Protection from Harassment Bill (Hansard, 18 December 1996)

HC Deb 18 December 1996 vol 287 cc965-1012 965

§ Considered in Committee [Progress, 17 December].

§ [SIR GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

4.26 pm

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As you know, last night, amendment No. 13 was passed by 179 to 172 votes, to strengthen the Bill. [Interruption.] I apologise, Sir Geoffrey. I think that yesterday the Chairman was adorned with a knighthood perhaps in anticipation of an event this Christmas; I was trying to correct myself.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department applauded our reasons for tabling amendment No. 13 and described its mover, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), as having the best possible motives. The Minister's only objection was that our proposal was akin to punishment and not appropriate to civil courts. In view of that and the passage of the amendment, would it be for the convenience of the Committee for you to invite the Minister to explain the Government's intentions, especially as there is no time between Committee and Report?

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)
Further to that point of order, Sir Geoffrey. It is not the Government's intention to hold up progress on the Bill. We wish it to reach another place as speedily as possible. We will therefore not today seek to overturn the amendment on Report. However, that we are courteous in commenting that Opposition amendments are not "born out of malice", or that we can "see some merit" in them, does not mean that it would be sensible to leave amendment No. 13 in the Bill. The Opposition spokesman should not confuse our customary courtesy in talking about the amendments with an assumption that we believe that there is considerable merit in them.
When we come to Third Reading, I shall explain briefly why we think that the amendment is not sensible. We shall seek in another place to remove it from the Bill, but we do not wish to take any action that would cause any delay to the Bill today.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Further to that point of order, Sir Geoffrey. Although I welcome the Minister's statement that he does not seek today to reverse the decision on the amendment, I hope that you will acknowledge that the procedures of the House are designed to enable Bills to be amended. Some of the comments by Conservative Members appear to suggest that the Government bring Bills before the House that are totally without fault and incapable of amendment. Were that so, we would not need any of those procedures and the Government would not have to come back with fresh legislation to correct mistakes.