| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow an intervention in such an application.
Dr. Harris: I understand that, Madam Speaker, and I apologise for giving way. I should be happy to enter into correspondence, or to converse with Opposition Members or the Government on this matter because it is important to many thousands of people who are on waiting lists and to their families.
I urge the Government to consider consultation and to create a public debate on the measure so that we can move it forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Graham Stringer.
Dr. Evan Harris accordingly presented a Bill to provide that the organs of potential donors are available for transplant on death unless the potential donor has previously indicated a wish to the contrary: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 October, and to be printed [Bill 242].
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the report on organ donation in the late 1960s, which was chaired by the father of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I tried on eight occasions to bring in a similar Bill to that so eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). On the first occasion that I did so, not only did Health Ministers remain in their places, but such was the importance placed on the subject that the then Prime Minister decided that he would wait and hear what was said.
In the corridor afterwards, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said to me rather laconically, "I was sympathetic to what you had to say, but I don't think you'll persuade Keith Joseph", and nor did I. Is it not a matter of etiquette on ten-minute Bills that representatives of the Department are present to hear what is said? This is a Parliament point rather than a party point. If the ten-minute Bill procedure--albeit kite-flying--is to be at all meaningful, Ministers should at least hear what is said.
Madam Speaker:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on this matter. Ministers have busy schedules, and it is for them to decide whether to be present on the Front Bench on such an occasion. It is entirely a matter for Ministers.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram):
I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.
Mr. Ingram:
These are all Government amendments concerned with the appointment of joint chairmen of the sentence review commissioners. The reason behind the amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy clause 1(3), which states:
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell):
I rise briefly to say that the Opposition fully support this group of amendments. To prevent us from wasting further time on the Bill, I can tell the House that we agree with all the other amendments. It has been extremely helpful for the Government to have improved and modified the Bill in the other place. We are grateful to them, and we appreciate the trouble that the Minister has taken.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
The Liberal Democrats support all the amendments, which are clearly improvements to the Bill. We support the Government on all the amendments tabled.
Madam Speaker:
May I collect the voices on all the amendments?
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North):
No, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
Sorry, on amendment No. 1. Do you wish to speak, Mr. McNamara?
Mr. McNamara:
I thought, Madam Speaker, that you were suggesting that our voices should be collected on all the amendments. I want to get advice from the Minister about the content and meaning of the new clause. I would be delighted if you wanted to take amendments Nos. 1 to 15.
Madam Speaker:
I cannot. I must take them individually. I shall first collect the voices on amendment No. 1.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 15 agreed to.
Mr. Ingram:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment would add a new clause giving a definition of "terrorism" that is the same as the definition contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The Government consider that it would be of value to have such a definition to avoid any possibility of ambiguity or a suggestion that the term might be used in a different sense in this Bill than in other legislation.
Mr. McNamara:
I was interested to know why the new clause was necessary when there was a definition of "terrorism" in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, under which people covered by this Bill had already been sentenced. I could see no reason why that definition was not being used when it was the definition under which they were sentenced.
We now have an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister, for which we are grateful. I thank him for it.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24 agreed to.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to consider the Lords reasons for disagreeing to amendments Nos. 98, 107, 108, 140 and 237.
Mr. Straw:
These amendments relate to amendments tabled at the House of Commons Report stage in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), to equalise the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity at the age of 16. [Interruption.] Madam Speaker, shall I continue?
Madam Speaker:
Yes; I am listening intently. There is a lot of difficult procedure for us to follow, and I am listening very carefully.
Mr. Straw:
If it is acceptable, Madam Speaker, it will take me about 10 minutes to explain my position. I was anxious that you should not spend the whole of that time sitting on the end of the Chair.
Madam Speaker:
I was not specifically waiting for something--although I am always prepared.
Mr. Straw:
I know that you are always prepared, Madam Speaker--like a good girl guide.
Mr. Straw:
Or a brownie. We had better not go down that path just now.
On 22 June, on a free vote, the House backed the amendments by 336 votes to 129. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth was supported in her amendment by my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and by the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Witney (Mr. Woodward)--all of whom have shown great moral conviction on a very difficult issue for all concerned.
The amendments were to the Crime and Disorder Bill, which is one of this Parliament's major measures on law and order, giving effect to 12 manifesto commitments that
will have a significant impact on the safety and well-being of our constituents. Overall, the Bill has been widely and enthusiastically welcomed by the public and police. It received substantial support on both sides of the House on Second Reading and on Third Reading, both of which were unopposed.
The Bill completed its Committee stage in June. Almost five weeks ago--on 24 June, after its Report and Third Reading--it was sent from the House to another place.
Business managers and I had originally planned that the Commons amendments to the Bill--which began in the Lords--should have been debated at the beginning of July, so that there was adequate time to resolve any disagreements between the two Houses, should any arise, before the end of this month. However, that more relaxed timetable did not prove possible, not least because of the intervention of two sets of Northern Ireland legislation.
For very good reasons--I can go into the matter in more detail if hon. Members so wish--we have always aimed to achieve Royal Assent to the Bill by the end of this week. Apart from those clauses that are due to come into force on Royal Assent itself, a full implementation timetable was due to start on 30 September. The overall timetable contains about 25 separate items in the Bill, including pilots on the Bill's major youth justice reforms, and starting three other linked pilots, all of which have already been chosen, announced and published; crime and disorder partnerships, which will work locally to reduce crime and disorder; and measures to implement the provisions on football hooliganism, which were rightly pressed by the shadow Home Secretary when the matter was dealt with on Report. Unless we have Royal Assent by the end of this week, those provisions cannot come into force before the beginning of the soccer season.
"In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the Commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland."
The appointment of a chairman is of particular significance, and it is felt that there could be considerable merit in appointing joint chairmen, hence the amendments.
Lords amendment: No. 16, after clause 12, to insert the following new clause--Interpretation: terrorism--
". In this Act "terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |