Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2001.

Standing Committee F

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at five minutes to Ten o'clock and between half-past Two o'clock and Five o'clock;

(2) the Committee shall not meet on Thursday 8th February, Tuesday 20th February or Thursday 22nd February;

(3) 14 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(4) the proceedings on the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 45, Schedule 1, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3, Clauses 70 to 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Clauses, new Schedules;

(5) the proceedings on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at the 14th sitting at Five o'clock.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I am sure that you and Mr. Hood will conduct proceedings in a fair, courteous and expeditious way. Given that the Second Reading debate was good-natured, I expect the outcome of the Committee's scrutiny to be positive.

The Programming Sub-Committee met last week. Its resolution sets out only the days on which the Committee will meet and the order in which the clauses will be considered, so it gives us maximum flexibility in handling the clauses within the overall programme.

The Bill is lengthy and, with collective agreement, we may need to include Government amendments, for example to include measures to deal with animal rights extremists, a topic on which there is broad all-party agreement. However, I believe that the allocated time should be sufficient.

In the debate in the Chamber, I said that there would be 16 meetings of this Committee; that was our intention. We have subsequently timetabled only 14 sittings because of the availability of individual Committee members. I would like to put on record here what I said about that in the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. We are prepared to honour the commitment that I gave to have 16 full sittings if necessary, either through extra sittings within the agreed time scale, or by lengthening the proceedings of our sittings, as the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) suggested at the Sub-Committee. Either option would be acceptable to the Government, depending on the view of Opposition Members about the correct way of proceeding.

If we consider that some points have been insufficiently debated, Mr. Gale, we will ask you to consider reconvening the Programming Sub-Committee with a view to re-examining the timing of our sittings. I hope that the Committee will accept the resolution.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I, too, welcome you, Mr. Gale. I agree that both you and Mr. Hood will be charming in the Chair and ensure that good order is kept throughout.

The Minister has frankly admitted that on Second Reading he claimed that we would have 16 sittings. He said:

``The motion proposes that the Committee stage of the Bill should finish by Thursday 8 March. By suggesting that date, we believe that we have allowed adequate time in Committee—that is a total of 16 sittings.''—[Official Report, 29 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 124.]

That was the basis on which the House allowed the programme motion to be passed, but it turned out to be false, and when we attended the Programming Sub-Committee, the resolution was for 14 sittings.

Our party does not have mere reservations about, but opposes outright, the idea of such a private Sub-Committee programming our deliberations. We object to the fact that no record is kept and that the Minister is able to guillotine the Committee proceedings, and we do not have the traditional method of allowing sufficient time for the deliberations.

The resolution of the Sub-Committee was for 14 sittings. That means not only that the House passed the programme motion on a false basis, but that the 16 sittings that the Minister himself considered adequate are not provided for. I said in the Sub-Committee that we were being allowed 14 sittings instead of the 16 that we had been promised, and at that point the Minister made his concession. He reverted to 16 sittings under the force of argument from the Opposition.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that I was not forced into the situation? Immediately he raised the point—not with a great weight of argument—I conceded it.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As you will recall, Mr. Gale, I suggested that we should move the proceedings back to an end date of 13 March and that the Sub-Committee should report that conclusion to the House. The Minister then made his concession and said that we would have 16 sittings.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Surely the exchange between my hon. Friend and the Minister highlights the essential need for a verbatim report of the deliberations of Programming Sub-Committees. The Minister thinks that he said one thing, and my hon. Friend thinks that he said something different.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend is right. Let there be no doubt: it was after I moved the motion that the Minister made his concession. First, the Government say that modernisation is a marvellous thing and they will programme everything before anyone knows the scope of the debate. Then, when it is pointed out in the Programming Sub-Committee that there will not be adequate time, suddenly all that changes and they say, ``We can sit all night if we need to. Oh dear, we don't have enough time. We can put in extra days and sit on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.'' The idea that modernisation will help us is destroyed when such a situation arises. Why will the Minister not agree to put back the date to 13 March, which is only a difference of a few days? One suspects that it might have something to do with the Prime Minister's arithmetic.

Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)

We made it clear that putting back the date would require a further resolution of the House. Two of the major parties readily agreed on a sensible solution to add hours, if needed, to the existing sittings and thus to move forward and discuss the issues.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not accept that, for two reasons. First, to be fair to the Liberal Democrats—[Hon. Members: ``Why?''] That is a good question.

To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they agreed with us that it was wrong that we were offered 16 sittings but then allowed only 14. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is saying, ``Oh my goodness, we would have to go back to the Floor of the House,'' as if that were a huge exercise similar to climbing Mount Everest. All it involves is tabling a motion without debate one night at 10 o'clock. It could be done tomorrow night with no difficulty at all and would go through on the nod. It happens all the time—not on these programme motions, I hasten to add—that motions are tabled at short notice. In fact, there is a whole list of them on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman made a point that could not be sustained by anyone who knows the procedures of the House.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I share the hon. Gentleman's recollection that, as the Liberal Democrat representative on the Programming Sub-Committee, I felt that we should have the 16 sittings that were originally promised, but I do not share his recollection of the Minister's response. I recall that the Minister immediately accepted that that was what he had said on Second Reading and said that he would be happy to extend one or two Committee sittings to recover the five hours that would be lost.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. These exchanges highlight how absurd it is for all three parties to discuss what we said when we met last week. A message must be sent back to the Modernisation Committee—or whoever deals with these things—that the situation is impossible and that we must have a verbatim account of discussions in Programming Sub-Committees.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Strictly speaking, that is not a point of order for me. Mr. Speaker has ruled that it is a matter for the Modernisation Committee. I undertook, as I did on a previous occasion, at the meeting of the Sub-Committee, to report its views faithfully to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and that I have done. I am certain that the issue will be considered by the Chairmen's Panel, and I expect that we will make recommendations to the Modernisation Committee. For the moment, the procedure is subject to House resolutions.

I reaffirm the information that I gave to the Sub-Committee. Mr. Hood and I, as your Chairmen, are here to do the Committee's bidding—within reason. If we need to sit late, and it is agreed through the usual channels, our services will be available.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is the sort of generous offer that I would expect from you, Mr. Gale, and from Mr. Hood, but why should you have to make it? There is endless talk about modernisation letting us go home early and giving us plenty of time for consideration and preparation of amendments, but then the Government turn round and say that that applies only if it suits them.

I will not detail further what was said in the Programming Sub-Committee, except to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton that the Minister admitted that he had earlier promised 16 sittings. However, he promised them only after I moved the motion for a later end date. Although we lost that vote, it was the right approach.

We must examine what will be the effect of having a tight, short consideration of some of the issues. The new clauses deal with some of the most important issues, but they will not be considered until the end of the Committee. There is the terrible situation of scientists being terrorised at Huntingdon Life Sciences and other businesses; we must get that right. The Minister has offered to table new clauses, which we have not yet seen, that deal with the besetting of people's homes and with poisonous communication through the post. Further issues that were identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) must be also considered. He asked whether the names of directors and shareholders given to Companies House must also be made public. Are those people to be protected?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that our exchange with the Minister at Home Office questions yesterday showed that there is huge concern among Government Back Benchers about the events at Huntingdon Life Sciences and elsewhere? I understand that the Minister is suggesting no more than half a day to consider new clauses that the Committee has yet to see. Is not that unacceptable and does not it show, once again, the Government's contempt for democracy and debate?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The issue concerns many hon. Members, including Labour Members who are former research scientists and Opposition Members with constituency interests. I have an interest, because my constituency is about 15 miles from Huntingdon, and scientists from Huntingdon Life Sciences who have been terrorised live there. We must also consider the issue of secondary action, when people ring up to make false orders for goods, funeral services and the like. Such situations are distressing, but the Minister has not promised time to consider them. The issues cannot be tackled easily by making amendments on the nod at the end of the Committee. We need to spend time going through all the issues. I know that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) is concerned, too, because her constituency and mine are about equidistant from Huntingdon, and some of her constituents work at Huntingdon Life Sciences.

We want to cover not only besetting and poisonous postal communications, but many other issues. I am worried that there is insufficient time and that we may argue sensibly about matters such as DNA only to discover that we have just the last afternoon to discuss matters concerning Huntingdon Life Sciences. That is the Minister's proposal—I have seen the draft timetable. That is insufficient time, because we have additional new clauses to discuss.

We want to exclude people who assault police officers in the execution of their duty from the home detention curfew scheme. It is not right that 200 people who have assaulted police officers should have been let out of prison having served less than half their sentence. That is bad for police morale, police recruitment and law and order. We want to debate that matter in considering a new clause. We want to debate the issue of sex offenders. We may not get time for that, or the Minister may say, at 5 pm on 8 March, that we can go on all night to discuss those matters. We could end up discussing the most important issues at 2 am when other issues have been discussed at more convenient hours.

Either one believes that the House should deal with matters of importance during daylight hours, when people are fresh, and that modernisation brings benefits, or one does not. Some hon. Members do not, but the Minister cannot have it both ways.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. Many wide implications arise from the new clauses that we have not seen concerning the protection of research scientists. I should declare an interest, because both my parents are research scientists, although they are now retired and were not involved in animal research. I am aware of the important work of Dr. Mark Matfield and the Research Defence Society. That excellent society will have proposals that should be considered fully and properly while the Committee is fresh, and not in the middle of the night.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I agree that those matters are important. The eyes of the nation are on us. People are concerned about how scientists are protected while conducting valuable medical research. There is also debate on the safeguards that should be available to the parents of children who have had their organs removed. Medical governance and how science is dealt with are at the centre of political debate, and the Minister may be condemning us to a late night sitting to consider such matters. Preparation time would be curtailed because of the introduction of extra sittings to meet his unrealistic timetable. That is not right.

Other issues for consideration in Committee cannot be dealt with quickly. The Minister suggested that we can deal with the whole issue of fixed penalty notices today. We will find out whether that is realistic. There are many aspects of fixed penalty notices, as we will soon discover. The Criminal Bar Association alone has produced a long consultation response on the subject that mentions a raft of legal issues, including human rights legislation. Discussion of that will not be easy.

Other issues for consideration include ensuring that stop orders are properly targeted on licensed premises, and whether there should be tougher penalties for people under 18 who attempt to purchase alcohol. Lawyers tell me, although I know that the Minister does not like them—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have great respect for them.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is a new one. That may be because lawyers, such as the Home Secretary and Prime Minister, surround the Minister.

We also need to discuss travel restrictions on drug trafficking offenders. I am in favour of that, in principle, but we need to consider circumstances in which first-time offenders may require a suspension.

The extent of the bureaucracy involved in child curfew schemes has been raised with me by police organisations.

The CBI has concerns about how Office of Fair Trading information will be sent to foreign competition authorities that have different laws from ours. That may put our companies in jeopardy when they have done nothing wrong in this country.

We should also consider the safety and privacy of legally privileged documents under the new seizure powers, and the use of video and audio links to extend detention periods, which is causing disquiet among those who are concerned about civil rights.

If someone, perhaps a vulnerable person, was being detained, or there were concerns about the way in which a detention was being managed, it is possible that the person authorising the continued detention might never see or talk to the detainee. It is worrying that the detainee would have no right to make representations about this, that and the other to the person who was about to authorise the extension of the detention. We need to explore that.

The retention of DNA and fingerprints in cases where people are found not guilty, or are not charged, has been mentioned not only by us but by the Liberal Democrats. I am sure that on such human rights issues they will want, as they customarily do, to raise the issue of liberty and the handling of individual rights.

We need assurances from the Minister about the curriculum for police training, which is absent from the Bill. Is it right to introduce a raft of new ranks for senior officers so that there are far more ranks above inspector than below? Why is he not prepared to give us an extra day, when he has discovered that his pledge of 16 sittings cannot be delivered on anything like a civilised timetable? We have grave concerns about the programme resolution.

Several hon. Members rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I remind the Committee that this debate is limited to half an hour. A number of questions have been asked. If hon. Members want the Minister to respond, they must allow time for that.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I welcome you, Mr. Gale. I have served under you before and am very happy to do so again.

As the Committee has heard, my hon. Friend sat on the Programming Sub-Committee on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Confronted with the Government's revised proposal for fewer sittings, she made a practical suggestion to get round it; it was neither our choice nor our ideal, but it would extend the length of sittings to give us roughly the time that would have been available originally. We are unhappy that programming, which could be a good system in theory, is not good in practice.

It is nonsense to decide immediately after Second Reading for how long the Committee is to sit, before anyone has had a chance to reflect on the issues that have arisen, the number of people with an interest and the general tenor of the debate. That contradicts the ethos of looking at a Bill and then deciding how long is needed for debate. We shall continue to oppose programme motions on the Floor of the House for as long as they continue immediately to follow the Second Reading debate.

We supported a 16-sitting proposal for what is the Government's flagship Bill of the Session. By any definition, that is constrained, because, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it is not only the Bill and any amendments that are tabled that we shall discuss. In theory, there may even be amendments tabled by Labour Members, although they are rare these days, given the nature of the modern, compliant Labour party—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Not so.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not count Government amendments. The Government table hordes of amendments to every Bill. They come in rafts. We know that there is likely to be a new clause relating to animal protesters. Although we have not seen it yet, we welcome it in principle and are ready to discuss it, as we hope that it can be agreed. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, new clauses have already been tabled, and we shall table some too. There is much work to do on the Government's flagship Bill.

The whole system is rendered even more ridiculous because the Government continue to hold to the view—the Prime Minister expressed it the other day—that fixed term Parliaments are a bad idea and we should allow prime ministerial flexibility. If we knew the date of the general election, we could have a sensible programme for our political life.

The truth is that the Bill will almost certainly not become law if there is a general election this spring. So we sit here, going through the motions and having lovely discussions about curfew orders, but it is all froth and Government window dressing. The Government want to look tough, even though the Bill will not become law. Civil servants do the work, lobbyists come to brief us, researchers do all the background work and MPs will spend hours discussing it, but that will all probably be lost because the Prime Minister will pull the plug and call an election for March, April or May.

On the inner workings of the Committee, we would welcome sight of the so far hidden proposal on exactly how we are to divide our time. We shall vote against this resolution because we understood that it was to be a 16-sitting resolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton tried to ameliorate the situation, but that is not our preferred option. If the Government get their way on the motion—which they probably will—we hope that they will give an early indication of how we will break down the time and fit in the five hours that my hon. Friend said will be needed.

It would be sensible to have plenty of notice of that, not just for you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chairman, but for us all, so that we can plan our lives intelligently. It would be helpful to have a rough idea of how long each major issue will take, and for that to be known publicly so that people interested in the Committee proceedings will know too.

There are at least 10 big issues in the Bill and I hope that we will give ourselves time to debate them. However, I regret that our time will be constrained and that Committee members from all parties might feel frustrated by the Government's proposals.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before I call the next speaker, I must make it plain that we have a limited amount of time. That is made clear on the amendment paper. The Chair has a duty to protect, as far as possible, the interests of Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am grateful for that reassurance of protection. I will not go on about the absurdity and the scandal that the programming resolution represents. My hon. Friends have already made that clear.

I want to place on the record my concern that the Programming Sub-Committee can meet, discuss individual availability of Ministers and then resolve to have 14 sittings, instead of the 16 that were promised on Second Reading and in the programme motion on the Floor of the House. No one has asked me about my availability to serve on the Committee. I take my duties as a legislator seriously and I get involved in the detail.

We shall suffer from the effect of cramming everything in before the deadline of 8 March. It will become impossible if we try to lever in the five extra hours that the Minister graciously promised. However, the programming resolution contains no qualification that, if more time is needed, it will be available. I want to place on the record how unhappy I am with the resolution and with the way in which the whole process is managed. I shall allow a minute or two for the Minister to reply.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have listened to hon. Members' remarks about the process of the programme motion and the issues surrounding it raised on the Floor of the House and in Committee today. This is not the place to conduct that discussion more fully, but I place on the record that it is the Government's function to support the Chair in its decisions. In response to the whole process of modernisation, we are ready to discuss aspects of this experiment through the usual channels, including such matters as the publication of minutes of Programming Sub-Committees.

I reinforce, as strongly as I can, the statement that the Government are ready to make the same time available as would have been provided in the full 16 sittings to which I referred in the Chamber, without any qualification or inhibition.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Why, then, can we not go back to the House and extend the deadline beyond 8 March?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That has been made clear and I will simply reassert the point. The House rightly decided that the Committee should end on 8 March but, until then, we are ready to debate for the full time. I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that, for the convenience of the Committee, we are ready to commit to an early proposition about how that can be achieved. That is a reasonable request, and I commend the resolution to the Committee.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before the Committee proceeds to substantive consideration of the Bill, I want to state again that, as far as I am concerned, the Chair will do its utmost to accommodate the wishes of the Committee, within the reasonable bounds of human comfort. I would be grateful if the usual channels conducted their deliberations as early as possible, so that as much notice as possible can be given both to Committee members, who might have to rearrange other business, and to the Officers of the House, who have to organise their lives too. Clause 1 Offences leading to penalities on the spot.

Clause 1 - Offences leading to penalities on the spot.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 22, in page 2, leave out lines 21 to 25.

No. 24, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—

`paragraph 10(1) Schedule 4 Local Unlawful street trading'. Government (Miscellaneous

Provision) Act 1982

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Thank you for indicating that you want a flexible approach involving the usual channels to operate in the Committee, Mr. Gale.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The programming resolution is curious because it does not lay down times for concluding consideration of particular clauses. In other words, it invites the usual channels to arrange the business as best they can. That was precisely how Committees used to be organised and it is why we so dislike the present system.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I agree with my hon. Friend. We had no problems under the previous system. It is a pity that we must have a firm end date.

The amendment would remove criminal damage from the list of offences for which a fixed penalty notice can be given. Clause 1(1) lists the offences for which such notices may be applied.

Amendment No. 22 would remove the offence of using

``Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour''.

Amendment No. 24 would add offences concerning unlawful street trading.

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear that, although we are not opposed in principle to the issuing of fixed penalty notices, we want to examine the details of the proposals.

The two offences that would be deleted from the list are potentially serious in terms of their effects both on victims and on the wider community's general sense of public order and safety. Should those who are accused of such serious offences be dealt with without arrest and charge and, potentially, conviction and sentence? Would attempts to deal with such offences on the street be likely to aggravate situations?

Criminal damage, in particular, is an offence that affects its victims. It can be a harassment offence—an act of criminal damage or vandalism that continues a campaign of harassment. It can be an offence in which the monetary value is small but the effect on the individual is substantial.

The same is true of

``Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour''.

Such offences can arise in the context of a neighbour from hell, or can be committed as part of a series of public order problems on our high streets at the weekend. There are a range of circumstances in which the two offences can occur, but they are often serious offences, with serious consequences. We accept that there is to be an element of discretion here, but question whether such offences should be fixed penalty notice offences.

In response to the Government's consultation on fixed penalty notices, Bedfordshire police said:

``The type of offence to be included in this scheme should not be one where the circumstances are likely to increase existing confrontation''

and specifically mentioned ``abusive or insulting behaviour''.

The Association of Chief Officers of Probation has remarked:

``As threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour may include some serious incidents and often have a direct victim, we would have doubts about their inclusion.''

Two serious bodies have therefore expressed doubts about whether such offences might be too serious to be included in a list of fixed penalty notice offences and dealt with in that way, and whether that is practical.

The Association of Chief Officers of Probation commented that it believes that the same applies to cases of criminal damage, which can be

``part of an incident that is serious and has a direct victim.''

It also says that, in such cases,

``reconciling the desirability of compensation for the damage with the simplicity of a fixed penalty might be difficult.''

We agree that criminal damage can cause great distress, even where there is little monetary value involved. The chief constable of the West Midlands police, Edward Crew, said that the Association of Chief Police Officers was broadly happy with the proposed list of fixed penalty offences except for criminal damage. He said:

``As you know, this offence is an `arrestable offence', is triable `either way', and can have an enormous impact on victims' lives even in the most minor instances. There was therefore considerable concern about whether it would be appropriate to deal with such offences by way of FPN.''

He added that there was a consensus that criminal damage should always result in the arrest of the alleged offender, and also pointed out:

``Criminal Damage is also notifiable for fingerprinting and DNA purposes and there is some fear that should such offences attract the issue of FPNs on the street, the vital opportunity to obtain fingerprints and DNA samples will be lost.''

Does the Minister agree that some offences are too serious to be dealt with by fixed penalty notice? There are certainly offences that could occur on the street that are not included in the list, and I suspect that that is because he would not want to diminish their seriousness. However, are the two offences under discussion not also too serious to be dealt with by fixed penalty notice?

Why has the Minister not followed the views of such important bodies as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and Bedfordshire police?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will recall the ridicule that the Prime Minister faced when he announced a half-baked scheme for people to be dragged to cashpoints to pay fines on the street. The Government dropped that stupid proposal quickly. Does my hon. Friend agree that the major problem with the Government's revised proposal, among the other problems that he highlights, is summed up in one sentence from the Criminal Bar Association, which says:

``Disorderly drunks are by definition not in a fit state to be served with a legal document with penal consequences''?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend is right to air that issue. I hope that, in the clause stand part debate, we shall examine the 12 or more issues raised by the Criminal Bar Association, which deal with how orders might operate for the offences listed in clause 1(1). I am concentrating on criminal damage and threatening behaviour, but many people have asked whether fixed penalty notices should by used for these types of offences or whether they would be better used for others. I should like to discuss with the Minister and the Committee where I think that fixed penalty notices might be useful. Subject to your ruling, Mr. Gale, that would probably be better considered in the clause stand part debate, rather than in debate on these narrow amendments that deal with criminal damage, threatening behaviour and street traders.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Those who have previously served under my chairmanship know that I take a relaxed view of stand part debates. My view has always been that a Committee can have a stand part debate either along with the first group of amendments or at the end, but cannot have both. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants a stand part debate, that is fine by me. However, because this is a narrow group of amendments, debate should be confined to them.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

But the amendments raise important issues. If the Association of Chief Police Officers says that criminal damage is not suited to the procedures, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation says that threatening behaviour is not suited to them and Bedfordshire police also has reservations, we should concentrate on their concerns.

Does the Minister think that the penalties will work for those two offences? He will be aware that the New South Wales ombudsman, Brendan Delahunty, responded to the Government consultation. He sent the Minister a paper called ``Policing Public Safety''. In chapter 12, pages 308 to 310, that paper described the experience of issuing fixed penalty notices for public order offences under the Australian Police and Public Safety Act. Offences mentioned are public order offences such as carrying a knife and refusing to do what a police officer says when direction is appropriate. The paper showed that although fixed penalty notices generally achieve a good level of payment, it drops dramatically where public order offences are concerned. In New South Wales, 95 per cent. of penalties were not paid for the offence of custody of a knife and 92 per cent. were not paid for refusing police direction. Payment was therefore received from between only 5 and 8 per cent. of those served with fixed penalty notices. The paper concluded that the bulk of offenders served with fixed penalty notices were young—under 24—that the fines were far too high, and that offenders had limited capacity to pay and did not understand the legal consequences of non-payment.

The Association of Chief Officers of Probation took up that point and said:

``A judgement needs to be made about whether the current compliance rate of 77 per cent. for fixed penalties is satisfactory or whether it is too low. Extending fixed penalties to non-motorists, especially those with alcohol problems, probably means fixed penalty compliance will dip sharply. From probation experience we know that successful compliance and enforcement is critical to public confidence.''

Why does the Minister think that it would be different for penalising threatening behaviour or criminal damage in this country? Would we not end up with a lack of respect for the law if those comparatively serious matters were treated in such a manner? Threatening behaviour is an offence often committed by young men on a Saturday night, at a football match or in the heated environment of a dispute with a neighbour. It might be serious or not so serious. It is the type of offence that fits into the category identified in New South Wales of offences committed by young people who do not understand the legal consequences of not paying and who are unlikely to pay.

Will penalties become a farce because of high levels of non-payment? I may deal with the cost of that when we come to clause stand part. Are not penalties on the spot particularly unsuitable for those two offences?

I want to ask the Minister about criminal damage. The victims of criminal damage have lost money. They may have had a fence kicked in or a tyre punctured or some other act of vandalism committed against them. If the amount involved is small, say a couple of hundred pounds, they might not try to recover it in a civil court. Currently, a victim is entitled to make a compensation claim if the criminal is charged, and a compensation order can be made on conviction. Will victims be deprived of the opportunity to receive compensation by the use of fixed penalty notices? If so, is that not monstrous?

The questions regarding criminal damage are whether the offence is too serious and whether it is right to deny compensation to a victim who has suffered a no doubt worrying incident and the loss of a small amount of money. Many victims might agree with ACPO, which has said that the offence should not be included.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, but I cannot understand part of it. On the one hand, he said that there is no point in issuing fixed penalty notices for public order offences, because the people to whom they would be issued are unlikely to be able to pay, and on the other, he suggested that fixed penalty notices issued for criminal damage are unfair because those same people who are unable to pay will not attract a compensation order. Is that right? How does he reconcile those two positions?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I did not think that there was a problem. I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary has been to court in his professional days—perhaps not, I do not know, but in any case, he will know that a compensation claim can be made when someone is prosecuted for criminal damage. It is true that the court will consider the individual's means in deciding how much should be paid and at what rate. For victims, compensation is a good thing, although they often complain about the rate of payment ordered by the court. He will know that the victim receives compensation before the fine is paid. In any event, he will at least agree that £50 or £100 paid at £5 a week is better than nothing. Compensation is eventually paid if court process is involved. What will happen with fixed penalty notices if enforcement is not adequate?

The law will be brought into disrepute if such serious offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notices and only 6 per cent. of offenders pay. I look forward to an explanation of how payment will be enforced. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene if he feels that I have not satisfied him on that point.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. His analysis is that that group of people would not pay fixed penalty notices. Why, then, does he think that they would pay compensation?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

If such people do not, they will end up in court and be pursued by magistrates. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, magistrates go after people time after time until, eventually, the money is paid. It is often paid at a low rate, but it is paid. His records will show that, although I guess that he would like a higher payment rate.

It is wrong to deprive victims of criminal damage of compensation, and the offence is too serious to be dealt with in such a manner.

On unlawful street trading, the Association of Chief Police Officers commented in the consultation:

``There is much support for extending the fixed penalty notice system to include other non notifiable offences, for example unlawful street trading, which can attract large audiences in busy market areas, providing an ideal environment for pickpocketing and street robberies.''

It also says that the use of fixed penalty notices for such behaviour is common in Amsterdam and focuses on such antisocial behaviour.

There has been a colossal 21 per cent. rise in robberies. Unlawful street trading allows street robbery to occur under the cover of a crowd. Why have Ministers ignored ACPO's advice and not included unlawful street trading—as set out in amendment No. 24—in the list of offences leading to fixed penalty notices?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I will limit my remarks to the amendments, but the Committee knows that we are sceptical of fixed penalty notices being used, other than for offences that leave a physical legacy for all to see. Most of the offences in clause 1 do not fall into that category.

Traditionally, the fixed penalty system applies to offences committed by car drivers. That is reasonable, as one does not have to drive a car—one gets a licence to drive. If such a licence is applied for and used, its conditions are known. That applies to any other motor vehicle, such as scooters and tractors. It is easy to deal with motoring offences in that way, because the vehicle is visible and identifiable by a unique characteristic—the number plate—in a way that individuals are not.

It has been argued that fixed penalty notices should apply to cycling offences, such as cycling on pavements. That is sensible, because physical evidence exists, although it is more difficult to establish firm facts, as bicycles do not have numbers and licence plates.

On Second Reading, we identified two other offences that leave a clear legacy and visible sign of offence: littering and dog fouling. They are more difficult to prove, as one has to be careful to link the dog or litter to the right person, but evidence exists. Some types of criminal damage come into that category, and some do not. If someone throws a brick through a window and there is only one person around, it is relatively easy to identify who has done it. However, in the case of criminal damage such as graffiti spray-painted on to a wall or a name scratched on a bus shelter—helpful if it is an individual's name, but not if it is just a tag from which the person cannot be identified—and a gang of youths aged 18 or over is hanging around, it may not be nearly so obvious. One could reasonably argue for keeping such damage on the list.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is trying to apply a principle to the system and is more sympathetic to it than I am. I am surprised that he wants to remove this offence while leaving in the others, which are far less capable of being linked to a specific perpetrator and a physical act.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right. In proposing the two deletions, I have looked at submissions from ACPO, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, Bedfordshire police and others. I was persuaded by their arguments in respect of those particular offences. However, I am not trying to establish a principle that evidence needs to be left, or anything like that. I am saying that the representations were made by people who understand the issue, and I have been guided by them.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on a thought that his observations have prompted, namely that some offences require a mental element? Criminal damage is one. I think that it would be true of threatening, abusive and insulting words or disorderly behaviour. Misusing the public telecommunications system and wasting police time would probably come into the same category. They are all offences with a mental aspect. For example, there has to be an element of intent or recklessness to commit criminal damage. An offender could say that the offence was an accident. How would that be handled under the fixed penalty notice regime?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is arguing for and against certain omissions and deletions. It is the result of a speedy consultation process. At least there was one, and there were submissions in response to it. He also raised intent, which I was about to illustrate. When I was practising at the Bar, I was involved in the case of a man called Gary Docherty, whom I came to know fairly well. I think that he was aged 18 at the time. He was pushed off the balcony of a block of Lambeth-owned council flats in Kennington and landed on the roof of a car below. It was clearly criminal damage. The car was severely dented. He was pretty well dented too, but that was a separate matter about which no allegation was made. In that case, the whole argument was about whether the damage was intentional. Was Mr. Docherty reckless in damaging the car? In the end, he got off, thanks to my good offices, and lived to fight another day.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This is almost a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it appropriate to advertise one's services, either as a barrister or as a Member of Parliament?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Happily, that is not a point of order for the Chair. As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are responsible for their own words and actions.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

If the Minister thinks that I am canvassing for even more casework, I am certainly not. I have enough to keep any Member of Parliament busy for more than a normal life span.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

How can the hon. Gentleman be so certain that it was thanks to him that the defendant got off? It could have been a bizarre jury or bench of magistrates.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

At least in those days the defendant had the consolation of being able to choose trial by jury, which, if the Government have their way, he will not be able to do in future. That is another of the Government's wicked and malicious plans that will probably not reach the statute book before the general election and therefore, I hope, will never reach it.

The offence that amendment No. 22 would delete is hugely subjective and easily misused by the charging officer, and it would not necessarily evidence the intention that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked about. I support the proposal to remove the offence altogether. We know from experience that it is exactly the sort of thing for which police officers nick people regularly, to show that they are doing their job. They often have no idea whether the person in question committed the offence; they just go into a group of people and nick one of them.

The reality is that officers often do not know which one of a gang used certain words, what is disorderly or what is abusive. What might be abusive to someone who has lived in refined circumstances might not be abusive to people like me who have lived on the Old Kent road for half their life. What is disorderly among a group of six pensioners aged 70 might not be disorderly among a group of 19-year-olds. It is entirely subjective. In a different way, what causes harassment, alarm or distress is also subjective and, for those reasons, this approach is wrong. The police should not have the power; it will give them all the cards and will give none to the citizen, and is a sign of an imbalance that could lead to more severe problems.

As I said on Second Reading, these offences are mischievous and inappropriate because it is fine for well-heeled, intelligent individuals to get fixed penalty notices if they happen to be messing around on the streets one evening, having been to a posh dining club. It is no trouble for them because they would just write out a cheque the next day. It would make no difference to their bank accounts and would be just one of those things. Many people regularly take parking fines as par for the course. On the other side are people like a lad from my constituency, who I recently tried to help. He was a 19-year-old, sleeping rough in a car and not of high intelligence, who was trying to cope with life and hold down a part-time job. Such people are much less likely to manage if they have to deal with a fixed penalty notice. They would have trouble organising themselves, ensuring that they had the money to pay on time and understanding what to do if they wanted to challenge the notice.

The system would break up England and Wales even more into two societies: the well-heeled and intelligent and the less competent and well-off. If people do not have the money and cannot pay within the time limit, the only way out is to challenge the case, which poorer people are less likely to do.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I see the hon. Gentleman's point about how those who have, can, and those who have not, cannot. However, whatever walk of life people are in—even professional people—those who continually receive a series of fixed penalty notices will be affected. Surely there will be a record of the fines, which might get into the newspapers, and that would be embarrassing and affect their professional status at work. Therefore, is it not better to have the fixed penalty notices?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand the hon. Lady's question. An extraordinary number of people incur fixed penalty notices regularly. They can be seen in London, parking big cars on the pavement day after day. They have one, two, three tickets, their cars are towed away and they collect them. It does not matter to them; they can afford it. To them, it is part of the disbursements of life.

As the hon. Lady well knows and as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned, there are huge numbers of unpaid fines. These are not my figures; they are set out in the Library briefing on the Bill, which cites a Home Office report that states that 60,000 fines totalling £4 million were written off in 1986. By 1994-95, the figure had risen to nearly 500,000 fines totalling £33.4 million.

Last July's article in the Sunday Telegraph reported that the police and courts had been unable to collect nearly £72 million of fines and costs from convicted criminals and defaulters over the previous year. According to a Police Review article, in the financial year 1998-99, £220 million was received in paid fines but write-offs due to non-payment amounted to £43.6 million. We must think carefully about a fining system that is so flawed and ineffective for so many people—some 20 per cent. of those concerned.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should abolish all fines because some people do not pay them?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No, I do not suggest that all fines should be abolished. There are many people in prison who should have been dealt with through financial penalties and many who are in prison because they have not paid fines. That is nonsense because it is an inappropriate remedy. We must ensure that fining is appropriate when the court assesses what is likely to be effective. The system assumes that fining will be effective and leaves it open to the defendant to get out of it. Effectiveness is not a question for the court. Such decisions should be taken after proper assessment of whether, and how soon, a person is likely to pay. When someone has been socked on the street at 1 am, there is no way of knowing the financial circumstances of the offender and whether there is any chance of a fine being paid.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In answer to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), the hon. Gentleman said that many people in custody should be dealt with by financial penalty. That may be Liberal Democrat policy, but I hope that he does not suggest that he, as a parliamentarian or a member of the Bar, should substitute his decision about what is right for defendants for those of the courts. That would be arrogant and undermine his own argument.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not want to be drawn into other arguments. Such decisions are, of course, for the courts, within the range of penalties provided by the law. We can debate penalties and sentencing. We shall submit further suggestions to the Government's review of sentencing. We are sure that there must be greater flexibility in the supervision orders that go with small sentences of imprisonment. Prison governors and the probation service regularly tell me that.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to the discretion of police officers. With offences such as threatening behaviour or criminal damage, an officer might decide to issue a fixed penalty notice rather than a caution or making a charge. If different disposals were made in the cases of two defendants in the same situation or two similar cases arose within a short period, allegations of discrimination could be made. It could be alleged that a decision was taken for racist reasons or for a host of other religious or other reasons. Unless the officer can show that his decision was taken for a good reason, it could be justiciable under human rights legislation. Is the hon. Gentleman worried that such a decision could be subject to judicial review?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman is right to look at the matter in that context. I have a practical example. Someone who protested last year against the visit of the President of China because of China's actions in Tibet might have been guilty of

``insulting words...within hearing or sight of persons likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress''.

The President of China might, in my view justifiably, have been alarmed, distressed or perturbed by the demonstration—I hope that he saw as many demonstrators as possible. In such a case, it would be possible for a police officer to say, ``You're nicked.'' Is that appropriate? Is that the sort of behaviour for which someone should receive a fixed penalty notice? Is it right that those people from my constituency who protested during the Chinese President's visit should be subject to on-the-spot justice by a police officer, especially as we now know that the police acted inappropriately? Everyone has accepted that the police went over the top in that situation and behaved in a way that was overly restrictive of liberty for reasons that were explored last year. That is a good example of how difficult it is to know what is distressing to whom in any particular circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman raised another issue. Of a group of seven people, who are, perhaps, waving at two police officers coming down the street, which will the police officer choose? Should it be the one who is most likely to run away quickly or the one whom the police officer is most likely to be able to get hold of? If I was a police officer, I think that I would choose the one who was least likely to give me grief, least likely to bop me over the head and least likely to be able to run away quickly. Therefore, there is an element of subjectivity, which means that the police officer might choose the person who is most vulnerable or least able to run. Depending on the circumstances, the police officer will make a judgment at the time, and if he has no reinforcements, he is hardly likely to go for the biggest, strongest, fittest individual, who is most likely to give him trouble. That person will then escape the fixed penalty notice and all sorts of justice, while someone else who is a less effective combatant will not.

Furthermore, a fixed penalty notice might be served on someone who does not actually receive it, or there might be some argument about whether the notice was received or whether the person dropped it on the pavement—we will come to other examples of how barmy the whole process is. Then the process must be followed up in the event of a challenge being made later.

Yesterday, I was told about a poll carried out by BBC Online with ICM, for which 1,000 people in England, Scotland and Wales were interviewed in the past few days. It is interesting that, by a narrow margin, a majority—or a large minority: 49 per cent. to 47 per cent.—of people do not think that fixed penalty notices are an appropriate punishment. Most people think that fixed penalty notices are an inappropriate way of dealing with any offences, not just the ones listed in the Bill. As I argued on Second Reading, if we want to take this approach, we should pilot the scheme in certain areas and make a judgment on the basis of the experience of the magistrates, police, probation service, youth service and local authority.

Amendment No. 24 would include street trading. I am sympathetic to that because there are more open and visible signs of street trading. London is an obvious example, but there are also other places where fly-by-night—although they are usually fly-by-day—people illegally pitch their burger stalls or flag stalls. It seems that that would be easier to deal with because it is more difficult for traders to scoot away with their barrows on two wheels or their kebab stalls. Admittedly, some traders in shopping centres can just close their suitcases or briefcases and run away, but I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that that is the sort of offence that should logically be included in the list.

Therefore, I am sympathetic to deleting the two offences that the hon. Gentleman suggests should be deleted, and will vote accordingly if he presses his amendment to a vote. However, contrary to my general view that fixed penalty notices are an inappropriate way of dealing with most offences, I am sympathetic to including unlawful trading and would support that amendment. I am still not persuaded that a long list of offences should be included before we have tested the basic idea. We should do that in a localised way to see whether it has any validity and whether any of the fines, if properly issued, would be collected in significant numbers and thus bring the criminal justice system into greater repute.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I have tabled three amendments, and it was my intention to press amendment No. 21 to a vote. However, in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, is it possible to have a separate Division on amendment No. 24?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Yes, it is possible.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I support the amendments. They distinguish between offences in respect of their nature and of the sorts of people who are likely to commit them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned our concerns about some of the other fixed penalty notices. Alcohol Concern and the Criminal Bar Association are worried about the capacity of drunks to receive fixed penalty notices. Such concerns will be discussed in the clause stand part debate.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are distinctive because they remove from the Bill offences that are likely to be committed by people who have a low regard for the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire drew attention to the astonishingly low compliance with fixed penalty notices in New South Wales. Those notices were issued for carrying weapons, and the rate of non-payment was in the region of 92 to 95 per cent.

Fines are likely to be paid if the system of penalties works and is respected, as it does in relation to cars. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, if a car owner is fined because he does not have a licence, he is likely to pay because there is some leverage over the car owner.

The offences of

``Destruction of, or damage to, property without lawful excuse'',

``Threatening, abusive or insulting words''—

a distinction should be drawn in the case of lawful demonstrations—are different from the other offences. They are likely to involve acts of violence and to be committed by people who ignore fixed penalty notices, even if they can be served when the offence takes place.

Although offences such as

``Throwing stones etc at trains or other things on railways''

``Throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare''

involve a degree of violence, they are minor misdemeanours that are likely to be committed by children. It would be appropriate to punish those crimes with a fixed penalty notice, although the Bill does not apply to people aged under 18. That is a pity, as I do not imagine that many adults commit such offences.

Adults who engage in the destruction of property or in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour are likely to belong to a class of offender that does not respect fixed penalty notices, in which case they will have to be taken to court.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made it clear that those are serious offences, and that is another reason why it is not suitable to deal with them by means of the fixed penalty notice. That is not a serious enough punishment for people who have destroyed property or engaged in insulting behaviour that is likely to cause ``harassment, alarm or distress'' in the proper sense of those words. Such people should be charged and taken to court if the police find it necessary to intervene to the extent of issuing a notice.

I want to reinforce the point that was made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the judgment that would have to be made about what constitutes

``Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour''.

As he said, there was great concern about the policing of the visit of the President of China. Many people, including me, judged that the police overreacted to protect the President's sensibilities.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I have to say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that, although I have tried to be lenient, I cannot allow conferences to take place in the Gallery. If he wants to consult political advisers, he must do so outside.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I support the points that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has made.

Amendment No. 24 seeks to include unlawful street trading, which lends itself to a fixed penalty notice. The offence is easily identifiable, and if the police are dealing with someone who is trading on the street, they can physically take hold of the person. The issuing of a fixed penalty notice will make it clear to such people that their activities cannot continue. There have been difficulties in moving street traders on in the royal parks, and regulations had to be introduced to deal with that. The provision would help the police and authorities to ensure that unwelcome, unlicensed, unlawful street trading is ended outside the royal parks.

For those reasons, I support the amendments. I would like to discuss further the difficulties of fixed penalty notices for the other offences in the clause stand part debate.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I join other hon. Members in welcoming you and Mr. Hood to the Chair, Mr. Gale.

I support the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire moved, and want to talk about the problems that might arise were the Government's plans to go through unamended. I also want to highlight further what my hon. Friends have said about criminal damage. When I began my career at the Bar in the late 1970s, I spent much time dealing with criminal damage cases—like most young barristers, including my hon. Friend, who was on the same circuit as me, and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock). When one is starting at the Bar, one has much work on circuit in magistrates courts, although there are fewer and fewer magistrates courts because of the Government's ridiculous policy of closure. However, you would not allow me to stray down that road, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Correct.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Much of my work in rural magistrates courts, especially with juveniles, involved prosecuting and defending in cases of criminal damage. I must compare and contrast those cases, and especially the way in which police officers reacted then, with the position of police officers, especially those in cities, if the Government's proposals went through unamended.

We must examine the position of police officers on the street under the Labour Government. I received the latest edition of the magazine Police in my parliamentary post this morning. It includes an article by Martin Smith that I think is appropriate. It talks about the reality of policing under the Labour Government, especially in inner-city London, and has relevance to the Government's proposals on criminal damage. I can give an overview of the situation by quoting the heading: ``Too few police officers, broken down vehicles, defective equipment ... in down-town South America? An outpost of a Banana Republic that has spent its meagre budget too soon? Not a bit of it. This is how policing is in an Inner London police station in the year 2001. Martin Smith reports from the Front''.

Mr. Smith talks about ordinary individuals who might want to report an offence such as criminal damage—or anything else—to the police, as law-abiding citizens are encouraged to do. To analyse the Government's proposals, we must ask whether their fixed penalty scheme would be workable. We doubt that it would be, because of comments by serving police officers in such articles.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will in a moment, but I think that before he responds, the Minister should hear about the situation that four years of Labour Government have caused. The article, by a serving police officer, says:

``It's a shambles. What kind of an image does it portray to the public when they run to a police station to report...to find it shut and are told to telephone the crime in? Police stations used to be seen as safe havens. More often than not now it is a derelict building with a `closed' sign on the front door and police officers are phantom figures tucked away in some Super Nick that the public have never heard of and will probably go nowhere near...It's the same with the control room. When we had our own control room on the ground, I would be in and out half a dozen times during the course of a night. I would talk to the CAD staff and from them I would know exactly what was happening anywhere on the ground and where each officer was. I can't do that any more. I don't know what's happening on my own ground and I am the supervisor of nothing and nobody.''

That is the reality of policing under a Labour Government in our capital city in 2001. I invite the Minister to apologise for the appalling situation that his Government have brought about.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the Minister has told us that, in London, 31 police stations have reduced their hours since the Government came to power, the Government do not know how many have closed? They have no idea about the rest of the country, either.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem is that we are talking about having to make do and mend and patch up the criminal law. How can the Minister say that police on the front line will be able to operate the new fixed penalty system, when they have been reduced to struggling as described in this month's Police magazine?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I had not intended to comment on police stations, as it is not entirely within the matter under discussion. Let me inform the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire—the data are published in parliamentary answers—that more police stations closed, and at a faster rate, under the Conservative Government than under this Government. Opposition Members have spoken with hostility about fixed penalty notices. Do they think that they should apply only to the offences in the amendments, or that there should be no fixed penalty notices at all?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am talking about the amendments. We are trying to improve an inadequate Bill and inadequate law and order position. It is the Opposition's responsibility to say that the Bill is not particularly wonderful, but that our amendments would improve it. The Minister was completely unable to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The Government do not know the answer or have any up-to-date figures. It is a disgrace.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I published the answer.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am trying to allow a flexible debate, but we are moving wide of the amendments. I told the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that we can have one stand part debate. It can be now or later, but not both.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will take your guidance, Mr. Gale. We would prefer to have the stand part debate later.

It is not only the Conservatives who have reservations: the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has reservations about how this part of the Bill will work in practice. Inevitably, it is part and parcel of analysing the Government's proposals to ask whether the people who will implement the new system will be able to make it work. Articles such as the one that I quoted suggest that it will not work.

We think that the Bill can be improved. I support amendment No. 24, on unlawful street trading, although I do not want to elaborate on that, because my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire dealt with it fully. There are serious weaknesses in the Bill that our amendments would improve. I am concerned that the Government have not realised the seriousness of the problems that they have created in policing, particularly in our cities and towns.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Many valid issues have been raised, but in my response I do not intend to deal with the level of policing, beyond mentioning that crime is falling and police numbers are rising, which is good.

The amendments concern the list of penalty offences in subsection (1), and in particular the offences of criminal damage and offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which include illegal street trading. The Government intend to support amendment No. 9, to obtain an affirmative resolution debate on extension of the list.

The amendment would remove the offences of criminal damage and public order from the list so that no penalty notice could be issued for them. Unlawful street trading would also become a penalty offence.

In respect of criminal damage, the offence included in subsection (1) is that under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and concerns the destruction of, or damage to, property without lawful excuse. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will appreciate that we have deliberately not included the more serious offence under section 1(2), where life is endangered either intentionally or recklessly, because that is unsuited to the penalty notice scheme. We intend the Bill to catch behaviour at the less serious end of the spectrum where the damage caused is the result of disorderly or antisocial behaviour. We do not intend it to apply where the serious criminal sets out deliberately to destroy or severely damage the property of another person.

I appreciate that the offences listed in subsection (1) encompass a range of behaviour. For that reason, we shall issue advice on the operation of the Bill to the police to make clear the type of offence that the scheme is designed to deal with. In particular, we shall draw attention to the need to consider carefully, before issuing a notice, whether, if the case went to court, a compensation order might be made in favour of the owner of the damaged property. In such a situation, it might be preferable for the case be dealt with by other means.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The offence under section 1(2) of the 1971 Act is very serious. It is an indictable offence that often involves arson and the like. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that it was wrong to protect victims through compensation—which is the main aim of the amendment—because they do not pay up. Do the Government seriously think that we should not try to protect victims because defendants will not pay?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am sure that that was not my hon. Friend's intention, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman accurately represented his view.

The scale of the situation is suggested by the fact that compensation orders were made in 51 per cent. of criminal damage cases where a conviction was recorded. Some 28,000 offenders were cautioned for criminal damage in 1999, and no compensation was possible in those cases. That is a substantial number and requires careful examination.

The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there are differences in how the fixed penalty notice revenue might be achieved. A fine can be registered against an individual of one and a half times the penalty, if no trial is requested. The fine is enforced by the magistrates court, like any other fine or compensation order.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned New South Wales. Although I read the document carefully when it arrived, it was not at the forefront of my mind until he referred to it. I am advised that the experience in New South Wales is not transferable. There, the penalties were equal to the maximum that a court could impose, which, of course, would not encourage payment. We will have different levels of payment for the reasons set out in the Bill.

We acknowledge that there is an issue about compensation, but we believe that guidance to the police can effectively cover the point that has been made. We should not restrict the remit of the Bill in the way that has been suggested.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Does the Minister agree that a police officer on the pavement should not have to consider compensation when dealing with particular circumstances? He might have to make a subjective judgment. For example, a council will have a system for cleaning up spray-paint damage to a council building, so the police officer can proceed with fixed penalty measures, but compensation is appropriate if the damage is to the window of a privately owned car. Is that not exactly the sort of issue that a court should decide, and a good reason for having a court-based rather than a street-based justice system?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I know that the hon. Gentleman likes soundbites, but it is important to emphasise that individuals who are charged can choose whether they wish to go to trial. We will come to that when we discuss later clauses. There is absolutely no qualification: if people prefer not to be dealt with under the fixed penalty notice procedure, then they do not need to be. That is one of the fundamental reasons why it is not true, as he suggested, that the process gives all the cards to the police and none to the citizen. As we set out in clause 3(3)(g), the notice must make it clear that the suspect has the right to trial and thus all the rights that he has now.

Regarding the inability of the poor to pay on time, we believe that there is flexibility in the situation. The hon. Gentleman discussed potential police victimisation. Police officers already have discretion in how they deal with offenders. They can charge, caution or move on someone whom they find committing an offence. Fixed penalties are simply an additional power in the repertoire that is already used professionally by the police. We do not accept the charge that this is a charter for incompetent police, which is what has been suggested.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister point to a provision that gives flexibility regarding the means of a defendant and the time allowed to pay?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

When a fine has been registered, the enforcement court has discretion to allow payment in instalments or to set aside the fine in the interests of justice. We will debate those provisions at greater length when we come to the relevant clauses, but I believe that there is flexibility.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On the compensation point, the Minister must accept that if someone decides to pay a fixed penalty notice within the given time, there is no criminal conviction, and that is the end of the matter. The recipient of the fixed penalty notice makes a decision that precludes the compensation option, and the range of penalties from which a court would be able to choose in other circumstances is inhibited.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In a narrow sense, the hon. Gentleman is correct, but the true situation is that in an average year there are 28,000 cases where there is no compensation of any kind. I am sure that he can point to many areas in his constituency where there has been damage to street furniture, for example, where no compensation has been paid for a variety of reasons. We are clear that where such activity takes place, there should be a penalty. That is why we included the provisions in the Bill.

The offending behaviour covered by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 includes

Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour within hearing or sight of person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

I emphasise the words ``harassment, alarm or distress''. Again, that seems to typify the behaviour to which we would like the new scheme to apply. The description of the offence even includes the words ``disorderly behaviour''. It does not seem logical deliberately to omit it from the list before there has been a chance to see how it works in practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to issue guidance to the police on this issue, as on the others set out here. We consider that the offence is important enough to be a penalty offence.

Amendment No. 24 concerns unlawful street trading. The hon. Gentleman was right to cite the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers. In response to our consultation document, Sir Edward Crew, on behalf of the association, said:

``There is much support for extending the fixed penalty notice system to include other non notifiable offences, for example unlawful street trading, which can attract large audiences in busy market areas, providing an ideal environment for pickpocketing and street robberies.''

The response goes on to talk about the practice in Amsterdam, as part of the Streetwise initiative, which focuses on such matters. I see the merit in his argument. I am an aficionado of ``The Bill'', as many people with young children are likely to be, and I know that you, Mr. Gale, are a keen advocate of watching the media on such matters. You might have seen the battle of the hot dog stalls that featured in that programme last week. It was a particularly appropriate illustration of this point.

We considered the views of a wide range of organisations—perfectly legitimately put—about what should be in and out of the list, and concluded that we should not include offences with a financial motive in the scope of the penalty notice system, which should focus specifically on disorder. That is why the list of offences that we have established is as it is, and why—although it is perfectly reasonable—we disagree with amendment No. 24. We felt that penalty notices for such offences, which principally involve financial recoupment, might result in the perpetrator seeking to recoup the cost of the penalty through increased activity elsewhere. We did not consider that the point put by ACPO and Sir Edward Crew was not legitimate, but we felt that we should concentrate on disorder offences.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am unclear about what the Minister means. We have a case in Chippenham where the hot dog stall will not move. If the police were to serve a fixed penalty notice on that stall day after day, it would not matter if it recouped the cost from elsewhere. Why is it such a bad thing? What is important is the public disorder offence. The smell in Chippenham high street is unspeakable.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will aggressively address the smell in Chippenham high street. Hot dog traders are principally in business to make money; it is not principally a matter of disorder. Disorder may be a side effect of their money-making activity, and he gave a reasonable example. We are not profoundly opposed to the inclusion of that offence. Sir Edward Crew gave good reasons why it should be considered, with examples from elsewhere, but we decided that, in light of the public controversy in the area, we should focus on disorder.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Given what the Minister said about his disorder-centred approach, can he explain how the ``threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour'' offence would bite in many of the circumstances that are pictured as those where the penalty is most needed. Anyone passing a pub in the Old Kent road at 2 am on a Saturday or Sunday knows the score: life is not peaceful, gentle and trouble-free. Nobody is likely to be ``caused harassment, alarm or distress'' because they would not be there if they expected a quiet journey home. It is unlikely to be a provable offence in the circumstances that are most often presented as those in which the Government would like to use the fixed penalty notice.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

There is a variety of different circumstances in which the penalty could be used. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on

``behaviour within hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress''.

That may or may not be Friday and Saturday nights in inner-city centres where there has been a lot of drinking. He may be right that, in those circumstances, the police would judge that the people there are unlikely to be caused distress, but there are other imaginable and real examples, perhaps from his own constituency, where people on estates are exceptionally offensive and cause serious distress and harassment to people living their lives peacefully, and not necessarily at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Would one such example perhaps be that, in Morecambe, young thugs often sit outside drinking cans of lager and shouting abuse at tourists in nearby guest houses? They cause a lot of harassment to those holidaymakers and affect business in the tourism industry.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend gave a better example than I did. It is an excellent example of precisely the kind of case involving alcohol that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey described, but in which people are caused distress through no fault of their own.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It occurred to me during the intervention by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale that one of the reasons why such incidents still happen is the failure of the Government's antisocial behaviour orders. In my constituency, even where there is a willingness to start thinking about an ASBO, as they have been called, the bureaucracy is so enormous that everyone is put off. That is why there have been so few ASBOs. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who is sadly not on the Committee, has repeatedly attacked his own Government for making ASBOs far too complicated.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman's comments are absurd. I will not give them the dignity of a response, because there is no logical connection between one's view of the success or failure of particular previous measures and a view on the likely success of the proposed measures. We have had this debate on many occasions, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments now.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I understand the Minister's point about unlawful street trading being a different kind of offence, but does he agree that, if someone as important and knowledgeable as the chief constable of West Midlands police, speaking on behalf of ACPO, says that unlawful trading areas are sites for street robberies and that fixed penalty notices could affect that, we should tackle the problem? That is particularly important because street crime is soaring. It is not good enough for to say that that is a different category. Will he address that more fully? Why does it matter that there is a commercial aspect to it, if we could tackle that sort of offence with fixed penalty notices?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am prepared to reflect on the point further, as I said earlier. I was seeking to explain the rationale behind the list that we established, because we have received a wide range of suggestions from different organisations about offences that could be included. I am ready to think again about the hon. Gentleman's point and see whether we might consider widening the scope in the way that he suggested. The Bill has focused on disorder rather than on other aspects, and that is why the offence is so defined. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments if they are pressed to a Division.

I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, and to Committee members because, as the Opposition know, I have to leave at 12.25 pm to respond for the Government in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with any points that arise on the amendment if we do not conclude by that time.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister did not really respond to my point that criminal damage is a serious offence. There is a serious offence under subsection (2), but the offence under subsection (1) is also serious. The groups that I mentioned earlier, such as the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, are not known as hawkish bodies, but they made it clear that they believed that criminal damage is often part of a serious offence that has a direct victim. We must not think that a fixed penalty notice is a tough disposal. For several reasons, it is softer than being sentenced in court by a magistrate. It does not lead to a criminal record; it is convenient to the offender; and it does not involve public knowledge of the offence. We should not think, ``Gosh, we have these tough new fixed penalty notices.'' They are useful for marking offences, but they are not suitable for dealing with serious offences. Criminal damage is too serious to be dealt with in that way.

On compensation to victims, the Minister's information reinforces the point that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath made. If 51 per cent.—more than half—of cases in magistrates courts involve compensation, it is wrong to give a police officer the discretion to take compensation away from the victim. The Minister knows that I have the highest respect for police officers, but I become suspicious when we are told that a matter will be dealt with through guidance. That is to concede that the law that is being made is not adequate on its own and needs to be supplemented to achieve its purpose. I thought that he was unconvincing about that.

The Minister mentioned the proportion of cases in which cautions are issued compared with the proportion that go to court, but did not seem to say that the fixed penalty notice cases would be additional. I thought that the Government wished to introduce fixed penalty notices for the class of case that is not currently dealt with or even marked. The Bill would then add something new. However, he did not suggest that that would be the case for criminal damage. The serious offence of criminal damage will be downgraded if it is treated as the Bill proposes. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I have already said that I do not expect communication between the Floor and the Gallery. I do not want to have to say so again.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Thank you, Mr. Gale.

Criminal damage is downgraded if it is treated in the same way as a parking offence. The proposals would deprive victims of compensation without good reason, and the Minister has not suggested any additionality in terms of law and order. Unless he renounces his opposition to the amendment, we will press it to a Division.

The Minister went some way towards reassuring me about threatening behaviour, although I was not entirely convinced. We do not intend to press amendment No. 22 to a vote. We want to divide on amendment No. 24. If ACPO, through Sir Edward Crew, says that adding such offences to the list would be a useful way of tackling pickpocketing and street robbery, I argue that we ought to do so. I do not think that my argument has been seriously challenged—the Minister clearly needs more time to think about it. We want to vote on amendments Nos. 21 and 24.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. The Minister said that guidance will be issued in respect of clause 6. Clause 3 says that the Secretary of State may specify by order the amount of the penalties and the form of the penalty notice. Has the Minister offered to tell the Committee, before we reach those clauses, what penalties are envisaged under the order-making power in clause 3 and what draft guidance he has in mind under clause 6? Is there any assurance that the Committee will be able to debate those matters with full knowledge of what is being proposed?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, information provided by the Government is a matter for them, not for the Chair. I always take the view that the more information can be provided to both sides, the better. I am sure that the Government heard what he had to say.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

`(5) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

The amendment would provide for the entries in subsection (1) to be amended only by using the affirmative resolution procedure. The Minister kindly said before he left for his engagement that he was prepared to accept it. I welcome that important concession, but I have a couple of points for the Parliamentary Secretary.

The offences for which fixed penalty notices are suitable are at the bottom end of the scale and are not serious. We do not want administrative disposal of more serious cases, especially those involving crimes such as assault or the more serious public order offences, because of the effect on respect for the criminal justice system when slight measures are taken after serious offences. There could be a temptation to clear up offences by serving fixed penalty notices that do not involve large sums rather than making the defendant go to court. That would keep the prisons clearer. There would be advantages in some ways, but disadvantages in others. It is important to take a firm stance on law and order. The Government have not achieved that with measures such as their early release scheme for prisoners.

The use of devices to reduce the prison population or short-circuit the courts poses problems, not least because it would embolden the criminal and fail adequately to support the victim.

Previous Bills containing order-making powers have included such lists. I was involved in discussions on such a Bill last year, and I recall that, even as we were debating the offences to be included in the list, the Home Office had contacted other Departments to find out whether they wanted particular offences to be included under the order-making power at a later date. Has such an exercise occurred in respect of the sort of offences that are dealt with under subsection (1)? Has the Home Office contacted other Departments to find out whether they would like fixed penalty notices to apply to any offences?

The Association of Chief Officers of Probation said that it had doubts about including threatening behaviour and criminal damage. It also said that certain other offences, such as urinating in public and failure to have a television licence, should be included in the list because they are not particularly serious matters and they clog up the courts, so a simple disposal might suit them.

Has the Minister taken any steps to discover whether other Departments might want any other offences to be added to the list? Has he received representations from bodies other than ACOP suggesting offences that might be included? If so, what are the proposed offences, and why have they not been included?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I support the amendment and I am glad that, as the Minister said earlier, the Government are minded to accept it.

It is important in a controversial area such as this that, if a new offence is to be added to the list, it should be accompanied by a guarantee that it will first be debated and approved by both Houses. That is the purpose of the amendment, and it is sensible.

I tabled an amendment that was not selected: I am not criticising that decision because I understand that it would have come close to opposing the purpose of the clause, but it would have been better to have started with the principle and to have debated whether to extend the range of notices, and for the Government to have made specific proposals only after debate in both Chambers and in Committee.

There is a danger in this way of addressing the matter. The Government put a list on the table, albeit after some consultation, but it is a hit and miss list. It has been based on the principle of disorder, and therefore precludes, for example, the unlicensed activities that were discussed in the previous debate, the inclusion of which was supported by the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I supported it, too.

It would have been better to have had a general debate about the principle and the criteria for the inclusion of offences. If hon. Members believed that the right process had been found, those criteria could have been applied. Then it would have been open to Ministers to make changes by way of secondary legislation that could have included one, five or 10 offences, which might have had more widespread parliamentary support.

I agree with the proposal of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on television licences. In a crucial respect, it is different from urinating in public. Not everyone owns and uses a television. It is like driving: most people do it but it is not compulsory. If one decides to have a television, one opts into a system. That would be a better subject for fixed penalty notices. My colleagues and I believe that failing to buy a television licence should not be a criminal offence, because non-payment cases clog up the courts and the offence could be dealt with by civil penalties in the normal way. A halfway house would be a fixed penalty notice, which would be easier to operate and could involve cumulative fines and other penalties for non-compliance.

I support the general principle of the amendment and I am glad that the Government have said that they are likely to accept it. I hope that the Minister will be positive when he examines the proposals, specifically in relation to television licences. I realise that this is a cross-departmental issue but it would be helpful if that could be examined. Proposals to change the way in which we deal with such matters would be welcomed by the police, by the courts and by the public at large.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that fixed penalty notices also have the benefit that, as with motoring offences, there can be no real dispute about the identity of the person concerned? Inevitably, one must know who the householder is to find out that he or she has not got a television licence: the person's home clearly provides the identity. The other aspect is that such people—a more general cross-section of society—are more likely to pay. Therefore, the administrative costs of the fixed penalty notices are likely to be lower, as well as saving the courts a good deal of repetitive, time-consuming work. Does he agree about those three advantages?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I agree absolutely. Television licence payment defaulters might also be, for example, council tax or rent defaulters. There is an obvious list of the various things that go with home ownership and occupation of property and it would be sensible to deal with them in the same way and place. They are normally dealt with in local county courts, but sometimes a special petty sessional divisional court will deal with a summons for non-payment of council tax.

The hon. Gentleman's proposals should be widened to examine the matters that could be dealt with together in a way that would make fine collection easier, the courts' burden lighter and the process by which we ensure that people pay their dues to society—both local authorities and the BBC are public institutions—more streamlined. If there were time for that to come out of the Bill, it would be of benefit.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I welcome the fact that the Minister has responded helpfully. However, it is appropriate to mention that it is rather odd for one Minister to outline the position and leave another to respond to the debate. It is important to put it on record that, if the Government were to get rid of the wholly unnecessary Westminster Hall innovation, we would not have Ministers rushing away from a Committee on important legislation. They would be here to carry through their undertakings.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I will not answer that last point because it is plainly not a matter for the Committee. I will deal with the points that were in order.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked whether a trawl was carried out in the Departments to find out whether they have any offences in their back pockets that they would like to include in the fixed penalty scheme. The answer to that is no, but we are open to suggestions, both from Departments and from outside, on what to include in the scheme of further offences that contribute to public disorder, since that is the main focus of the scheme. The Government do not have a monopoly of wisdom on the matter, and suggestions from interest groups or hon. Members will be carefully considered.

The hon. Gentleman asked what representations were made, and why certain offences were included or not included. My hon. Friend the Minister explained that the focus of the fixed penalty notice is disorder, and that is the rationale for the inclusion of offences.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of urinating in the street. That is clearly unpleasant behaviour, but it is not currently an offence under any law that applies throughout England and Wales, although it is an offence under certain local authority byelaws. It would be administratively complex to devise a national fixed penalty notice scheme that would apply to a local authority byelaw that applies in some parts of the country but not in others.

Without being too presumptuous, one may ask why individuals urinate in the street. They may be committing an offence under section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967:

``Disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place''.

A matter that cannot be included in a local scheme may be introduced in a national scheme.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Parliamentary Secretary says that disorderly behaviour is being targeted, but given the wide ambit of the Bill, there is no reason why other offences could not be included. An offence may be found for which it would be convenient to have a fixed penalty notice scheme, perhaps to save court time. Is there a reason, other than the personal preference of Ministers and the Home Secretary's general theme of yob culture, why useful work cannot be done in the Bill?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

One of the results of close co-operation between Departments is that I am in the Committee representing the Lord Chancellor's Department, with responsibility for running the courts. Naturally, I have an interest in ensuring that magistrates court or Crown court time is effectively used for issues that are of sufficient gravity to justify it.

It is right that the penalties are being considered in the context of disorderly conduct. As the hon. Gentleman noted, it is also right that the ambit of the Bill could be wider and should not be limited by that policy. Any extension to the ambit must be considered case by case. I do not rule out any extension that is appropriate to a particular case.

I have heard the points that have been made about television licences, and understand that in some cases a fixed penalty notice may be appropriate. That will be discussed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has primary responsibility for TV licences. In due course, if appropriate, the order-making power may be used to carry the matter through, in appropriate circumstances within the TV licence regime. It may not be right for all TV licence evasions, but it may be right for some.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sorry to bring the Parliamentary Secretary back to the less savoury subject of urinating in the street. He said that it would be difficult to apply fixed penalties to that offence as it is regulated by local byelaws. However, surely that is exactly what happens with fixed penalty notices for parking. They vary between local authorities, and the fixed penalty notice system works perfectly well.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

It works well as part of the system of local byelaws. The problem is not that the offence is an offence under local byelaws; the problem is attempting to superimpose a national system of fixed penalties on to a series of discrete local offences that would be worded and fixed differently. For example, under clause 3, the amount payable in respect of a penalty is fixed by the Secretary of State by order. Clearly, fixing an amount that was different in Surrey from what it was in Hertfordshire would be extremely complex. That is the problem.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is it really so difficult? Looking at clause 3, one can simply make the penalty a proportion of the maximum penalty in place in each byelaw. The words ``byelaws dealing with'' could be added under clause 1. I do not see why it is so difficult. Why does the Minister not simply make a new offence of urinating in public and then put an entry in clause 1(1) stating that that offence will be dealt with by fixed penalty notice? We can change the law, so let us do it if we need to.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I am always cautious when someone rises and says, ``The simple answer is to change the law. If we introduce this offence, we will solve all the problems raised by this particular concern.''

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I urge my hon. Friend to exercise a degree of caution. I confess that my four-year-old son occasionally finds himself caught short in public. I would hate to have a fixed penalty fine applied to him in those rather desperate circumstances.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example. Before we introduce a new blanket criminal offence, we would have to give the matter much more thought than is possible in a Committee such as this. I am sure that hon. Members expect the Government to make proposals that have been properly formulated with proper consultation.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), would it not be possible to insert an age limit elsewhere in the Bill?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

That is a possibility, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is made aware of the exchange.

The amendment deals with whether subsection (5) should be changed so that positive resolution procedure was required. I am happy to say that the Government will consent to that amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am very pleased with that concession, but I would like to tempt the Minister a little more on the two issues raised by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. We have had some amusement about urinating in public places. However, given the diseases that can be transmitted in that way, it is important that we should not have urine all over our streets. I am not saying that we do, but anyone who wants to urinate in the street should be dealt with by the procedures. I do not see a problem with having a fixed penalty notice for such an offence.

I agree with the hon. Member for Hall Green that we do not want penalties for children who are caught short. I do not want to discuss my children's activities, but I take his point.

I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peterborough. It cannot be beyond the wit of an important Department such as the Lord Chancellor's Department to create an offence of urinating in public with an age consideration. It seems to me that if ACOP asks us to do something that is not absolutely daft, which this does not seem to be, we should respect its experience and knowledge and at least make an attempt at it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The matter was an agenda item at a recent residents association meeting at Elephant and Castle. Every male aged over 18, including me, admitted to having done it when caught short. I am sure that that is true of every male in this Room. Women do not have the same problem because they have much better control. We must be cautious about making it a criminal offence because anyone could be caught. The answer is more accessible public toilets, not more offences.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I do not want to stifle debate, but the amendment is general and our debate is becoming specific. Hon. Members have said that they want a clause stand part debate. If we could dispense with the amendment, we could deal with other matters arising from the clause in such a debate.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As ever, I am happy to accept your guidance, Mr. Gale.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a point and the Minister agreed to consider it. The amendment requires no further debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

There are some points that were not covered in our consideration of the amendments. First, there are the cost implications. Paragraph 352 of the explanatory notes states:

``Additional public expenditure is unlikely for the on the spot fines proposals. There will be costs in managing and enforcing on the spot fines but these should be offset by fines revenue and savings of police time. The overall savings/costs incurred will also depend on whether the scheme is used chiefly to divert cases from court or to deal with offending that is currently the subject of a caution or an informal warning. It is not certain whether the saving in police time will feed through to a reduction in public service manpower (police) or whether fixed penalty notices might need more staff.''

It is important to know what the Government's strategy for fixed penalty notices will be. We have heard little about it. I suspect that the proposal is half-baked. It would be useful to know whether the Government want to give people fixed penalty notices instead of cautioning them or to save court time by diverting cases that would otherwise have gone to court. It would also be useful to know why they believe that police time will be saved. None of those matters has been made clear. I want the Minister to give detailed answers about the strategy.

The inner London magistrates court service made several points in its response to the consultation. It noted:

``Fixed penalty notices are''

normally

``handled by IT systems linking the Police who issue them and Fixed Penalty Clerks who collect payment...it may be necessary to enhance or redesign these systems if new forms of Fixed Penalty are introduced.''

It thought that there might be benefits, and that

``a substantial volume of notices/payments can be handled at comparatively little additional cost''

but was worried about the number of defaulters and how that problem would be tackled. It felt that the Government's estimate that 40 per cent. of fixed penalty notices would be paid was ``very optimistic'', given the likely perpetrators of the loutish behaviour that the scheme appears to be aimed at. Overall, it was

``not convinced that the proposals have been sufficiently thought through,''

or that the consultation period was long enough to allow mature reflection on a major initiative. It urged caution and wanted to know whether there had been joined-up thinking.

The Criminal Bar Association raised several issues. Its response to the consultation stated:

``There must be significant resource implications arising out of the need for a system to deal with non-compliance.''

It highlighted non-payment after the issue of a notice, the giving of false details and the non-provision of details.

The first raft of issues concerns whether the operational infrastructure for dealing with fixed penalty notices is in place and whether the cost of IT changes has been thought through.

The Police Superintendents Association is worried about police time. It says that if officers had to make a full witness statement in each case, officer time would not be saved and officers would not return to the streets any quicker than they do now. It adds that if all that was required was a simple comment such as

``found in the street drunk and incapable'',

it would save considerable time. However, the association did not think that that was what the Bill proposed. It was not sure whether full statements from constables would be required.

That point was also made to me by Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation. He is worried about whether the procedures involved will save police time or whether things will be much as they are now. I want the Minister to say whether police time will be saved, and to comment on administration costs.

A further 10 issues were raised by the Criminal Bar Association. The first point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, but you, Mr. Gale, ruled that he should not pursue it further before clause stand part.

The association states:

``Disorderly drunks are by definition not in a fit state to be served with a legal document with penal consequences.''

That comment is based on its legal appreciation of the situation. It says that it would be wrong in law to do it. It would not be a sensible or fair opportunity to issue a penal notice. What does the Minister say to that?

Secondly, the CBA asks:

``Is it possible for service of a fixed penalty notice to help put a stop to anti-social behaviour? Or will it simply aggravate a situation requiring `fast action'?''

With its experience of numerous court cases, it fears that the service of such a notice on the street could lead to worse, rather than better, behaviour.

Thirdly, the CBA asks:

``What will the effect on the criminal justice system be if notices are ignored?''

and says that they should not be considered as being similar to parking tickets.

What is the Minister's answer to that?

Fourthly, the CBA asks how it is envisaged that a person's details—name, address, date of birth and so on—will be verified on the street.

Fifthly, the CBA says that a person would have to be warned of the consequences of non-provision of details under the Human Rights Act 1998. There would be human rights implications if people were not given a warning. What steps are being taken to ensure that such warnings will be given if necessary?

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee F

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we start this afternoon's proceedings, I want to announce that the Press Gallery will be reserved for the press during this sitting. In recent weeks, there has been a tendency to allow people other than the press to occupy the Press Gallery in Committee sittings. That does not apply to this Committee, which started sitting only today. If the Modernisation Committee wants to make appropriate provision in Committee Rooms for political advisers, researchers and others, it is a matter for that Committee to decide, but we owe a duty to the press to maintain their right to occupy the Press Gallery. I mention this now to prevent embarrassment later. I have instructed Officers of the House to ensure that the Press Gallery be occupied only by people carrying a gallery card. Clause 1 Offences leading to penalties on the spot

Clause 1 - Offences leading to penalties on the spot

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As the Minister was leaving this morning, I raised a point of order to say that it would help the Committee if the draft guidance for clause 6 and the draft order under clause 3 were made available to the Committee before we debate those clauses. I repeat the point now, so that the Minister may hear it for himself.

This morning, I asked about the cost implications of managing and enforcing fixed penalty notices. I referred to issues raised by the inner London magistrates court service about that and IT. I mentioned the Criminal Bar Association's view that dealing with non-compliance might have significant resource implications, and I referred to the concern of the Police Superintendents Association about the impact of fixed penalty notices on the use of police time—a concern echoed by the Police Federation. The Criminal Bar Association also raised specific concerns about the problem of applying fixed penalty notices when the person concerned is drunk. The notice might aggravate antisocial behaviour on the street.

I asked about the possible effect on the criminal justice system if the notices are ignored and subsequently dealt with administratively—rather like parking tickets. I asked the Minister how he would verify details of a person served with a fixed penalty notice when the action that required it occurred on the street. According to the Criminal Bar Association, the person must be warned of the consequences of failing to provide details, and Human Rights Act implications are relevant. I asked the Minister to explain his views in greater detail.

What is the interaction between the fixed penalty notice procedure and powers of arrest? How does the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 operate when a fixed penalty notice is issued? What is the basis of the power of arrest and what happens in respect of detention? Will the options of payment or going to court be clearly explained to the defendant orally? Is the only form of explanation effectively the wording of the fixed penalty notice as described in clause 3, or is there an additional formula that an officer must declare or hand out on a piece of paper? Can the defendant offer an explanation? If he is asked to do so, will it be under caution? That is particularly relevant where the offence is one for which a reasonable excuse is a defence, or if the offence is committed where there is no cause for the action concerned.

What is the effect of fixed penalty notices on deterrents? Is it not convenient for the offender? On a fixed penalty notice, he can pay the money without additional penalty. The consequences seem to be less than for a conviction and some of the offences under discussion are definitely in the bracket that anyone would describe as criminal. Obviously they are all offences, but they are on that tier described by the Criminal Bar Association as ``clearly criminal''.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest concerns that many commentators—not merely the Criminal Bar Association but a number of other organisations concerned with the administration of justice—have stressed regarding the Government's proposals, is that they will lead to a downgrading of a significant part of the criminal law. In effect, they are a move towards decriminalisation. Would that not be a most worrying and dangerous trend if the Government were allowed to proceed with it?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is an important point. We have already established that some of the offences with which we are dealing are serious. Some of them are liable to level 5 fines, which is the highest level applicable in the magistrate's court. Some of them involve imprisonment as the maximum sentence. In those circumstances, there is a genuine concern that the offences should not be trivialised or downgraded. I accept that they remain offences and so they are still ``criminal'' but a point we will come to in a later debate is, what exactly is the effect of a fixed penalty notice being issued? It clearly is not a conviction and there are issues that surround that.

The Government talk about being tough on law and order and tough on crime, but in this part of the Bill they seem to suggest that one can deal with serious offences almost as though they were fairly minor motoring or parking offences. If that is the case, it is difficult to see how this is a war on yob culture.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers support us in what we are proposing here? I acknowledge the various aspects of substance where there are differences of emphasis, but in the fundamental thrust of what is being proposed in the Bill we are supported by ACPO. Given the hon. Gentleman's concerns, why does he think that they support us?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), which I am relating, has also been expressed by others. As ACPO and others have recognised, there is an advantage in that, when an offence occurs, it will marked in some way—it would be wrong not to do so. I told the Minister on Second Reading that we are not against the principle. The measures will range from cautioning and fixed penalty notices to charging and conviction. I am asking him whether he feels that sufficient deterrents exist for the persistent offender in such cases, in particular, the young person who regularly commits acts of that sort.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister raised an interesting point. Can I suggest a more cynical, but perhaps more accurate reason, in answer to the Minister's question to my hon. Friend. Could it not be the case that chief police officers in particular and police authorities are reacting by saying that they will be able to cope with the system and it is all right, because they have been so overwhelmed by unnecessary bureaucracy and starved of resources that anything that reduces their work load is welcome, including the introduction of a fixed penalty system. Ideally, however, they would like proper resourcing, which the Government have patently failed to provide.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Yes, I am sure that that plays a part. Obviously, one hopes that the fixed penalty notices will be a quick and easy method of disposal for the minor cases and will enable the event to be marked with less bureaucracy and be commensurate with the offence. We will come to whether that will be the case. I am raising concerns expressed by the Criminal Bar Association that the system may not work out like that.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the concern formulated by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath plays a part in the submissions that have been made by the Association of Chief Police Officers, will he tell us where that concern was raised in its response or in other material? It is certainly not the Government's understanding that that is the chief police officers' motivation. If the hon. Gentleman has different information, I am sure that the Committee will be interested to hear it.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not entirely follow the question, but I am happy to return to the matter if the Minister wants me to do so. I am making the point that was made by the CBA, which says:

``If the legal consequences of payment of a notice are to be exactly the same as for a court hearing, logic suggests that the only effect will be to induce some people to pay by post rather than having the inconvenience of a court hearing. Convenience is clearly a strong argument in favour of such a scheme. Costs and time will also be saved if people can plead guilty by post. On this approach, tickets could be issued to sober and calm people on the street or sober people back at the police station. This is not, however, anything to do with deterrence.''

The CBA goes on to make four other points, which I have paraphrased.

It is right that the Association of Chief Police Officers has broadly welcomed the proposals. I have raised its important concern about criminal damage and its wish to add unlawful street trading to the provisions. However, I certainly did not say that ACPO had said that the system would be a cheap way of dealing with crime because the police were under resourced. If I said something that sounded like that, I was wrong. That does not mean that no chief constables are saying that they are thoroughly under-resourced; chief constables do say that, as I regularly tell the Minister in our debates. I think that we had three debates last week, and the Minister will concede—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman lost every time.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I may have lost the votes, but I certainly won the argument, as the Minister knows only too well. Normally, when he is losing an argument, he claims that I am being rhetorical. That reminds me of his comments about on-the-spot fines. When the Prime Minister came out of the meeting in Japan and said, ``Oh yes, we'll take them all down to the cashpoint machine for a £100 fine'' or words to that effect, the Minister was trotted out to explain that the Prime Minister meant that as a metaphor. Incidentally, that may be why The Guardian, in a wonderful article by John Kampfner, suggested that the Minister was bound to make it to the top of the Labour party and become its leader. He is now doing the leader's job, or at least covering for him on occasions, and highly necessary that is too.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

He has already done it once.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am sure that you would not want me to go into the Minister's long and distant past, Mr. Gale.

The CBA has raised the issue of the effect of fixed penalty notices on deterrence. How is the officer to exercise his discretion to use a fixed penalty notice? Is the decision justiciable under the Human Rights Act 1998? Would a claim of unequal treatment as between accused on racial or sex discrimination grounds be justiciable, and in what circumstances would that be the case?

Those 10 questions from the CBA and the other points are the ones that I wanted to raise on clause stand part.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We tabled an amendment that became subsumed in the questions about whether the clause should stand part. Given the starting point that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), other colleagues and I have adopted, we shall vote against the clause standing part. However, now, I want to pursue one or two matters

I shall not repeat points already made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on behalf of the Conservative party. He asked perfectly proper questions—some that had been put to us and some that we had spotted or thought of ourselves—that came from people outside who are thinking about the practicality of the procedures that we are discussing. The first practical point relates to the lists that the Government give us, which we are being asked to accept as part of the package.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman is saying that he and his colleagues intend to vote against clause stand part. Will he make it clear whether that is because he is against fixed penalty notices, because he is against the particular list, or because he is against the whole part of the Bill, clauses 1 to 13? It will be important to the public debate that will ensue that he makes absolutely clear the basis of his opposition.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I know the Minister well enough to know that question, which is trotted out about once a week in Committee and was trotted out last week downstairs. I answered last week and I am happy to answer it again today.

In a clause stand part debate we express and form views on an individual clause. We have made it clear that we are not against fixed penalty notices in certain circumstances; however, we are against their extension to all the subjective offences of which the list is full. We do not believe that we should proceed with a list that mixes some subjective offences, some offences that should not be subject to fixed penalty notices because they are more serious than that and so should not be in the same category, and others that we think are incapable of being properly enforced. We also take the view that a system of fixed penalty notices for such offences, should be trialled and passed, after which we should consider the evidence.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Let me get the point clear. Would the Liberal Democrats vote in favour of clause stand part if the list set out in clause 1(1) contained certain individual offences—and if so, which ones? Alternatively, is the hon. Gentleman simply opposed to all of them? Can he be specific as to which offences fit which of the criteria that he has mentioned?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister is so impatient, although his question is perfectly proper. I was about to explain precisely that. He knows from our previous exchanges that I always try to give direct answers and not to fudge the issues. He accepts that, even if the answers I give are ones with which he does not always agree.

I will go down the list by category. We think that

``Being drunk in a highway other public place or licensed premises''.

should not be included. Similarly,

``Trespassing on the railway . . . Throwing stones etc at trains or other things on railways''

``Disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place''

should not be included. I shall return to the issue of criminal damage, which we discussed previously. To continue, the listed offences of

``Threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour''

``Consumption of alcohol in designated public place''

should not be included. The reasons that we think that they ought not to be included on that list are that they are subjective and that they will give rise to big practical problems. For example, giving a fixed penalty notice to a person who is ``drunk in a highway'' lends itself to the possibility of that person either not knowing or not remembering that he has received it, as well as to all sorts of practical questions about whether the notice has been served and properly given to that person, and so on. Equally, the identity of the culprit in offences such as

``Throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare''

may be unclear, so we would not include such offences on the list.

Three further offences:

``Knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade . . . Wasting police time or giving false report''—

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it in order for not one Opposition Front-Bench Member to be in attendance? Is it not at least a grave discourtesy?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is entirely up to hon. Members to decide whether to be in the Committee Room. It is not a matter for me.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman is confused. One Opposition party may not be represented, but there is a perfectly adequate Opposition—indeed a better one—still here. We are Opposition Front Benchers; it is just that the Bench is occasionally occupied by Tories. Long before the hon. Gentleman was elected, the Tories started a debate in the Chamber on the Bill that abolished the Greater London council. I spoke from the Dispatch Box for 80 minutes, because there was no Labour Member on the Opposition Front Bench. I was the first Liberal to do so since Asquith.

The three offences of

``Knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade . . . Wasting police time or giving false report''

``Using public telecommunications system for sending message known to be false in order to cause annoyance''

are too serious to be the subject of fixed penalty notices. Fixed penalty notices diminish the seriousness of such offences, so they ought not to be included in the list.

The one offence in respect of which we think it would be reasonable to trial fixed penalty notices is

``Buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under 18''

as that would clearly normally be based on the evidence of the person serving the drink. In addition, the offence occurs in a contained space, so the culprit is much more likely to be identified, whether he is seeking to buy alcohol for himself or for others. As I made clear on Second Reading, we support the provision in law that is to be introduced to test whether the illegal sale of alcohol has occurred; such a test already exists in respect of tobacco sales. There is a provision elsewhere in the Bill to allow, in certain protected circumstances, people aged less than 18 to be used to determine whether the law is being broken by people selling alcohol.

In response to the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, I indicated that, where there is clear evidence of the damage, the criminal damage provision lends itself quite readily to a fixed penalty system; however, where evidence of the link between the damage and the culprit is less clear, the provision lends itself less readily to such a system. Therefore, criminal damage—even the lesser criminal damage under clause 1(1)—is something of a portmanteau offence, wherein some will reasonably fall within a fixed penalty notice system and some will not. It will depend on the extent of the criminal damage—whether a scratch on a window or the breaking of a shop front.

As I told the Minister, the Liberal Democrats are not against fixed penalty notices for appropriate offences such as motoring or cycling offences, litter dropping, or dog fouling. Nor are we opposed to a proposition that there is power to put them in legislation. There should be an Act that gives Ministers power to bring proposals before Parliament, which would then be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Ministers are willing to accept an amendment to that effect; therefore, for things that will come later, we now have the right process and there will be a one-by-one assessment by Parliament of any order that the Minister introduces.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's the final point.

``Consumption of alcohol in designated public place''

is now the subject of byelaws.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I apologise if I did not include that. The arguments for that provision are linked to those in favour of having fixed penalty notices for persons committing an offence inside a bar. I am nervous about its inclusion in the list, as it might be difficult readily to identify the culprit—for example, if a group of youngsters has a few cans of lager, it may be difficult to identify who is actually consuming the alcohol. I would prefer that the offence were not on the list.

The sorts of offence that should be in the list include buying alcohol illegally in a pub and perhaps criminal damage, as well as selling illegally through street trading, as has been proposed. That is our general approach and I hope it is a consistent one. I am surprised that the three offences I listed—giving false alarms and so on—are not regarded as being sufficiently serious to be kept out of the fixed penalty notice system.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Is it really the Liberal Democrat position that every trespass on a railway must result in a full trial and that police officers should not be able to deal with even the most minor of cases in a straightforward way? Do they really suggest that that is the best use of the court's time?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That intervention raises a series of issues. The first is that at present railways and railway premises are policed by the British Transport police. I have received many complaints that that is not the sensible way to organise matters. It would be better if the railway track and grounds were policed by the local police, who are more likely to be able to manage recurrent problems than the transport police, who pass by only rarely. A wider issue is how we deal with trespass on railway lines and all the offences that happen in car parks owned by the railways. The transport police are never there, but the local police are often there. The responsibility should be properly transferred.

The second issue is the possibility that individuals will be inaccurately prosecuted—a group of youngsters, for example. We will debate later whether these measures should apply to the over-16s or over-18s, but a subjective view can be taken about whether a person is on railway ground. A group of people is seen near the railway line, the police arrive and give a fixed penalty notice to someone who may or may not have been there. Trespass comes under the same category of dangerous offence—in terms of accuracy about the defendant—as using threatening, abusive and insulting words. In some cases, it is obvious that someone is committing the offence, just as it may be obvious that someone is committing one of those other offences. We are being asked to approve a system in which a fixed penalty notice can be served for anything called trespass on a railway. That is too wide and dangerous a proposition and in the normal course of events it should be dealt with through the courts.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the reported occasions when hounds, in pursuit of a fox have strayed on to railway lines? In such an event, can he imagine who would be issued with a fixed penalty notice?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

It should be the fox.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I was not thinking of that example, but it is a proper point. If I were the Member for Taunton and my hon. Friend were the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey my mind would be more on hounds on the railway line. My hon. Friend says that it has happened. There are real issues there. It is important that people do not trespass on railway lines or anyway else where they could cause damage. Again, I take the view that if the matter is to be dealt with, it should be through the normal court process in the normal way.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I was about to put to the hon. Gentleman a point about trespass on the railway. First, however, I must ensure that the Minister's sedentary response to the query posed by the hon. Member for Taunton is recorded for posterity. He said that the fox should receive the fixed penalty notice. I hope that that goes into the Official Report.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in many constituencies, including mine, there have been repeated and serious trespasses by youths throwing large rocks at trains, which poses a huge danger to railway staff, drivers, ticket collectors and passengers. Three weeks ago, one of my borough councillors was on a well-lit train at night. He was clearly visible to yobs on the land next to the railway, who were throwing rocks at the train. He was shocked to discover, on raising the matter with the station staff when he got off the train at the next station, that the windows of the previous train had been broken but that nothing had been done about it because of the lack of resources in the transport and local police. The attack by yobs on one train was sufficient to take it out of service but, despite the clear risk to life and limb, nothing had been done. Does that not reinforce the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that many acts of damage and criminal offences on railways are committed not by people trespassing on railway lines, but by those who walk lawfully on bridges, roads and footpaths, from which they throw bricks and boulders. There have been many reported incidents of people dropping things from bridges, causing terrible accidents on the railway.

In my constituency, there have been recent examples of people attacking buses and other forms of public transport with missiles such as rocks and bricks. That reinforces my view that those offences should be dealt with by proper criminal process. If they are serious, as in the example given by the hon. Gentleman, the police should be on the spot where it has happened before at a time when they expect that it may happen again. They should be keeping watch and using intelligence, as part of good policing. The people who have done such a thing should not merely be given a piece of paper, as that hardly reinforces their awareness of the severity of what they have done in putting lives at risk. Those people should be nicked, charged and taken to court and, if necessary, they should be locked up.

The subsection contains a motley collection of offences, some of which are far too serious to become fixed penalty notices and should be dealt with in the normal way, and some of which do not lend themselves to the process of the fixed penalty notice. Drunken people or people behaving in a disorderly way may be the victims of a subjective judgment in the first place, an inability to assess intention in the second place, and confusion as to who was or was not committing the offence in the third place.

The system outlined in the clause will penalise more the relatively poor and less educated and those less able to cope. It is bound to be like that. If those who have little money do not pay, the penalty will clock up—the fine will increase and they will get into more difficulty. They will become enmeshed in the system when the matter could have been dealt with properly by an arrest and a caution, or an arrest and proper disposal in the local court. The system will also take money from activities on which they need to spend, such as looking after their kids. Hooray Henrys will not be disadvantaged by the Bill. They come out in bow ties and dinner suits and lark around, but they can pay up tomorrow. The policy is not consistent with the supposed Government intention to create social inclusion rather than exclusion. This is not joined-up government.

In many cases, it will be difficult to adjudicate whether the offence was committed and the fixed penalty notice issued. Many people may dispute receipt of such a notice—just as people often dispute a parking ticket when it is put on the windscreen of a car. They say, ``I never saw it, it wasn't there.'' There will be far more disputes if a police officer tries to give the notice to someone who refuses to accept it. That is why the Prime Minister's wonderful idea of marching people off to the cashpoint was so barmy. If he had thought for two seconds before he uttered it, he would have realised what a barmy idea it was.

Will the Minister tell us whether the number of fines and the sum collected from fixed penalty notices has risen in the past five, 10, 15 or 20 years—not only because the penalty has increased but because more people have committed those offences? If the answer is yes, the evidence does not support the argument that the measure will provide a wonderful deterrent. There is no evidence that fixed penalty notices and their multiplication act as a deterrent. They simply become a replacement for penalties, many of which are not paid. It does not help to uphold the criminal justice system if one can escape unpaid fines.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Does the hon. Gentleman have evidence to support that? There are surely other explanations. To take a simple example, the figures on cases of domestic violence or rape show dramatic rises in recent years, but that suggests not that the penalties are wrong but that different things are happening in society. I wonder what the evidence is to support the assertion that fixed penalty fines have that impact.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

To be fair, I was not drawing that conclusion but asking the question. I have noticed, from what I have read and seen, that the number of fixed penalty notices continues to rise, as does the number of uncollected fines, so it might be reasonable to assume that they are not as great a deterrent as people think. There are of course other factors, as the hon. Gentleman says.

The system lays down that if one can pay, one does not get a criminal record, but if one cannot, one does. What sort of justice system is that? It is an arbitrary, unfair system that picks on the more disadvantaged people from the outset, with no prospect of change. The person with no money is bound to be in a disadvantaged position. I am surprised that a Labour Government—although few things now surprise me about a Labour Government—with any commitment to Labour's traditional principles believe that that is part of an agenda of equality. I believed that they were committed to achieving equality as part of their original commitment to social justice.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Surely the hon. Gentleman did not believe all that.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

When I was a teenager, I did, but then Harold Wilson came to power and I was soon disabused of the notion—and have not believed it since.

I wholeheartedly endorse the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. What evidence is there to show that paperwork will not increase, that the police will not be committed to bureaucratic follow-up procedures or that it will relieve pressure on police time? There is no such evidence. The proposal is much more likely to do the opposite, in which case it gives no advantages to the police, although ACPO supports it, because the police obviously want more powers; generally, they want as many powers as possible. I have never heard police officers saying that they wanted fewer powers. It is the police's job to have as many powers as possible, so ACPO's support is not an overwhelmingly objective one. We should ask the view of the public, rather than of the police.

Because the Government will want the legislation to work, there will be no likelihood of increased pressure on the police to deliver fixed penalty notices. I echo the question of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath: is that really what we want the police to be doing, when serious offences are not being dealt with? The public believe that there are other ways of dealing with such offences and they want the police to deal with serious offences and persistent offenders, and the court system to ensure that the individual, particularly the recurrent offender, is dealt with properly. When my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I visit any prison and talk to any prison governor, we are told that the same people keep on coming round again. The system is geared to that—and the richer one is, the more willing one will be to come round again. Such offenders are happy to get a parking fine in the same place day after day. There is no deterrent effect.

The proposal is unproven and is a distraction from the main issues—it is a bauble in the shop window of a party with an election in the offing. We would do far better to get shot of it and start again. If the Minister wants to propose a workable trial for such offences, with agreement across the three parties, let that be done—but not when the majority of the public, on opinion poll evidence, are against such a proposal, and when there is great scepticism about it, not only among Opposition Members but in some parts of the Labour party and certainly among many members of the public.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

This is an interesting debate and I am looking forward to the Minister's reply to it. It is agreed generally that it is worth while giving the police the powers that they need to deal with such offences, but the closer I come to the practicality of how such proposals will work, the more the difficulties that present themselves. The Police Superintendents Association stated in its evidence:

``Prior to the Bill our members expressed some concerns as to how practical these measures would be.''

The reassurance that it received was based on the fact that the likely outcome of such a system is that offenders will be arrested and a fixed penalty ticket issued later at the police station. That would negate a significant part of the value of the fixed penalty notices, whereby police officers would not be taken off the street to go back to the police station to deal with the paperwork and the offender there. Having taken part in the parliamentary police scheme, I know how fast a shift on duty is taken off the streets when it has to return to the police station to deal with paperwork.

Superficially, the provision has significant attractions, enabling the police to stay on the streets, but when we consider the offences that they are likely to be dealing with, the situation becomes clear. ACPO has said that, when the police discharge their responsibilities, especially if they are dealing with offenders who are drunk or violent, they will not deal with them on the street but will have to arrest them and deal with them at the police station. They will then decide whether to issue a fixed penalty notice or a caution or to charge them.

The response of the Criminal Bar Association went to the nitty gritty of those questions that must be addressed on a legal level. There are devastating questions for the Minister to answer. That is why I am particularly looking forward to his response. What is the answer to the association's point that

``Disorderly drunks are by definition not in a fit state to be served with a legal document with penal consequences.''?

Presumably, ACPO has recognised that. The advantage of the system will be negated by the fact that, if a drunk is arrested, he will have to be taken to the police station and the police will have to wait until he is in a fit condition before a fixed penalty notice can be served on him.

The Criminal Bar Association said:

``Drunk and/or disorderly persons are unlikely to be alone or compliant.''

The handing out of fixed penalty notices on the street in public is more likely to inflame the public order problem than to provide a solution to it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I know that we are to have a debate later on the issue, but one solution to such a problem is to take that person's particulars and deal with the matter later. I presume that the hon. Gentleman's experience is the same as mine, and I have found that the chances of any identification being volunteered by those in question is pretty minimal. As a result, further offences will be committed and an arrest will have to be made for there to be any chance of following up the case.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I agree. The police know who the bad hats are—especially difficult repeat offenders—and if they see a policeman about to issue a fixed penalty notice, they are likely to leg it at the first opportunity. That means that the police will have to capture them and make an arrest to issue a fixed penalty notice.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Surely the clause gives the police choice. Why does the hon. Gentleman not want that?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the main argument. If we allow the clause to stand part, we are giving the police wider powers and a greater range of options. However, having given them such powers, we must consider how difficult it will be for the bobby on the beat to decide whether to use the new methods that are available to him and whether it is worth it. We need to consider the recording of fixed penalty notices, about which I hope that the Minister will advise us. Will no record be kept once someone has paid a fixed penalty notice? If so, repeat offenders who constantly receive fixed penalty notices will never progress to a more serious stage of the criminal justice system.

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the type of recording that will take place. In the state of New York, for example, notices can be issued for offences such as fishing in the wrong place, and relevant records are kept. A young man of 17 who wanted to go to West Point to get a commission in the American army was unable to do so because he received such a notice after fishing in the wrong place, and the offence was placed on his record. How will such offences be recorded in this country? Will repeat offending be taken into account?

ACPO states that it would rather avoid the bureaucracy of a complicated recording procedure. It wants to opt for a simple system that deals with a single offence, rather than recording offences on the police national computer and thereby creating additional bureaucracy for the police.

Evidence from the Criminal Bar Association about the application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also gives me cause for concern. The association asked:

``Will PACE 1984 apply from the moment of police intervention and what powers exactly will be used up to the time of the issue of a Notice: arrest or something new?''

Will an offender who is being dealt with by a policeman on the street be given the opportunity to explain his behaviour? Will the policeman be able to assess the sort of person whom he is dealing with? Will he be able to assess whether he is dealing with a young man who is of good character and a responsible member of society, but who has merely indulged in drunken high jinks, or with someone of bad character who is likely to be a repeat offender? Perhaps some hon. Members fell into the former category in their student days. Such information would enable the policeman to establish the appropriate penalty.

One must also consider whether an explanation will be given under caution—a point that gives rise to the Criminal Bar Association's questions about the application of PACE. How will granting the police another level of punishment interact with the Human Rights Act 1998? The option of a caution will remain but, in dealing with an offender, the police will have a further three levels of discretion.

The Government must take into account those difficult questions, and I wonder whether the Minister might help by adducing some international evidence. Is such a system in play and working elsewhere in the world? The only evidence that I have seen are the appalling statistics in New South Wales concerning those who pay fixed penalty notices for failing to obey a police officer, or for carrying a knife. In New South Wales, there is between 92 and 97 per cent. non-compliance with fixed penalty notices. Is there any international evidence that such a system works?

Neither the country nor the police are ready for this measure to be introduced untested. I fear that it is a rather inelegant attempt to cover the Prime Minister's embarrassment over his poorly thought out idea about dealing with drunken hooligans. Such people are a real nuisance on our streets and to law-abiding citizens, and one can see what he was trying to achieve. However, the idea of dragging someone off to a cash machine to draw £100 out of their account to pay a fine was laughed off the court on the grounds of impracticality, and the Government are now trying to find a way of doing something similar to the Prime Minister's idea.

I look forward to the Minister making a case for the measure based on evidence from around the country. If, after the debate, we vote that the clause stands part of the Bill, will the Minister consider allowing police forces in certain areas to trial different methods of using fixed penalty notices in order to judge how effective they will be and what is the best way of putting them into practice? At the moment, the police do not know exactly how they will work.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I apologise for my unavoidable absence during the first sitting of the Committee.

My hon. Friends have raised some important matters. It is our duty as an Opposition to try to tease them out, both to help the Government in a course of action to which we are not wholly and fundamentally opposed and to produce law that is sensible and workable.

I have real fears about the ways in which fixed penalty notices may be used. It is highly significant that they can be used only by authorised police officers. I feel sure that that is because police officers will require a great deal of training before they start to use them. Fixed penalty notices work reasonably well in relation to motoring offences such as parking and some on-the-spot fines—

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to clause 2(1), which we have not yet reached, where he will find that the power is exercisable by any constable in uniform outside a police station. The authorised constable is a provision that applies only within a police station. I hope that that is helpful.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It is helpful as an explanation of how the Bill works. However, perhaps my misunderstanding of the Bill has raised a question that is worth considering. It remains true that officers will require a good deal of training before using such a fixed penalty system.

To be anecdotal for a moment, significant problems arise in relation to fixed penalty parking fines. There can be few members of the Committee who drive motor cars but have never received a parking fine, which one can receive without it being put on one's car. Traffic wardens are entitled to issue a parking fine against a motorist whose car has infringed, but who drives away before they can stick the fine on the car. I suspect that many motorists who drive away realise that they are taking a risk in doing so. None the less, the system is unsatisfactory because one can only pay the smaller fine—£40 rather than £80—within 14 days of it having been issued, rather than within 14 days of notice of the penalty having been received. If that problem occurs in relation to parking penalties, which we, as British citizens, generally accept as a reasonable way to attempt to control parking because the criminality of the offence is seldom high, it will arise more often in relation to this kind of fixed penalty notice.

During the 22 years that I have been in the House, we have experienced difficulties on policing issues such as stop and search, the sus laws—when they applied—and powers that are easier for the police to use when the offender happens to be known to them because he or she has offended before. The structure of the Bill means that, if one does not wish to pay the penalty notice, and one is sufficiently organised to write back to say that one wishes to be tried, the notice is treated as though a magistrate had issued it. One issue in the enforcement of civil and criminal law is that summonses are frequently not served, and that is a major problem with debt proceedings, which can lead to trouble in relation to credit agencies and unpaid civil liabilities.

Recent legislation has intermingled civil and criminal law, which results in criminal or quasi-criminal conduct leading to civil, rather than criminal, penalties. The intermingling of the fringes of civil and criminal law leads to procedures that are deemed to have occurred as though they had gone through the formality of magistrates court summonses, with which people are comparatively familiar, but in practice that will not have occurred.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My right hon. and learned Friend is developing an argument that concerns me. Clause 6 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance

``about the exercise of the discretion given to constables by this Chapter'',

and also

``about the issuing of penalty notices''.

He questioned whether a summons has been served in those circumstances. If the accused is alleged to have been ``drunk in a highway'' or one of the other conditions involving drunkenness or high excitement, such as threatening behaviour and the like, there is a danger that the actual process of serving a notice may be a contentious issue. Until one has seen a draft of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is hard to work out what is proposed.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I have been extremely lenient. I must remind members of the Committee that interventions are supposed to be exactly that.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend and I will have your thoughts in mind, Mr. Gale.

We are dealing with the substance of clause 1, which concerns the nature of offences for which penalty notices can be issued. I am concerned about the practicalities of issuing penalty notices for virtually all the 10 offences in subsection (1).

Although the Criminal Bar Association's questions about section 25 of PACE and the European convention on human rights are not developed particularly fully in the briefing, they will nevertheless prove to be real, and I am extremely grateful that they were raised at all. I sympathise with the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, because it is rather difficult for the Government legal service, the Home Office and the Attorney-General's chambers to apply a wet towel and think through all those questions. I shall listen constructively and quite sympathetically to the answers that we receive, but I should point out that those questions deserve a lot of thought in the three weeks or so that are allotted to examining the Bill. I look forward to listening carefully to the Minister's answers, so that I can learn and try to contribute to a better Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has more experience of such matters than most of us. Does he think that it will be necessary to prove that a fixed penalty notice has been served, rather than assuming a deemed service? If so, as he rightly says, many intended recipients will run away as fast as they can—I certainly would, and I am sure that others would. I am assuming that the issue of service is a matter that would have to be proved immediately in the courts.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point that I was trying to illustrate in relation to the motorist who drives away at the moment when he suspects that the traffic warden is printing out a ticket. As soon as the traffic warden touches his machine, he must proceed—I doubt whether he can abort the process. Those are the type of practical problems that will arise.

According to my quick reading of this complex Bill and the relevant clause, everything is deemed to have been dealt with. However, I wonder whether the alleged offender will be able to question whether the penalty has been served, even though to do so would be unfair. On the other hand, the alleged offender might say, ``It is no good deeming that it has been served. I never received it and I wasn't even in the street where it is alleged that I was drunk and disorderly. This is a case of mistaken identity and I should not be asked to pay the penalty.''

I foresee enormous problems, and offer that example to the Minister in the hope that he can give a quick and comforting reply. As it stands, if a police officer says that he has issued a fixed penalty notice and writes down a name, the notice is deemed to have been served, even though the person concerned was not there and did not receive it. That person will then find out that he is automatically expected to pay a fine that is 50 per cent. above the amount of the fixed penalty notice. How can he challenge that? Before what tribunal and under what system will he be able to defend himself by saying, ``It wasn't me.''? He might also say, ``Yes, I was there, but the notice wasn't given to me. A mistake must have been made in the police station, and in any case I wasn't drunk.'' A brief explanation of how the provision will work in practice would be very helpful.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I think that I can be relatively brief, because many of the issues have been addressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). However, I want to make a couple of points in support of their comments, and I should perhaps begin by returning to a matter that I raised during an intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

We were discussing the significance of the sometimes serious incidents of youths throwing stones at trains. One reason for the concern that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I, as well as other Opposition Members, share is that there will be a perception that the offence is being downgraded, although I realise that the Government are not saying that everyone who commits the offence would always receive a fixed penalty. I stress, not only in my capacity as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman but as chairman of the all-party railways group, that the Minister will have to take account of the fact that those who represent the most vulnerable people--the rail workers--will be upset if they believe that the Government are downgrading the seriousness of the offence. Some train drivers, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, have suffered horrendous injuries as a result of stones being dropped off railway bridges and so on. If they believe that the offence is being downgraded, they will be very upset.

I want to reinforce the constituency case to which I referred in my intervention. I am holding a reply that I received today from a helpful chief inspector--Mick Day--of the north-west Surrey police division. He states that he is liasing--he always does so, and very helpfully--with his counterparts at Guildford police station so that we can consider how the local police can deal with those yobs and ensure a speedy police response.

I have already had a response from the British Transport police which makes the same point as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey--that the British Transport police cannot always be patrolling every mile of railway track. The local police often have the most detailed knowledge of where the most vulnerable points of the track are and where the yobs tend to congregate. In this case, the trouble spot next to the line is well known. It is so well known that Railtrack has fenced in the bridges, but, unfortunately, that does not stop youths standing in open ground beside the line or in one of the gardens in Winchester road in my constituency and regularly lobbing rocks at trains. The problem is serious. My constituents and my councillor, Nick Sutcliffe--he was, unfortunately, a victim of one of those attacks--would be very concerned to hear that the Government are doing something that will be perceived, despite what the Minister says, as downgrading the offence.

I want to return to one or two of the issues concerning the way in which the courts will deal with fixed penalties generally. One of the submissions to Opposition Members came from the chief executive to the Justices for Inner London. As a lawyer, I treat seriously any concerns expressed by those in the court service. The chief executive to the Justices for Inner London refers to the origins of the Bill in the Government's consultation paper. Christine Glenn, the Justices' chief executive quotes from that consultation paper, stating that introduction of the fixed penalty system for anti-social behaviour offences will provide immediacy of punishment in a way that a court appearance at some time in the future does not. That lies behind the Government's proposal. The Justices' chief executive said:

``It is suggested the proposal might achieve exactly the opposite . . . Since the introduction of the Narey reforms''--

she is referring to her own court and it may not be true in all courts--

``anyone charged is in fact brought before a court within a day or two. Under the proposed system the issue of the notice may indeed be swift but payment will be delayed for at least a statutory period and in many if not most cases will not be made at all''--

that refers to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and others made so well—

``at least without further court appearances either in the form of a summons for the offence or a means warrant for non-payment. The issue of compensation is not addressed.''

The chief executive continues:

``The compliance rate taken across the whole range of motoring fixed penalties is certainly fairly high. This may reflect the fact that parking and other minor motoring offences are committed by a very wide section of the public, including those who are (otherwise) entirely law abiding.''

We all know on both sides of the Committee that this is true. The document continues:

``However, compliance rates from non-endorsable fixed penalties are much lower at about 40 per cent. and it is suggested this might be the maximum that could realistically be expected.''

In addition, the justices' chief executive questions

``whether a high rate of compliance can be anticipated from the section of the population likely to be the candidates for the new scheme. Bearing in mind the non-payment rates for court fines we would be surprised if more than 30 per cent. paid immediately.''

I suspect it would be a lot lower than that. My personal estimate would be less than 10 per cent. from my experience in the criminal courts with the kind of people that the chief constable of the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and I represent, has termed the Guildford warriors. My hon. Friend and other Surrey colleagues were with me when we were shown an absolutely fascinating and rather worrying section of closed-circuit television film. It showed a great deal of drunkenness and violent behaviour, including the kind of criminal damage in Guildford town centre that the Bill might be intended to deal with.

If the Minister had been with us when we saw that film, he would have seen that, even though the police panda car arrived within two or three minutes, to break up the fights and deal with the drunks and the criminal damage, quite serious offences had already been committed. The Governments' proposals might suggest that such offences would merit a fixed penalty issued by a police officer.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman has this fundamentally wrong, both in relation to the rail offences that he talked about and the kind of offences that he is talking about now. I have certainly seen CCTV footage of the most appalling offences. I saw one video at a station represented by my hon. Friend for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) when I visited him just before Christmas. The kinds of offences that he is describing would not conceivably be appropriate for fixed penalty notices. They are much more serious than that. The suggestion that we are trying to downgrade those kinds of offences, whether on the railway or in relation to the type of offence to which he referred, is completely wrong.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The problem for the Minister is how the law-abiding public and the media are going to perceive the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire pointed out, the way in which the Government approach this matter fits so neatly into the description given the memo, in which we were all interested, in which the Prime Minister said to the head of all his focus groups:

``I want to be associated with eye-catching initiatives, especially on law and order.''

This is one of these eye-catching initiatives. The Bill is full of gimmicks, but it will be perceived by the public as downgrading crimes. The Ministers know perfectly well that the press, in writing about this part of this Bill, have already portrayed it in that light. Those remarks is not coming just from the Opposition Benches, but from analysis of what the Government are up to.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Now that the hon. Gentleman knows that what he has said is not the case, and that guidance will be issued to ensure that it is not, will he give an assurance to the Committee that he will not take part in misleading the public or giving the wrong impression? I am sure that he would not want to be party to misleading the public about what the Bill is designed to do.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire rightly says, where is the guidance? We are not prepared to take the word of the Minister, or any Labour Minister. We want to see the guidance in advance, as do those who are commenting on these proposals. Only then will we be able to judge whether there is any substance to what has been said. We have seen the memo about the eye-catching initiatives, and we know that Ministers often live in a fantasy land, in which they can pretend that black is white, and that words means exactly the opposite of the natural meaning of the English language. On this occasion the Ministers cannot escape from the Prime Minister's own words—

``I want to be associated with eye-catching initiatives, especially on law and order.''

What on earth is the Bill if it is not one of those?

I share the serious concerns of the Criminal Bar Association and concern about the 10 issues that my hon. Friend has raised. The Government must reassure the public a great deal more. If we could see the guidance and matters were not being rushed through before an election—a forced timetable—the Bill might be much more serious.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The Association of Chief Police Officers, writing to Sir Edward Crew, Chief Constable of West Midlands police, opened its response to the consultation paper by saying:

``I am delighted to see that the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices has been progressed so quickly, and I am pleased to be able to give you a response to the consultation paper on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The consultation paper largely mirrors the suggestions in my original paper, and having canvassed Chief Constables from across the country, I found broad support for the introduction of Fixed Penalties for low level disorder offences.''

I am sure that those who read the Official Report of this debate will notice the urging of caution—that this is not the right time—and Opposition Members will give all manner of reasons why they do not want to give the police officers the tools that they need and have asked for to do the job on the streets. The Government will give police those tools, and we could not have a greater endorsement than that the chief constables are thanking the Government—while, admittedly, drawing attention to certain details—for responding to their ideas.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister knows that we support the principle of fixed penalty notices—[Laughter.] It is true. However, we are talking about the details.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I never talked about the details.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. He and his ministerial colleague have said that we will only be able to find out how the system will be administered when the guidance is published. When will the draft guidance appear?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I was going to deal with that. It is one of many issues that were raised, to which I shall try to respond. We shall attempt to publish draft guidance as quickly as possible.

I was asked about costs. A range of offenders are likely to be dealt with through fixed penalties. Some who would have gone to court will be dealt with by a fixed penalty, which will mean a considerable cost saving. Others, who would not have been processed or would have been cautioned will be subject to a fixed penalty. If we consider the overall balance of police time, the best estimate—from ACPO, not the Government—is that the introduction of fixed penalties will save the police considerable time and paperwork and considerable time in terms of attending court. We must remember that the police are subject to considerable delays when they are required to attend court. Any process whereby an offence can be marked, which stops a police officer having to attend court, frees up that officer to perform his duties on the street, which is where the public want him, and where most police officers want him. That is far to be preferred to having officers sitting in a magistrates court waiting to give evidence in a relatively minor criminal damage case.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It is interesting that the Minister should finish by mentioning criminal damage. He has adduced ACPO in support of the proposals, but he ignored what ACPO said about the inclusion of criminal damage in the list of offences. He also ignored ACPO's plea to include non-notifiable offences such as street trading, which we discussed previously. In relation to costs, if the police will be saved court time, offences that are currently tried in court will be dealt with by the fixed penalty system. That gives weight to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath that the Bill degrades the punishments that people receive.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I will deal with the points raised during the course of my observations.

A point was made about IT systems. The existing IT systems in courts for dealing with fixed penalties will need some adaptation. In the magistrates court, a very large IT system, the LIBRA system, is presently being rolled out. The adaptations to those systems to deal with fixed penalties would not be nearly as great as if we had to start from scratch and introduce a new system for fixed penalties.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

What will that cost?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I cannot give precise estimates as to cost at this stage, but I will endeavour to write to him with that information.

A number of points were made raised a number of points made about the Criminal Bar Association, and I can deal with those reasonably swiftly. First, it was suggested that drunks are not in a fit state to receive and understand a penalty notice. I understand that point, but the police are used to dealing with drunks, as part of their jobs—I have spent evenings with them, and have admired their professionalism in how they deal with people in various stages of inebriation.

People who are too drunk to understand that they are being given a fixed penalty notice—if what they were doing was an offence that could justly be dealt with by a fixed- notice—will, in practice, be arrested, as they would be for committing an offence in the first place. They will be taken to the police station, and sobered up. At the point at which they would either have been charged—and therefore processed through the court system—or cautioned, the police would have a third option of issuing a fixed penalty notice. I refer hon. Members to clause 2, to which I referred when I intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, explaining how the fixed penalty notice can be issued in the police station. That is the answer to the first point.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister be including that in the guidance?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire cannot continually rise to his feet and intervene, without being called. If he wishes to intervene, he must ask the Minister to give way.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I apologise.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I can say yes, those points will certainly be included in the guidance.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

If the Minister does not know now, will he let us have figures showing the percentage of people who are currently charged with the relevant offences and plead guilty.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I am not sure that it is possible to answer that question. The exact way in which the power to impose fixed penalty notices will be used, and therefore the range of notices to which they will apply, will be matters for the discretion of police forces. Guidance will be issued, but as in any area we must respect the operational independence of the police. If the hon. Gentleman is asking, for example, how many of the people who come before the courts charged with criminal damage plead guilty, we could give him that figure, but not every case of criminal damage, would be suitably dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. It is impossible to say at the moment what proportion of the criminal damage cases that come before the courts would, in the police officers exercise of their operational independence, attract a fixed penalty notice. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I had read the Bill as entitling a police officer to issue a fixed penalty notice in the street, if he saw someone who was drunk. The Minister has suggested, however, that if an officer sees someone drunk, he will arrest the person, take him back to the station and then issue the fixed penalty notice. Is the former option not available to the officer? Could the Minister explain how the system would work in relation to the questions that I asked?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I will try to address these points, but section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides general powers of arrest in the case of a person reasonably suspected of committing an offence. What is important about this part of the Bill, is that it is not creating new offences. It is a method of dealing with offences that are already being committed under other statutes. The police officer will the have the power, therefore, under section 25 to arrest someone who commits an offence of, say, criminal damage. There are other offences such as drunkenness, for which, under provisions of the Act, if the police officer is unable to identify the defendant, or the defendant is incapable of dealing with the police officer, the officer has the power of arrest.

This part of the Bill does not create new powers of arrest—there are already sufficient powers. Clause 2 will give police officers the option of giving a fixed penalty notice in the street, if appropriate, or exercising his power of arrest. At a later point in the system, back at the police station, an authorised officer can, under clause 2(5), issue a fixed penalty notice if, at the discretion of the police, that is the right way to dispose of the matter to prevent other officers going to court.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

No, I am going to make a bit of progress.

The next point raised was whether the issue of a fixed penalty notice to an offender or group of offenders might blow up a situation and make disorder worse. We are making a range of tools available to the police in the right circumstances. The police are experienced in dealing with rowdy situations and with disorderly groups on the street. It is for the police in their independent operational duties to determine the best way to defuse a situation. It is up to them to decide whether to deal with the public order issue by issuing a fixed penalty notices or by making an arrest under their existing powers. In the case of arrest, the offenders can be taken back to the station, where the police can consider disposal—either issuing a caution or a fixed penalty notice or proceeding to court, depending on the seriousness of the matter. The fact that they have the option of issuing a fixed penalty notice will not make difficult situations any more difficult.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked what would be the effect on the criminal justice system of massive non-payment of penalties? That misses the point, which is that penalties would be issued to people who commit offences that can dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. If those individuals do not pay the fines, the fines will mount up at the magistrates court, as would any other fines.

That brings me to the point—raised by various hon. Members—of whether there will be a limit on the number of fixed penalties that can be imposed. That option was canvassed in paragraph 13 of the consultation paper. Both the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers responded. In summary, their response was that the possible benefits of knowing of the cumulative number of fixed penalty notices would be more than outweighed by the administration, red tape and bureaucracy necessary to maintain such records.

If someone was collecting a large number of fixed penalty notices, that would clearly become apparent to the local police officers who were dealing with that person in the same place in the same way. Alternatively, offenders will come up as repeated fines before the court. Those sources of information would be the best way of dealing with any problem. There is no perfect answer to that point, as the consultation confirmed.

Stating that no person should be issued with more than three fixed penalty notices within 12 months would require a large amount of paperwork to record and maintain the necessary information. The whole rationale behind this part of the Bill is to give the police an option to allow them to discharge their duties more effectively, while maintaining all the rights of a defendant, but with less paperwork. The balance of the view from the police—both the Police Superintendents Association and ACPO—was that we would be better off to accept that running up repeated fines and dealing with the matter in court according to the level of repeated fines would be better than trying to limit penalty notices to a fixed number with all the counting and bureaucracy that would be necessary. How on earth can a police officer who sees somebody drunk in the street know whether that person has had two or three fixed penalties already this year? That being so, he could not issue another one when the purpose was to give that person an expensive hangover.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I foresee a problem. Let us say that someone has received a lot of fines and becomes well known, or the police constable realises that the person has already been given half a dozen fixed penalty notices when the matter goes to court, because the police have had enough. Will the court be made aware of the number of fixed penalty notices that have been issued? The Minister will know that it is always possible to get a printout of motoring offences. If all fixed penalty notices are to be on computer, will a similar printout be possible?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

In the first instance and on the assumption that every time a fixed penalty notice is issued a fine is paid, the answer is no. However, in practice, I strongly suspect that the type of individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is also the type who is unlikely to pay the fine. That would result in the unpaid fine—multiplied one and half times under clause 4(5)—being registered at the magistrates court, so when that individual comes back before the court, the fine will be before the court. In the case of a rather unusual individual who repeatedly gets drunk in a public place and repeatedly gets fined but pays all the fines off, the scenario painted by the hon. Gentleman is possible; however, in practice, I do not think that that is likely.

The hon. Gentleman asked if there were human rights implications if warnings about the consequences of not providing details were given. It is quite correct to require that any individual who commits an offence—in a fixed penalty system, an offence has already been committed—who is approached by a police officer and asked for details of his identity in relation to that offence, is warned if he either refuses to say who he is, or he adopts the course advocated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and legs it. That requirement arises regardless of the Bill. However, if the police officer takes the view that the issuing of a fixed penalty notice is appropriate, it implies a degree of co-operation at that stage regarding the defendant's actions. If there is a dispute and a person refuses to say who he is, at that stage the issuing of a fixed penalty notice is not appropriate; it is likely that the individual will be arrested, and that is the point at which the appropriate warning should be given.

The warnings arise not in relation to the fixed penalty notice, but in relation to the offence, which is the condition precedent for giving a fixed penalty notice. Therefore, the Government do not accept that there are human rights implications associated with the fixed penalty notice system. We do accept that anyone who commits an offence and is then approached by a police officer and required to give his name and refuses must have his rights explained to him, but that does not arise under this part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On the question of the recording of the fixed penalty notice and the offence, if somebody receives a fixed penalty notice and pays it in due time, what record will there be for the authorities to check if, for example, that person is investigated for another series of offences and all the state authorities want to establish his precise pattern of behaviour. Is there to be no record or will the record be expunged once he has paid his fine?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I understand that in the unlikely circumstance that every fixed penalty is paid within the time, there is no record. I will certainly have the matter checked and either return to it later in my speech or write to hon. Members.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Minister said that someone who was, for example, given a fixed penalty notice for being drunk would have to be warned. Can he explain that, because I do not think it is in the Bill? If it is, will he draw the provision to my attention? My impression is that a fixed penalty notice could simply be written out by the police officer and handed to the individual—although I am not clear as to whether it even needs to be handed to the individual.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman must appreciate that the requirement to warn and the issues relating to the Human Rights Act 1998 arise in relation to the offence, not to the fixed penalty notice. The notice is one way of dealing with an offence. The requirement on a police officer to warn, demand co-operation and explain the consequences of non-co-operation arises in relation to the original offence, be it criminal damage, trespass on a railway line, or whatever. The fixed penalty notice is a way of dealing with the offence itself. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that distinction.

To return to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Reigate, it may be possible for police officers to keep local administrative records of fixed penalty notices, but nothing in the Bill formally requires them to do so. We will certainly reflect upon that.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

May I make a final point in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire? Inasmuch as the fixed penalty notice itself, as opposed to the offence for which it was issued, gives rise to obligations, those obligations will be set out in the notice. I refer him to clause 3(3), which sets out what the notice must state. There is a requirement for the notice to contain warnings to the effect that, if one does not pay the fine, one will be taken to the magistrates court, and to inform one about how to comply with the notice. That will satisfy the obligations under the Human Rights Act.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

While answering our questions, has the Minister concluded that, in the real world, the chance of people standing around and waiting for a fixed penalty notice is about 1 per cent.? In fact, they will probably run away without giving their name. The chances of them waiting for that bit of paper seem to me to be zilch. If the Government want to go ahead with the fixed penalty notice system, should they not recognise that the only time when such a system will be of any use is after arrest, when there is a disposal in the cell in the police station? The officer might, at that time, decide whether to charge or issue a fixed penalty notice. Is that not the only realistic chance of any significant number of people receiving, or accepting that they have received, such a notice?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.