| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.'.--[Mr. Clelland.]
Schedule 2
Remedial orders
Amendments made: No. 36, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'or repeal'.
No. 37, in page 19, line 10, at end insert--
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Straw:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has made a number of changes to the Bill since it was introduced eight months ago. Some of those, such as amendment No. 33, have been detailed but necessary technical improvements. Some of the amendments have raised important issues of public policy, where we have sought to respond to the concern expressed both in this House and previously in the other place.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have contributed to the debates. I hope that it will be acknowledged that we have sought to respond in a like way and, whenever we could, to accept the spirit and, in some cases, the detail, of amendments and, where we could not accept the precise wording, to come forward with alternative wording to meet as much of the mischief identified in those amendments as possible.
Three sets of changes have been made as a result of concerns expressed here and in the other place. The first concerns remedial orders. We continue to believe that it should be possible to amend Acts of Parliament by a remedial order so as to bring them into line with the convention rights, but we have, after listening carefully to the debates, considerably restricted the circumstances in which they can be made, and we have significantly enhanced the parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny of those orders.
We have explained that any response to a declaration of incompatibility by the courts, whether by fresh primary legislation or by a remedial order, is a matter on which the Government will propose, but it is for Parliament to dispose. One of the Bill's many strengths is that it promotes human rights while maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers which underpins our constitutional arrangements.
Secondly, there is the issue of the Churches, on which we had an interesting debate some minutes ago, including an entertaining excursion into the history of the Church of Scotland. We were, for reasons that I explained, unable to accept the amendments made by the other place which would have exempted Churches from the Bill's public authority provisions in the few circumstances where they would otherwise have been regarded as public authorities. At the same time, we recognised their concern about what they saw as the Bill's potential impact on such matters as faith and doctrine. In that regard, I tabled an amendment in Committee requiring the courts to have particular regard to the rights of religious organisations to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and in so doing I believe that the Government and the House were able to go a long way towards meeting their concerns.
The third issue is that of the press. We never believed that the Bill would undermine the freedom of the press. The Strasbourg institutions attach a high value to freedom of expression, as is clear from a series of cases, including the "Spycatcher" case. Our courts will take that case law into account. But as with the Churches, we sought to meet the concerns of the press in a way which is consistent with the principles on which the Bill is based.
We did so with an amendment in Committee requiring the courts, among other things, to have particular regard to freedom of expression when they are considering granting any relief which might affect it. The amendment followed detailed discussions with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Wakeham, and with media representatives. I think that the amendment was well received in the House and outside.
I have commented on three particular issues that have arisen from the Bill. More generally, it is clear to everyone that the Bill has significant ramifications. Its provisions will have profound implications for the conduct of all public authorities, for the interpretation of legislation and for the operation of the court system at all levels. It will be much easier for individuals to rely on their convention rights against public authorities, and I believe that they will take that opportunity.
Over time, the Bill will bring about the creation of a human rights culture in Britain. In future years, historians may regard the Bill as one of the most important measures of this Parliament. I talk about a human rights culture. One of the problems which has arisen in Britain in recent years is that people have failed to understand from where rights come. The philosopher David Selbourne has commented on the generation of an idea of dutiless rights, where people see rights as consumer products which they can take, but for nothing. The truth is that rights have to be offset by responsibilities and obligations. There can and should be no rights without responsibilities, and our responsibilities should precede our rights.
In developing that human rights culture, I want to see developed a much clearer understanding among Britain's people and institutions that rights and responsibilities have properly to be balanced--freedoms by obligations and duties.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
I am grateful to the Home Secretary, who is always courteous in giving way. It does not follow exactly from what he has just said, but when do the Government expect to implement the Bill? When will the measure be brought into force?
Mr. Straw:
May I deal with that in a few moments after my next remarks?
As the Bill nears the end of its parliamentary passage, it is right to look ahead to its implementation. Precisely because the Bill will have such a fundamental effect, we need to prepare for it thoroughly. We are providing training through the Judicial Studies Board for all courts and tribunals to enable them to deal adequately with the convention points that will come before them in case after case. We have allocated just under £5 million in addition to the normal budget of the Judicial Studies Board and associated bodies for this judicial training.
We are also ensuring that Government Departments and other public authorities are properly prepared for the obligations that the Bill places on them. They will need not only to review their legislation and practices for compatibility with the convention but to ensure that their staff are trained in an awareness of the convention rights so that those rights permeate all the decisions that they make. We need to work out how the criminal justice system can best accommodate the additional pressures that are likely to follow from the Bill.
To answer directly the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire(Sir N. Lyell), that means that there is a great deal of work to do before the Bill can be implemented. We need to carry that out in a fair, systematic, balanced and positive way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to give a precise date for implementation. It cannot happen in the near future, and I hope that he will forgive me for being unable to give a precise date. We want to implement the Bill as soon as is feasible, but we must all recognise that we cannot do so straight away.
One exception is clause 19, which requires ministerial statements of compatibility. The clause, which is important for the presentation of Bills before the House, does not form part of the main scheme of the Bill, and could be brought into force well in advance of the main provisions. I am considering the options for implementing clause 19 with my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and others, and I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible.
Mr. Maclennan:
Before the Home Secretary leaves the matter of the date of the Bill's effective operation, will he tell us more about the criteria that he will apply in determining the practicality of proceeding? I understand that there is a need for judicial training, and the Home Secretary has spoken of the Government's efforts on that, but are there any other hidden obstacles to proceeding with implementation that he might want to disclose?
Mr. Straw:
I do not think that there are any other hidden obstacles--I was trying to search my brain for
Often when the law is ambiguous, the courts use the convention and its jurisprudence as an aid to interpretation. However, the convention has not reached many Crown courts or county courts, and it has certainly not reached magistrates courts--it is outwith their experience. If we are not prepared and if we do not prepare those who serve in a judicial capacity, including 30,000 lay magistrates, we will find that sharp lawyers will seek to make disruptive points. We must be aware of that--we have always acknowledged it--and we must be prepared for it.
The Bill not only concerns the rights of individuals in a narrow sense, but will change our society's culture. For example, those who are charged with criminal offences have rights, and we must recognise and protect those rights, but others in society also have rights. It would be wrong to set sharp lawyers who have examined the jurisprudence against lay magistrates, justices' clerks, busy county court and Crown court judges who have not had the opportunity to do so. That would bring the Bill's implementation into disrepute. I want the process to succeed, so we need time to prepare for it.
I do not want to implicate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in the process, but he has been closely associated with the project, both in opposition and in government. I thank him for that contribution. He knows that the Bill is an important priority for the Government, and that there was considerable discussion about it in the joint consultative committee--of which he was a joint chairman--of the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. He will recognise that we must get on with the project--I know that he is on the case--but we must balance that against the need for preparation.
My next point may further reassure the right hon. Gentleman and, with a bit of luck, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. The work of preparing for the Bill's implementation is not for the Government alone. We recognise that many outside the Government have a keen interest in how the Bill is implemented and want to contribute to its success. We draw on their expertise, as we did in opposition, and we take account of their concerns.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said earlier, I have decided to establish a task force to assist the Government in the preparations for implementation.
The task force will be chaired by my noble Friend the Lord Williams of Mostyn and will include my hon. Friends the Solicitor-General and the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department. The membership will also include those non-governmental organisations which have made extremely valuable contributions to the project and have continued to offer their advice as the Bill has proceeded through Parliament. They will include Francesca Klug, from the Human Rights Incorporation
Project; Anne Owers, from Justice; Andrew Puddephatt, from Charter 88; Sarah Spencer, from the Institute for Public Policy Research; Veena Vasista, from the 1990 Trust; and John Wadham from Liberty.
'( ) A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects.'.--[Mr. Clelland.]
8.21 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |