Clause 9 - Exemption from liability for certain damages
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
6:30 pm
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
There are a couple of points that we want to touch on. We felt that it might be helpful to add the word ''personally'' through amendment No. 38. We will return to liability in part 3, which we will debate later this week, and I alert the Minister in advance to the debates we might have about who might be liable under part 3.
It is a small point but, having done quite a lot of civil law in addition to criminal law, I know that stating in the Bill that the officers concerned cannot not be made personally liable might sometimes be helpful. A few moments ago, the Minister referred to situations in which proceedings might be brought against senior officers. The Bill uses the generic phrase ''a constable'', which could apply to anybody at any police rank, from police constable up to chief constable, but it might be helpful to add that phrase and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Amendment No. 39 would delete subsection (3)(b). We are aware that the Government have had all sorts of problems that were not anticipated before the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed. There have been many debates between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the Home Secretary about whether in other areas of the law the Government might be wise to derogate from the European convention on human rights and then reaccede to the human rights legislation with reservations.
It is absolutely clear is that the human rights legislation that the Government have introduced has caused a substantial number of extra cases to be brought to court and a substantial extra cost to the taxpayer. Whatever one feels about looking after human rights, a lot of people in my constituency—and, I am sure, in constituencies up and down the country—are seeing the law of unintended consequences in operations, whereby, for example, claims for damages are being brought by burglars against house owners. Most people wonder whether the Government have completely taken leave of their senses in opening up such a huge extra area of litigation and cost.
I simply want to probe whether the Government are referring yet again to awards of damages under the Human Rights Act. It seemed to us that the clause was another example of the Government finding that in introducing every bit of legislation, they have to contemplate further costs of litigation and further awards of damages, which are going to cost the taxpayer money. It was worth getting that on the record because of the reference in question. At this stage, the amendment is only a probing one. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on those two slightly different, serious points.