other than that which I have offered--a reluctant but temporary acceptance of the Lords decision--is that we would not only delay achievement of Royal Assent, but could entirely put at risk the Bill, which would have obvious consequences.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asked me two questions, the first of which was whether legislation on the age of consent would be separate from any legislation on breach of trust. The answer--which was implicit in the ante-penultimate paragraph, on page 3, of my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)--to that question is that it remains to be seen. We shall await the outcome of the review to determine whether legislation is required and is the most appropriate vehicle for that legislation. This Bill, a separate criminal justice measure or a separate stand-alone Bill could provide that vehicle. We cannot anticipate the most appropriate vehicle, but will have to wait to see the review's results.
Dr. Harris:
I realise that the Home Secretary cannot or will not give an undertaking, and I appreciate the reasons for that. However, does he accept the point that I made--that it will create difficulties for some of us if an amendment to equalise the age of consent and provide equal human rights is directly associated in legislation with issues such as child sex abuse or breach of trust?
Mr. Straw:
Many Bills deal with diverse subjects.
Sir Norman Fowler:
Like this one.
Mr. Straw:
Indeed. The public do not necessarily associate one part of a Bill with another, except in the sense that the whole Bill deals with Home Office criminal law matters. As I have made clear today and in my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, the review and the legislation
The hon. Member for Southend, West--or is it Southend, East? I have great affection for both.
Mr. Robathan:
Good Tory seats.
Mr. Straw:
It does not matter. The Kursaal is the same, whether it is Tory or Labour. I spent many happy days in Southend, usually trying unsuccessfully to impress girl friends.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked three questions. First, he wanted to know whether, if we accept my recommendation to comply for the time being with what the Lords have decided, 16 to 18-year-olds may continue to be prosecuted. The answer is yes, they may, because that is the law of the land. As long as the law of the land stands, people are open to be prosecuted. Secondly, he wanted to know whether it was our policy for people not to be prosecuted. The answer is no. Prosecution policy is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who are, rightly, statutorily independent of Ministers. They are supervised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. In that capacity, Law Officers are also independent of Ministers. That is entirely right.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many people had been prosecuted and convicted in the past year. From the memory of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)--I hope that he has got this right and it is as well that the reshuffle has come and gone, if he has not--there were six prosecutions in the past year, of which four led to convictions. That is not particularly surprising given that we are talking about acts of consensual sex. The police cannot prosecute unless someone retrospectively believes that they have been victimised and goes to the police.
The hon. Gentleman's third question was about the difference between European treaties--such as those of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam--and the European convention on human rights. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, but perhaps not so many people in Southend know, that there is a difference. The European convention on human rights was drafted principally by two common lawyers, one of whom was David Maxwell Fyfe, a distinguished Conservative lawyer who later became Lord Chancellor for about eight years. The purpose of the European convention was to write into European law the human rights that we have taken for granted in this country. After several years, we are one of the few countries not to have incorporated it. The relevant Bill is still awaiting Royal Assent and will probably not
receive it until October this year. Had it become law, we might have avoided some of the problems that have arisen with the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr. Bercow:
The Home Secretary has just helpfully told us, from the recollection of the Minister of State, the number of people who have been prosecuted for consensual homosexual activity. May I stretch him a little further and ask how many people were arrested for engaging in consensual homosexual relations, but released without charge?
Mr. Straw:
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that off hand, but I shall be happy to write to him. If he wants to table a question, I think that there is still time for it to be answered before we rise for the recess.
Dr. Harris:
There are still two questions that the Home Secretary has not answered. Perhaps he will just note that he has not answered them and promise to write to me. First, at what level will decisions to prosecute in the interim be made in the Crown Prosecution Service? I accept that that is not his departmental responsibility, but I should be interested to know what he thinks. Secondly, how does the matter relate to the review and possible legislation on other discriminatory matters on sexual offences? The existence of such issues and the possible need of remedy were acknowledged by the Minister of State on 22 June.
Mr. Straw:
I have laboured the point about the independence of the prosecutors. I cannot intervene on that. The law is there. The duty of prosecutors is to make their decisions in the light of the evidence presented to them and the code of the Crown Prosecution Service. On the second point, the review will deal with the issue of breach of trust first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. There are always arguments about whether the law should be changed in other respects. There may be a wider review of sexual offences.
"will concern both young men and young women and in a non-discriminatory way."
That is an important assurance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |