Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Public Bill Committee, 15 February 2001.

Standing Committee F

Clause 7 - Notification of court and date of trial

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 99, in page 4, line 24, leave out

`the offence will be tried'

and insert—

`and the time at which, he must appear'.

No. 101, in page 4, line 25, at end insert—

`( ) A warning notice shall be given in the manner prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State, such power to be exercisable by statutory instrument.

( ) Such an instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

No. 111, in page 5, line 3, leave out subsection (7).

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I was speaking about amendment No. 111 in our previous sitting and, as I was saying then, leaving out subsection (7) would allow someone who was not informed that he had received a fixed penalty to keep the matter open. I will recap briefly and then ask the Parliamentary Secretary's opinion.

Chapter I will greatly assist the police and the administration of justice, by enabling comparatively minor offences to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. However, if the speed of justice is increased, its fairness can be reduced, which would be undesirable in cases in which people were unaware that they had been given a penalty notice, and wanted the matter reopened.

Subsection (7) is unnecessary, and the window that it leaves open is not likely to be used often. If people try to use that window in unmerited cases, the court will not allow it. However, in the sort of case in which it is used, it will give the court an opportunity to do justice where, otherwise, the rights of the citizen might have been ridden over roughshod. I hope that that is not the Government's intention, and I believe that it would be wise to leave this window open.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

It might help the Committee if I say a little about the clause's purpose. It will allow a police officer who issues a penalty notice to give the alleged offender a warning notice at the same time. A warning notice informs the offender of where and when the case will be tried, if he opts for a court hearing instead of paying the penalty. In normal circumstances, the police officer will have such details to hand. However, for events such as music festivals or demonstrations, during which the police could reasonably expect to issue some fixed penalty notices, they may wish to set the date and venue of the court hearing in advance for people who challenge offences under the provision.

Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 assist in specifying precisely where and when such a trial should take place, if it is requested by an offender. I explained to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the Government have reflected on the matter in the light of the amendments, and are, in principle, prepared to accept the spirit of them. We will table amendments that reflect his improvements. On that basis, I hope that he will not press the amendments to a vote.

Amendment No. 101 would provide for additional requirements concerning the warning notice, although it is likely that they would be used extremely rarely. Other provisions in clause 7 state that the notice should be treated as a summons for the purposes of the application of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to any further proceedings relating to the offence. They also state that such a summons is to be treated as having been properly served on the recipient by a justice of the peace on the date on which the notice was given.

I hope that Opposition Members do not have any quarrels with the principle of such provisions, although I understand their concern to ensure that the warning notice is a properly served summons. However, it is difficult to see what other prescription they would wish to make about the manner in which the notice is given. If their concern is that the constable serving the notice should make its meaning clear to the offender, the Government are prepared to ensure that that is covered in the Secretary of State's guidance to the police. However, there is little difference between an offender who is issued with a warning notice and an offender who receives a summons through the post and has nobody on hand to explain its meaning.

I assure the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that the Government are prepared to take such a step, and I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I was pleased with the concession on the previous occasion, and I am sure that this concession is very constructive. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain the form of the warning notice? Will it be part of the same document as the fixed penalty notice, or will it be a separate piece of paper?

As I said previously, magistrates usually have to consider jurisdiction when deciding whether to issue a summons. Is there any provision about the petty sessional division that would deal with the case, and would it always be petty sessional division for the area in which the fixed penalty warning notice was given?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

We envisage that there will be separate notices. An offender will be given a fixed penalty notice and told that if he wants to challenge it in a court, the trial is likely to take place at the specified time and venue.

On which court the trial would be held in, I imagine that the same rules that apply to any other offence will also apply. The police officer who observes an offence will give a fixed penalty notice as an alternative to the offence being tried in court. However, should the recipient wish to have the fixed penalty notice set aside and have the matter tried, the same provisions would apply as would apply if the police officer had arrested the individual and charged him with the offence. Therefore, the offence would be tried in the same court as if it were not dealt with by a fixed penalty notice.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the Minister give way briefly?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Yes, briefly.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister said that he imagined that the rules would be the same as in existing criminal court procedure. In due course, will he write to all members of the Committee and give an undertaking that if the provision becomes law, there will not be a factory arrangement in which all such fixed penalties are heard in one court? I mentioned previously the campaign of the Evening Standard against all fixed penalty parking tickets being dealt with in Northampton, which is hugely inconvenient for London residents.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I do not need to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion because subsection (4)(a) provides for such a summons to be treated

``as properly issued on the information by a justice of the peace for the area for which the magistrates' court notified as the court of trial acts, requiring A to appear before that court to answer to that information''.

It is clear that that would be the court local to the area in which an offence is committed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

How does clause 7(2) fit into the procedure? It states:

``Subsection (3) applies if a person (``A'') who has been given a warning notice makes a request to be tried'',

but as I understand the procedure, the request to be tried will follow the giving of the penalty notice.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I was intending to explain that in response to the issue that has been raised concerning subsection (7).

Let us assume that matters get slightly out of hand at a demonstration, and an offence is committed under the Public Order Act 1986, for which a fixed penalty notice is issued. At the same time, a warning notice is given to the individual, telling him, when the matter will be tried if he wants to contest it. However, it is entirely open to that individual, when sitting in his room later in the evening, away from the heat of the demonstration, to decide that as things had got out of hand, he would prefer to send a cheque to the clerk to the justices rather than face a criminal trial and get a criminal record. In that circumstance there would be no trial, as there would have been no request.

Alternatively, the individual concerned may wish to contest the matter. That is his right. He must serve a request to be tried, under clause 4, to exercise the option to have a trial rather than pay the sum due under the fixed penalty notice. That is why subsection (7) is required. Someone on whom a fixed penalty notice has been served and who has written to the justices seeking a trialcannot then say the he was not served with the notice in the first place. That is why subsection (7) says:

``If a person has been given a warning notice, section 14 of the Act of 1980 (proceedings invalid where accused did not know of them) does not apply.''

The individual must know of the proceedings, because he has made a request to be tried.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's answer, but I was surprised by the way in which he began it. He described a situation in, for example, Trafalgar square, where things had got out of hand and individual A had been served with a fixed penalty notice. He said that A had also been given a warning notice, but as I read the structure, it may be the case that A is given only a penalty notice; he does not have to be given a warning notice. It would be rather odd if he were given a warning notice then and there, to tell him which magistrates court to come to and so on. I do not know whether police officers are to carry all these warning notices around with them. If A has not been given a warning notice then and there, he might still ask to be tried in answer to the fixed penalty notice. If he were then to receive a warning notice, would he have to ask again to be tried?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

No. If that person has not been given a warning notice, clause 7 does not apply. If he has been given a warning notice, he does not need to be given a further warning notice. Either he is given one, or he is not.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I apologise, but that is not quite the question that I asked. I will be grateful when the Parliamentary Secretary does answer my point about subsection (7), but I am raising a different point: whether an individual might have to ask twice to be tried.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

No, just once. If there is no warning notice, the clause does not apply. If it applies, the person has been given a warning notice saying, ``If you want to contest it, this is how you do so, but you have got to tell us that you want to contest it.''

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

But the person has already said so.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I think that I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's confusion. The warning notice does not indicate that there is going to be a trial. All it does is to explain to the offender that if he elects to challenge the penalty notice, and wants not to pay up but to go for a trial for a criminal offence in the magistrates court, he has to notify the authorities to that effect. It is his choice, not the police officer's. The warning notice does not mean that there will necessarily be a trial. All that it says is that the court will be reserved in case a notice is contested. That is why subsection (7) is there, and why removing it would be inappropriate.

We do not believe that it is in the interests of justice to dispense with subsection (7). It cannot be right for an alleged offender, who has been served with a warning notice and has said that he wishes to contest a trial, to claim that he did not receive either notice. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, now that he understands the reason for subsection (7) and appreciates how the procedure works, will withdraw the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I may be misunderstanding. May I query the structure once more and then come to subsection (7)? As I read the structure of chapter I, a person is given a penalty notice under clause 2. Then clause 4 comes into action. It states:

``This section applies if a penalty notice is given to a person (``A'') under section 2.''

A then asks to be tried. He has already said that he wants to be tried. He has not yet been given a warning notice.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to appreciate the effect of subsection (1), which provides that at the time when he gives the fixed penalty notice, the officer may also issue a warning notice. Therefore, a person has a penalty notice and a warning notice in his hand when he considers whether to give the authorities notice that he wants to contest the matter by trial.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but it is not what the clause states. Subsection (1) says:

``If a person is given a penalty notice under section 2, he may be given written notice (``a warning notice'')''.

It does not say that he may be given one at the same time. Although he may receive the warning notice with the penalty notice, it may be given to him later. If he is given both notices at the same time, his request to be tried will, no doubt, apply to both the penalty notice and the warning notice. However, if he is given the warning notice later, which could quite often be the case—unless the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that penalty notices are always going to be tied in with warning notices, which would be surprising—must he respond both to the penalty notice, asking to be tried, and to the warning notice telling him where he is going to be tried, saying that he wishes to be tried? That is the potential muddle that I am asking about now.

To change the subject, subsection (7), which prompted amendment No. 111, states:

``If a person has been given a warning notice, section 14 of the Act of 1980 (proceedings invalid where accused did not know of them) does not apply.''

That worries me because, in a perfect world, someone given a warning notice would know of the proceedings, so the Parliamentary Secretary's answer—that notices cannot be invalid and no one could claim that they were—would stand.

However, in an imperfect world, a constable could genuinely believe that he had given a warning notice, while the citizen genuinely believed that he had not been given it. Sometimes, the citizen would be right. If he was, the proceedings should not be valid.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I do not want to get into exegesis of the law, but I think that the matter is relatively simple. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will note that subsection (7) says:

``If a person has been given a warning notice''.

He suggested that if a person says that he has not been given a warning notice, and he is right, proceedings against him would none the less be binding. I respectfully suggest to him—he is a far more eminent lawyer than I—that a person would have a pretty good defence if that problem occurred: he could say that his case did not fall within subsection (7) because he had not been given a warning notice.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

On the basis of that argument, why does section 14 in the 1980 Act need to exist?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I would like to join in the discussion. My right hon. and learned Friend made an important point about subsection (7). Where there is a dispute between the person giving the notice and the person receiving it, I imagine that that could be resolved in court. However, we are still short of a definition of ``given''. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can help us. If it means ``handed to'', which appears to be the flavour of his responses, one can imagine that a person unable to read and write—perhaps a fairground worker at one of the events where large numbers congregate, as the Parliamentary Secretary described—could be handed a warning notice. Would it be fair to apply section 14 of the 1980 Act if the meaning of the warning had not been understood? Should an individual not be able to attend court and say that he was handed something but had no idea what it meant?

Some of the amendments have been tabled because situations may arise in which the meaning of the warning needs to be explained to the person concerned. Even if it is explained, there should still be a provision that allows for a person to argue that he did not understand what was said to him—he might be a foreigner, for example. The Parliamentary Secretary may laugh and think that such situations would not generally happen, but as a lawyer, he knows the litany of unusual cases that fill the legal textbooks and law reports. Committees such as this never dreamed that they would happen.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I know that hon. Members are desperate to string out our proceedings, but there are important provisions in the Bill that need to be debated.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. The Parliamentary Secretary's remark that the Opposition are determined to string out the proceedings is most peculiar. It is incorrect; we are giving sensible consideration to important matters. Surely, if he were correct, it would be up to you to make the point, not him.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is up to the Chair to decide whether the Committee is in order. As far as I am aware, everything that has been said this morning is in order.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I am grateful to the Opposition for the opportunity to intervene. Subsection (7) describes what will happen if a defendant does not turn up at court. If he turns up at court and says that he is challenging the fixed penalty notice and does not want to pay the fine, that is the procedure that would be followed. If he does not request a trial because he does not understand the fixed penalty notice or the warning notice, there is no trial and the fixed penalty notice takes effect.

I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is making, but this is not the occasion on which to raise it.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Parliamentary Secretary is right to the extent that he has promised to consider what should be said when the warning notice is given. I welcome that, and it meets part of my point. Of course, it is true that if people do nothing, they have a one and a half times fine slapped on them, and they are taken to court. We will come later to the provisions that will allow them to seek a trial. However, I feel that he could further elucidate what ``given'' means. If it simply means ``handed to'', it would be nice if he would say so.

Everyone in the Government says, ``Oh, let's get on with it. Our Bill is perfect. Anyone who criticises any aspect of it is filibustering.'' Ministers should reflect on the words of the Home Secretary when he was in opposition. He said:

``careful scrutiny is one of the best guarantors of good legislation''.—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 339.]

My experience in the House, although not very lengthy, is that if Front Benchers agree and Committees whiz through in record time—as happened, for example, with the child support arrangements—we do not usually get the best law. The Parliamentary Secretary has to concede that he has already given way on half a dozen occasions or promised that he will reflect on matters. That is because we are doing our job properly.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

That exchange has confused me. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would relieve me of my confusion the next time he intervenes. If someone celebrating when Sven and the boys win the next World cup is given a penalty notice for getting over-enthusiastic, it seems foolish to give him the warning notice at the same time. If he loses one, he will lose the other. I assumed that the warning notice would come in the post a day or two later, so that he would know that he had received a penalty notice. Is that correct?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that is exactly the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I confess that I had not spotted that. He was right to table amendment No. 111. As the hon. Gentleman said, subsection (1) reads as though exactly that would happen. That seems sensible.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

We expect the warning notice to be given with the fixed penalty notice, in the usual course of events. We expect that the two notices would usually be given at the same time. In that context, ``given'' means precisely that. The notice is physically served or otherwise clearly brought to the attention of the defendant, in the same way that anything else is served. However, it would not be right to remove the possibility entirely—although I accept that it would be unusual to exercise it—for a warning notice to be given at some other time. It would not have to be acknowledged. It will say only where a trial will take place if the defendant wants to contest the penalty and wants the right to a trial. Of course, it depends on whether the defendant wishes to make that request.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Given that the penalty notice specifies the way in which a trial is to be requested, will the serving of the warning notice restart the clock 21 days from that point? If it is served later, it would have to explain that the time for requesting trial is still 21 days, and it would not work if it confused people.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I have carefully followed the discussion, and although subsection (1) appears to be simple, it fails a reality check. It is extraordinary to expect a policeman who serves someone with a fixed penalty notice while dealing with disorder on the street to know both the magistrates court where that person will be tried and the date of the trial. He is not an expert listing officer, so it fails the reality test to expect him to be in possession of such information. How does the Parliamentary Secretary expect the procedure to work? That highlights the relevance of the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Although that point could be right, it is possible for the police to liaise with the magistrates' clerks—who are now called chief executives—to arrange a date.

I am concerned about jurisdiction. If a major outside event such as a huge festival was taking place at some distance from a large town, the petty sessional division, where the magistrates court for that area is situated, might be unable to cope with the volume of cases and it might be necessary to hear them in a town with a large magistrates court—that happens fairly frequently. In such circumstances, the magistrate would normally decide whether it was convenient or necessary for the better administration of justice to serve summonses for a magistrates court outside the area where the incidents occurred, but I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary's comments that, in this instance, the police would decide the matter. I am trying to tease out of him how that would operate, given the magistrates courts rules.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point about how such arrangements would be set up in advance, given that they will be rarely used, and only for events at which the police anticipate that they might want to issue fixed penalty notices. In such instances, he is correct that the courts and the police would have to liaise in advance to agree the fixed dates to be printed on the warning notices. I apologise to the Committee if I did not make that point clearly, but I hope that it is implicit in the drafting.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I want to clarify where we now stand. The Minister's comments about amendments Nos. 99 and 100 have satisfied us.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Is my hon. Friend not astonished to hear that it will be normal practice for the warning notice to be served with the penalty notice, given that the warning notice has to state not only the court where the matter will be heard but the date? The point may better be dealt with in a short clause stand part debate.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is an odd procedure, given that there will not necessarily be any prospect of a court hearing. It is hard to envisage that the magistrates court administration would find it easy to operate in practice. It is also worrying for the police, because if, at a large event, many people are served with fixed penalty notices and warning notices at the same time and they all request trial, how many of them will turn up on the day of the hearing? After half a police force has been on duty for a special event, they might all have to turn up solemnly at court at a particular time on a particular date, when there is no hope of all the trials being dealt with on that day. The administrative side is worrying, as is the principle of setting a date and a time for a hearing when there is not yet the immediate prospect of a case. I also have doubts about the idea that it would not be served at the same time, but perhaps two days later. That could be quite confusing to the person who is being served the fixed penalty notice.

The Minister needs to get a grip and provide a detailed explanation of how this would work. We know that the Bill was introduced to save the Prime Minister's blushes, but the Committee is entitled to have the detail that will enable us to understand the mechanics of how it would work.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman asserted that the Bill had been introduced to save the Prime Minister's blushes. Will the Opposition vote to do that, or will they vote against all the powers on fixed penalty notices?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As may have become obvious to the Minister during the past two days, we believe that the principle of having fixed penalty notices to deal with the simple case of being drunk in the street or whatever is a good idea, provided that it is not overly bureaucratic, that it works and that the court system can cope with it. We want to be sure that the details have been worked out. Frankly, so far, it has been a bit of a mess. We have not seen the guidance that he keeps relying on. We have been told again today that the guidance will cover the matter, but where is it? When we asked about the level of fixed penalties, he could not even tell us what it will be. This has not been thought through.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman on the guidance. I have made a number of assertions about this. We will be able to give the Committee copies of our draft guidance immediately after the recess. I hope that that moves some way towards what he was asking for. If clauses 1 to 13 are not substantially amended beyond where we are now, which was a concession made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, will the Opposition vote against them?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Minister knows that we support the principle. I have made that clear.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We are talking about the practicalities.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We are halfway through on the practicalities. We are in Committee. We have opportunities to suggest improvements between now and clause 13. We have already made a lot of improvements. We will have further opportunities on Report. [Interruption.] The Minister will have to be patient. If you introduce ill-thought-out legislation, and the detail is not in place, you have to be prepared to answer many questions.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not introducing anything at all.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I did not mean you in that sense, Mr. Gale. I was being rhetorical and I apologise. [Interruption.] The Minister is metaphorical: I am rhetorical.

I was reassured by what the Parliamentary Secretary said about amendments Nos. 99 and 100. He made some progress on amendment No. 101 and I was happy enough. At least I hope that I will be when I see the guidance. I have just outlined my concerns. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has come across a good point and there should be an amendment on Report to say ``at the same time''. The Minister is wrong to think in terms of serving warning notices two days later. I look forward to hearing my right hon. and learned Friend's final view on amendment No. 111.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Briefly, I am not satisfied with the answers that I have been given on amendment No. 111 or on the practice of serving warning notices at the same time as penalty notices.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Would it help the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I were to explain the effect of section 14 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980? It allows people to swear a statutory declaration to the effect that they never received a summons. I do not understand how people who have had a warning notice served on them specifying when the trial will be, should they request it, can at the same time swear a statutory declaration saying that they never received notice of the trial date. That is the issue.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary answered his own question in an earlier reply to me, when he said that if there was argument about whether one had been given the warning notice, that could be tried in court, but if one had indeed been given the warning notice, of course one could not say that the proceedings were invalid. It was a circular answer. He is shaking his head, so perhaps I misunderstand him.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I entirely agree that if one has had the warning notice, and so falls within subsection (7), one cannot say that one has not received the summons. If one has not received the warning notice, the clause does not apply.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

This is the point about section 14 of the 1980 Act. It makes the proceedings invalid where the accused did not know of them. It will not happen terribly often. Of course, occasionally people make false points and waste the time of the courts, but they can be condemned in costs. All I am asking for is the window of opportunity not to be technically closed, in a situation where the citizen genuinely did not know of the proceedings, probably because a police officer honestly thought that he had given the warning notice and the citizen honestly thought that he had not received it. Indeed, the court could discover, if it tried the matter, that the citizen had not received it. I am doing nothing but keeping a sensible little opportunity for justice open, and all I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do is to reflect on it and table an amendment on Report if he thinks it necessary.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not intend to press any of the amendments to a vote.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I want to point out something that has come out in the course of our debate and really does need either explanation or further thinking through by the Government. May I say, without rancour, that I strongly object to any suggestion that this careful scrutiny is intended to string out our proceedings. It is not. These penalty notices are very sensible in many ways, but unless they are done fairly they are a significant infringement on the liberty of the subject, and it is important to get them right. There will probably be tranches of the Bill in which we will have fewer points to raise—I hope that that will be the case—but these are important matters.

I found what the Parliamentary Secretary said pretty astonishing, and I would like a proper explanation. If I have understood him correctly, he said that penalty notices and warning notices will normally be given together. I totally see that that might happen if one goes back to the police station, because the officer in charge will be au fait with where the next opportunity for trial is likely to be, and the system will work perfectly well. We are legislating for circumstances in which police officers will go out equipped with a pocketbook that enables them to issue a penalty notice then and there. The notion that those pocketbooks can be prepared in a way that indicates the date and place of trial seems to be much less practical. If the system is to work in those circumstances, it makes sense that the penalty notice should be issued, the citizen should respond by saying that he wishes to be tried, and the warning notice should then be issued, sensibly constituting the equivalent of a summons under the magistrates court.

So far, fair and good, but the way in which the clause is structured suggests that someone who has been given a warning notice—albeit he has already been given a penalty notice and said that he wants to be tried—must make another request to be tried, or at least that, if the warning notice is to be treated as a properly served summons, he must make that request, because subsection (3), which enables the warning notice to be treated as a properly served summons, applies only where a person who has been given a warning notice makes the request. It does not say, ``has made a request to be tried.'' Some thought needs to be given to that, both for good drafting purposes and for the protection of the citizen.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have one point to raise about the generality of the process of going from a fixed penalty notice to a magistrates court. I shall use the example that I heard reported on the radio last week, because that is all the information that I have. It relates to the issue of the proximity of the magistrates court to the place where the fixed penalty notice arises. I heard on the radio that a court commended someone in north Wales, because he had walked from somewhere in Snowdonia to Dolgellau magistrates court—a distance of about 50 miles. He managed to hitch a lift for some of the way and walked the rest. He was due to be at court at 10 am, but arrived at 4 pm, just before it closed. The magistrates were so impressed that the man had made such an effort to get there that they disposed of the case much more generously than they might otherwise have done. He then walked home again, arriving at about midnight.

That is an example of one case, but there is an issue about the need to ensure that a magistrates court in rural Britain that deals with fixed penalty notices is somewhere accessible. People may choose to go for trial, or the process may take them into trial mode, which we discussed at some length the other day. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to reassure me that the normal rule about the nearest magistrates court applies. That is not a problem in urban areas, but is much more significant in rural areas, particularly with the gradual closure of courts in many rural towns and large villages, and the centralisation of the magistrates courts system. Do the Government have a policy on the maximum distance that anyone should be from a magistrates court?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I, too, recall very well the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and I entirely agree with him. He may not be aware that both the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), a Plaid Cymru Member, and I raised it with the Parliamentary Secretary during Lord Chancellor's Department questions. The significant fact is that the court in Lampeter had just been closed, which led to the need for that ludicrous journey.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is helpful. I was not present at Lord Chancellor's questions when the case was raised. When I heard about it on the radio, it reminded me of the story of Mary Jones and her Bible, which featured in a book that I was given at Sunday school. Again, in north Wales, a similar long journey was made to ensure that people received the first version of the Bible in Welsh.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary guarantee that a case will go to the nearest court and that it will be both within a maximum distance and accessible by public and other forms of transport. Some people will inevitably have low disposable incomes. They may not have free bus passes, and even if they do, there may be no public transport in the area. We must have a realistic system, under which the entitlement to claim the right to trial is something of which people can avail themselves, rather than something impractical.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point that I have been making? Normally, it is the magistrates who have the discretion to say that a summons can be served outside their petty sessional division. It looks as though, under clause 7(4), that is going to end if a warning notice is served, because such a summons is to be treated

``as properly issued on the information by a justice of the peace for the area for which the magistrates' court notified as the court of trial acts, requiring A to appear before that court to answer to that information''.

That suggests that the magistrate does not make that decision. It is all treated as having already happened, provided that the warning notice refers to the magistrates court mentioned in the warning notice.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is certainly my reading of subsection (4). The last issue, prompted by that, is the case where a series of fixed penalty notices might be given to a group of people involved in a common disorder, even though some of them may not come from the area. It would be logical for the trial to take place in the court for the area where the disorder occurred.

If there were an offence, for example, of trespass on the railway line, and the person trespassing was on holiday, it might be in everybody's interest, and save the state a huge amount of money, if the court disposing of the matter, which is by definition regarded as a lesser matter because it is in the system, was not at the other end of the country, requiring the person to get from, say, Croydon to, say, Aberystwyth, but in Croydon. There is an issue, which I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, as to whether it is logical and sensible for the hearing to be held in a court near to where the person lives, rather than in a court at the opposite end of the country which the person is unlikely to attend.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The more I listen to the debate, the more concerned I get about the practicality of the warning notices, how they are to be issued, and the questions raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey regarding the practicality of individuals attending sessions near their home. I am also concerned about the principle, if one can call it that, which seems to underlie the warning notice.

The fixed penalty notice seems to say to the recipient, ``Go on, make my day. We're ready for you. We've got all the procedures lined up. If you dare to be so impertinent as to elect for trial, this is where you are going to come. We've got all the lawyers and magistrates ready to bang you up and send you down with a serious fine if you dare to exercise your right to trial.''

I find that distasteful. Someone who is served with a fixed penalty notice has 21 days to consider whether to take the option of paying the fine, thereby discharging his obligation to the policeman who gave it to him, and avoiding the prospect of getting a criminal record.

If the person elects for trial, that is a serious consideration because, if he is found guilty, he will have a criminal conviction. As we have seen throughout the debate on the clause, the warning notice procedure is heavy handed, with all the administrative complications of trying to make it equivalent to a summons—for example, in the way in which it is handed out—and all the administrative difficulties that come with it.

Should policemen wander around with warning notices on them and be briefed on which sessions will be available? If a policeman hands out a fixed penalty notice, 21 days will be the minimum period, because a person has the right to make an election. Will the policeman indicate the magistrates sessions at which these people are going to come up in front of the beak, or will people have to go back to the police station to get their notices there?

What would happen at events such as the Reading festival, Glastonbury or some large demonstration on Trafalgar square, where violence is anticipated and the police have set up procedures whereby they are going to take people away in large numbers and try to deal with them? The police could find that if there were semi-organised protesters, as there were in the protest against the City, people would accept fixed penalty notices. They would then be told where they were going for trial and be dozens, if not hundreds, of people who had been served fixed penalty notices, all electing for trial, would all turn up on the same day, and there would be total chaos because the system simply would not have the capacity to cope.

The provision is an unnecessary complication. People will receive a fixed penalty notice and then have 21 days to decide whether to risk a criminal conviction or to discharge the liability. The idea of ``Go ahead, make my day'', which seems to underlie the principle of a warning notice and challenges people to go to trial, is distasteful.

Warning notices have the potential to be administratively chaotic and add nothing to fixed penalty notices. If people elect for trial, they should get a proper summons in the ordinary way. It would be a serious election for them to make, and they should be treated with respect as citizens who are trying to defend a principle by risking a conviction or facing a bigger fine. I will vote against the clause.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I am embarrassed to admit that the more I listened to the debate, the more I felt that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire had a point. Perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has one as well. I am not a lawyer, so I have greater difficulty understanding such matters. However, if the summons and notice were served together, the individual would not get any subsequent notice of a trial date. Such notice would be given only at the time that the penalty and warning notices were served.

The hon. Member for Reigate talked about such notices being used in cases of public order problems. I tried to envisage what would have happened during the 1980s miners' strike if such powers had been available. A number of miners were caught up in what were alleged to be public order offences, and were subsequently successful in appealing those cases. In such states of confusion, where the police are being forced to deal with large numbers of people, there is clear disorder and it is reasonable to say that people are frightened, the notices might not be issued properly. That could happen as a result of pure error rather than any deliberate act.

It would also be possible for someone deliberately to fail to issue proper notices. If we were being cynical or pursuing conspiracy theories, clause 4(5)(a) and (b) could appear to mean that people could be told that they were being prosecuted and paying one and a half times the penalty without necessarily knowing that they had received the penalty or warning notice in the first place. I do not think that that is the intention. The idea is to speed up the process with penalty notices and to use the warning notices to prevent the duplication of paperwork when someone requests a trial.

Listening to the debate and re-reading the documents, I notice that the explanatory notes and the clause do not entirely tally. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary might like to reconsider the wording of the clause, so that the law carries out the intention with which most hon. Members agree, and to prevent any misapplication of the legislation that might result from the current wording.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. In some parts of the country, there is indeed considerable physical distance between people's homes and their local magistrates court. There is devolved justice in the UK, so it is for the magistrates courts committees to decide how best to use their resources to provide local justice. I know that the Liberal Democrats are very keen on the delegation of power, and on locally taken decisions being respected by the centre, rather than the centre always thinking that it knows best. Decisions about the precise location of magistrates courts are entirely a matter for the committees, because power was devolved to them by an Act of Parliament passed by the official Opposition when they were in power.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

No. I will give way in a moment, but first I want to answer the point.

There is a serious point that defendants who have been caught—I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would never be caught, because he insists that he would run away—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it in order for a Minister to refer to the policy of the official Opposition and then decline to accept an intervention from an Opposition Front Bencher?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Ministers are entirely responsible for their conduct and words in the debate. If he wishes to catch my eye once the Parliamentary Secretary has sat down, he may be able to do so.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I was not raising a question about the official Opposition's policy, but pointing out that magistrates courts committees have jurisdiction over where their own courts are located, and that they exercise that under an Act passed under the previous Government.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made a good point. Where long distances are involved, people caught for relatively minor public order offences, such as drunkenness, are in a better position if fixed penalty notices are served on them, because they then have the option of avoiding a long trip to the magistrates court. They can dispose of the matter by simply paying a fine rather than turning up in court and pleading guilty. They will still have the opportunity of contesting the matter in the magistrates court, as at present, if they so wish. The clause creates no new offences but provides a mechanism for dealing with existing offences that have been committed. It assists people in rural areas whose local court is a considerable distance away, because it gives them the option of having the matter disposed of without going to court.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That rebuttal is superficially persuasive but in fact mischievous. Someone who lives next to Camberwell magistrates court, and who can get there easily, has an advantage that someone who lives 60 miles from the magistrates court at Lampeter—or at Dolgellau, as it now is—does not have. I think that even the Parliamentary Secretary might be persuaded that that is unfair justice.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

It is perfectly true that those of us who live in rural areas and are far from public and private major services have to travel further for a whole range of things. There are enormous benefits to living in the countryside, but some downsides as well. One downside is that longer trips might be necessary to access all public and private major services. I accept that. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is part of a much wider debate, and I hope that the rural White Paper that was published last year results in significant improvements in that situation.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Parliamentary Secretary must not be allowed to get away with his specious suggestion that the Government are carrying on the previous Government's policy of allowing magistrates courts committees to make unfettered decisions about courts. The Government have imposed huge bureaucratic pressure and all the costs of the Human Rights Act 1998 on magistrates courts committees, so the closure of those courts throughout the country is directly the Government's fault.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I am attempting to deal with the consequences of fixed penalty notices and in particular to respond to the debate on clause 7. The hon. Gentleman has made that point on a number of occasions. The Committee will not be assisted by endless arguments on it.

I understand the valid concern of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire that if subsection (7) is not removed, someone who asserts that they did not receive the warning notice will be unable to raise that as a defence in respect of the proceedings that have taken place, presumably in his absence. I assure him that as a matter of construction—my officials will assist me if this is incorrect—if a defendant says that he did not get the warning notice, even with subsection (7) in the Bill, the court has full discretion to make a finding of fact on that assertion. The court will decide either that he received the warning notice, in which case he was properly served in exactly the same way as if a summons had been served and he had not responded to it, or that he did not receive the warning notice. In that case, clause 7 will not come into play because, as he was not served with a warning notice, the procedure will not have been activated. He would be in exactly the same position as any other person who had not received a summons for a hearing and would therefore be able to swear a statutory declaration under section 14 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Assuming that procedure, the fine is likely to be the way in which the matter first comes to the defendant's attention. If he was served with a warning notice but made a genuine mistake because he did not know that it was a warning notice, even though he has now been properly served, the court could set aside the fine. That would address the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern. Under clause 12(5), the court has total jurisdiction to set aside a fine in the interests of justice. There is that wider discretion.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Parliamentary Secretary 's argument seems to be that it would be as good to leave out subsection (7) as to leave it in. I urge that it be left out. What exactly does section 14 of the 1980 Act say?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Section 14 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 says:

``Where a summons has been issued under section 1 above and a magistrates' court has begun to try the information to which the summons relates, then, if—

(a) the accused, at any time during or after the trial, makes a statutory declaration that he did not know of the summons or the proceedings until a date specified in the declaration, being a date after the court has begun to try the information; and

(b) within 21 days of that date the declaration is served on the clerks to the justices,

without prejudice to the validity of the information, the summons and all subsequent proceedings shall be void.''

Further subsections develop that.

The effect is that an individual who finds out after the event that a trial has taken place in his absence about which he was not served with a summons and was therefore ignorant and so could not contest it, can invoke a procedure whereby the proceedings that took place without his knowledge are declared void. The court can then take whatever course is appropriate.

A warning notice given under clause 7(7) is the same as a summons saying when a trial that has been requested will take place. If the person is not given a warning notice, the procedure under clause 7 does not apply. However, clause 7(7) is necessary so that, in a case where a warning notice has been issued stating where the proceedings are to be tried, if election for trial is made, the court need not serve a further notice on the defendant saying for a second time where the matter is to be tried.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

That means that one can contest the service by making a statutory declaration, which takes some time and trouble and is a normal safeguard for citizens. What is the point of ruling that out?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

It is ruled out because, by definition, a person who has been served with a warning notice under clause 7 cannot simultaneously say that he was served with a warning notice and is therefore covered by the clause, but that he wants to swear a statutory declaration saying that he was not served a warning notice. The provision removes the possibility of a person's occupying two such contradictory positions.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that the circumstance in which the problem could arise is that in which a person receives a letter out of the blue saying that he has incurred a fine, and says that he knows nothing about it. Thanks to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, magistrates courts operate a sensible system that allows people to make a statutory declaration. It can be tested in court, but at least it provides an opportunity to contest the service. It would be wise to leave that option in the Bill. That would not hurt the Government. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

We shall have to disagree on that. An individual who claimed to know nothing about a notice could take advantage of section 14 of the 1980 Act. Nothing can stop him doing so unless he is a person against whom a warning notice has been served. Of course, the individual will say that he knows nothing about it, was not served with a summons, did not receive a warning notice and therefore wants the matter set aside. That is perfectly proper.

The object is to stop someone saying, ``I know nothing about the circumstances of this event. I accept that I was served with a warning notice, but I knew nothing about the trial.'' Those two positions are entirely inconsistent and the Government do not understand how anyone can simultaneously say that he was served with a warning notice telling him to turn up at Bedfordshire magistrates court on a certain date if he wished to contest proceedings, yet that he knows nothing about them; hence clause 7(7).

I have listened carefully and I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. However, I do not think that the clause has the effect that he suggests because an individual will still be able to say that he was not served, and take advantage of section 14. That would apply only if the person had been served with a warning notice, or believed himself to have been.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the reason why we do not need to worry about the matter is that clause 12(5) says:

``The court may set aside a fine in the interests of justice.''.

I understand that that cannot apply because the clause concerns only people who have elected for trial and who are therefore not defaulting on a fixed penalty notice. It applies only to the fine for non-payment of a penalty, so the clause does not apply in other circumstances.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that if someone was served a warning notice and a fixed penalty notice and elected for trial but did not turn up for trial, the case could be heard in his absence. If a fine is imposed in absentia, clause 12 will not apply. It applies only for a fine registered under clause 11, when someone has not responded to a fixed penalty notice. I want to answer the question about what would happen if someone not only did not request a trial, but did not know anything about the proceedings that were under way. In such a case, a fixed penalty would not have been paid so a fine would be registered; the first time the person would know about it would be when the fine was enforced.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In support of the argument by the hon. Member for Reigate, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it would be easier to have a common process—namely, a summons—and whether that could be an alternative to the procedure under discussion. Could we have one common system for the period after the court process has been triggered? We may still vote against the clause, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider that, and the Government might return to the issue later.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Hon. Members have raised many issues on the assumption that the procedure will be used frequently, but we do not anticipate that it will be. We expect it to be used on the occasions when the police and the courts anticipate an event that could lead to the offences in clause 1. For such situations, the police and courts may set a court date in advance to ensure that any problems at the event are dealt with promptly and in an organised way on a date when all the defendants involved can be brought before the court. If there are many defendants, the arrangements for the trial of the issues must be determined. It is right that there should be one occasion on which the issues of who is genuinely contesting the case, how the cases are to be tried and how the administrative procedure leading up to trial will proceed, are determined.

If the police anticipate that they will want to use those powers, they should be able to set a court date in advance, in co-operation with the justices, to anticipate the disposal of fixed penalty notice cases. The procedure will cut out the bureaucracy that would otherwise be involved, and ensure that all the defendants whose cases have common features are co-ordinated to meet on one date, regardless of when their requests for trial arrive. That is an administrative convenience for the authorities, and will enable justice to be done swiftly and properly.

If hon. Members disapprove of that suggestion—I understand why they might—they can vote against the clause. However, the Government believe that the police should have the option, in such unusual circumstances, to be able to anticipate the course of events so that they can police matters properly, and so that there is a clear procedure for serving a fixed penalty notice. The notice is not a challenge or a dare to individuals; it makes it clear, in a measured way, to people who have been served with a fixed penalty notice, that they have the right to contest the notice, and, if they wish to do so, it states, in advance, where their trials will be heard.

The procedure is straightforward. It will enable defendants and the police to know where they stand, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee, but if any Committee members do not like it, they can vote against it.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The procedure is hopelessly over-complicated. If notices are served at the same time, defendants who have not asked for a trial will turn up at court on what they think is their court date, and the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) will arise.

I am sorry, but separate procedures for notifying people of their court dates are needed.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7.

Clause 8 - Statements by constables

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I want to make a few remarks about officers' witness statements. Since the Committee addressed the matter in an earlier debate, I have had discussions with the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation, and I remain concerned that the procedure might require officers to produce lengthy witness statements in addition to a fixed penalty notice.

The procedure must be simple and streamlined if it is to work. The statements should say little more than that someone was found drunk and incapable in the street or threatened Mrs. Brown—short statements, which an officer can write out easily. The procedure is not suitable for complicated cases.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary think further about the matter? Is he prepared to say that the guidance will make it clear that a fixed penalty notice will be issued only if an offence can be summed up in a couple of simple sentences?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not think that we shall have the same kind of technical debate that we had on the previous clause. However, I hope that I can interest the hon. Member for Hall Green, who always carefully listens to debate and was brave enough to be persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire in the previous debate, although he might have had a lightning change of heart before the vote on clause 7. I hope that I can interest the hon. Member for Hall Green because, if I am right, there may be a complication in the conjunction of subsections (4) and (6). Those of us who have the advantage of being lawyers—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Shame.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will ignore the division between Ministers about the value of being a lawyer.

Lawyers will remember that section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was vital to all courses on the law of evidence. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary—like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire—spent many hours studying the work of Professor Sir Rupert Cross, the leading authority on the law of evidence. One of the issues that is beloved of all textbook writers on section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 may not have been fully thought through by the Government. It could be akin to the point raised in relation to the last clause.

Subsection (6) states:

``statement to be tendered in evidence to be served before hearing on other parties to the proceedings''

and,

``service of the statement is to be taken to have been effected by or on behalf of the prosecutor.''

However, subsection (4) states:

``The statement is to be treated as properly served . . . even though the manner of service is not authorised by subsection (8)''

of section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Government are saying that the normal rules from section 9 of the 1967Act will be bypassed. The new law will provide an exception to that Act and a different procedure.

I can see why the Government want to do that. They are attempting to make handing over the short form of the notices a quick procedure. There is no doubt in our minds that that is laudable. However, Conservative Members—I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire—are worried that the quick procedure might create a complex series of arguments to establish what is, and what is not, proper service of statements of evidence. The Government must convince us that they have consulted widely on exactly how the bypassing of section 9 of the 1967 Act will work. Are they confident that the first time that the short service of statements of evidence is tried and challenged for validity under the Human Rights Act, it will be upheld? I am not convinced that it will be.

I have a dreadful fear that there may be a test case in which a distinguished human rights lawyer, such as Michael Mansfield QC, may be instructed. For example, the director of Liberty could be involved in a big demonstration and be wrongly issued with a fixed penalty notice. I cast no aspersions on that gentleman, but he would have access to the top human rights lawyers in the country. Are the Government satisfied that if he decided that the short form of service of statements of evidence needed to be challenged in a test case, the legislation would be fireproof and Human Rights Act-proof? I am not convinced.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will, but I am about to finish so the Parliamentary Secretary may wish to respond to the points in more detail, instead of intervening.

Conservative Members are concerned and want reassurance that the Government have thought the matter through. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give detail about the advice that he has been given on the way in which the measure will work. It is unconventional to set aside a major plank of the law of evidence.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am worried that the manner of giving statements and the deeming of the statements—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee F

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we recommence proceedings, I have a housekeeping announcement to make.

I have considered carefully the progress made and the time scale for the Bill. My view, and that of my co-Chairman, is that, to date, there has been no untoward or over-lengthy debate. Members on both sides of the Committee will accept that we are dealing with intricate issues that require careful consideration. No one knows whether what lies ahead will be as intricate or a lot simpler. The usual channels have courteously told me that they will probably wish to sit in the evening of Tuesday 27 February, and I have conveyed that to staff. Members may wish to know that so that they can make domestic and other arrangements.

Depending on how we proceed, I am minded to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee at 5 pm on Wednesday 28 February. That is not an invitation to any hon. Member to take advantage of possible alterations to the timetable. We need this information now so that hon. Members who are also members of the Programming Sub-Committee can hold themselves in readiness for such a meeting.

Clause 8 - Statements by constables

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The substantive point raised by hon. Members is the question whether the system for a constable witness statement, which would not be mandatory, but elective, is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I understand that point and refer hon. Members to the statement in the Bill from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which refers to its compatibility under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I appreciate the points that have been made, especially by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but will he consider over the half-term recess whether he wants to put to me in writing his concerns about a possible breach of human rights? His observations were rather general—I do not criticise him for that—but I undertake to consider any matters of substance posed orally or in writing.

Given the specific nature of the requirements of the Human Rights Act, it is one thing for the hon. Gentleman to say that he is concerned that there may be human rights implications and another to say so after the Government have considered the matter and are satisfied as to the Bill's compliance. I will consider specific concerns put in writing.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his constructive approach to that issue. Over the half-term break, will he and his officials consider whether any there are any parallels with the chosen method of bypassing section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I will examine that matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about it, I will provide the information as part of my reply and ensure that, if it is relevant, other members of the Committee can receive it as well.

The point about human rights was the only substantive one raised on the constable's witness statement. As I said, it is not a requirement, but an option for the police that is designed to cut down on their paperwork and ensure that constables can operate more efficiently. With that proviso, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Procedure

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Subsection (2) encourages people to send cash through the post as an acceptable form of payment. As the Post Office has always cautioned people that it is singularly unwise to mail cash, should such provision be made in legislation? There are obviously complications, because cash will be an acceptable form of payment, but the Post Office has spoken about the temptations open to their workers if money is sent by non-registered mail. The Bill does not say that such mail should be registered and I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain that.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point and I suspect that he is right and that it would be wise for people not to send cash through the post. Equally, it would be unwise to preclude—in the Bill or elsewhere—anyone who does not have a bank account, lives far away from the court to which the money should be sent or does not want to pay the additional cost of a postal order, from paying a fine by cash through the post. In practical terms, such an individual could get proof of posting so as to be confident about proving that the letter had been sent.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall consider it, but the words in question are a standard form that has been used in many Bills dealing with similar topics and, to date, has not given rise to any problems.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

One used to regard it as standard that if a letter were posted first class one day, it would be delivered the next. Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that that remains his understanding? Will there be guidance that, if someone posts a letter first class and obtains a record of posting from a post office, it will be respected? Will he give the matter some thought and inform the Committee at a convenient moment?

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear, some latitude exists already in respect of how fines for fixed penalties, most of which are for motoring offences, are received. As long as the letter is posted in the prescribed period, even if it arrives two days late—obviously there are problems before Christmas, for example—that is generally treated as a proper satisfaction of the fixed penalty notice and no further action is taken.

Ordinarily, a first-class letter is expected to arrive the next day and a second-class letter within three days. In practice, however, I do not think that there will be a problem. Under the existing operation of fixed penalty notices, reasonable latitude is given to those who are clearly attempting to pay. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will accept my assurance that that is how the notices will work in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I tried to catch your eye to speak on clause 12.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am sorry, but the question has been put and agreed to. Committee members must be faster on their feet.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Forgive me, Mr. Gale. You were quite rightly making progress, but you were looking away from me. I was rising, but was unable to catch your eye.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am sorry. I do not wish to quarrel with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have ruled on the subject. Clause 13 Interpretation

Clause 13 - Interpretation

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I think that I was pretty quick there, Mr. Gale.

The clause includes the chief constable of the British Transport police under ``chief officer of police''. The Armed Forces Bill, which is being considered by a Select Committee, will extend to the Ministry of Defence police the same powers and jurisdiction as the regular constabulary. It is proposed that the 3,500 MOD police will have jurisdiction over civilian, and not just military law, matters. They will be accountable to the Secretary of State for Defence, and not to any police authority, even with that enhanced role. Their powers will be national, whereas those of the regular constabulary in England and Wales are, to an extent, local.

If the Government intend thus to widen the role of the MOD police, will the definition ``chief officer of police'' include the MOD police, given that the authorised constables under clause 2(5) who will be able to hand out fixed penalty notices are ``authorised, on behalf of the chief officer of police for the area in which the police station is situated, to give penalty notices''?

If this Bill and the Armed Forces Bill become law, is it envisaged that the MOD police will have powers not only to deal with civilians in general but to serve them with fixed penalty notices?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Unless my memory fails me, I think that we discussed the matter in some detail when we debated an amendment to clause 1.

The key point is that the general powers of the police apply to the territorial police forces. The British Transport police specifically asked to be included because of the offences in clause 1 that involve railway lines and railway transport. We have no intention to include other police forces, such as the MOD police or parks police, in the Bill. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is right that the Armed Forces Bill contains a proposal about general MOD police powers in this context, but we do not intend to include the powers in this Bill. There is no reason to include the MOD police. Should they say that they think there is an issue here, we would re-examine it, but we do not see any need to legislate on that now.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is the Minister able to say—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I call Mr. Heald.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am sorry, Mr. Gale. I am rushing to ensure that I get in.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Ahead of your colleagues.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is the Minister saying that there is no intention to include the MOD police? At present, they cannot be included because they do not have the relevant powers. Is he ruling that out?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Who knows what might happen under some future Government, whether Labour, new Labour, Conservative, new Conservative, Liberal Democrat or new Liberal Democrat? However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not introduce a proposal to include the MOD police in the definition of police officers in the Bill.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am concerned about areas such as Wiltshire, where half the British Army is based. A large part is based in my constituency. I am pleased to say that the soldiers in my constituency are, to a man, well behaved and unlikely to commit any of the offences in clause 1. However, by definition, the 19 to 21-year-old testosterone-fuelled, drunken—I break off there, because I should not say that soldiers are like that. They will ring me up this afternoon to tell me how unfair I was to them.

However, there is a possibility that those who serve in the armed forces might be liable to commit offences under clause 1. I am concerned about areas such as Wiltshire, where the police are badly under strength because they cannot recruit enough officers. Currently, there are 35 too few in Wiltshire, and I am sure that the situation is similar in other military areas. If the new powers are introduced, Wiltshire constabulary will be under severe pressure if military personnel offend and the MOD police and regimental police are not given powers to issue fixed penalty notices. Will the Minister consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about whether the military police would be interested in such a role, which might bring public order benefits to areas such as mine?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I wish to add to the points that my hon. Friend has made. I hope that my comments are helpful to the Minister. I have some experience. Having been a service man myself and dealt with the Ministry of Defence police, I might have a marginally more informed idea of the differences between regimental police, the Royal Military Police and MOD police. The services have collected a variety of police forces.

Clearly, the measure should not apply to the Royal Military Police or to regimental police, because they are not constables in the ordinary nature of their business, but I believe that not including MOD police is an oversight. They are likely to deal with demonstrations such as those at Greenham common, and their responsibility for land on some of the routes to Stonehenge, for example, regularly requires them to deal with the sort of people who are likely to offend under clause 1.

MOD police protect areas in which some form of illegal demonstration that could lead to an offence under clause 1 is likely to take place, so I hope that the Minister will consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to determine whether they think it appropriate, as I do, that the MOD police should have the powers described in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want briefly to add to the important points made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, I have large numbers of troops based in my constituency. The Royal Logistic Corps has its headquarters there, and we also have the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst next door, and various parts of the support systems for the defence medical services, including some ordinary soldiers working as ward orderlies and nurses at the Ministry of Defence health unit at Frimley Park hospital. My constituency does not contain as great a proportion of the UK-based British Army as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, but it holds quite a number.

Sadly, late on Friday and Saturday nights in Camberley, which is the main town in my constituency, substantial incidents involving private soldiers occasionally occur. Usually, they are the victims of attack by non-soldiers, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said of his experiences, Ministry of Defence police may become involved with certain issues.

My hon. Friend made the important distinction, about which he knows more than I do, between regimental police, the Royal Military Police and Ministry of Defence police, who may police bases. The entrances to the Royal Military Academy and the former staff college at Camberley are on the main A30 and the Ministry of Defence police are responsible for the guard posts on that road as the academy is a service base. Camberley town centre comes right up to the A30, and the guarding officers on the spot, who are Ministry of Defence police, have assisted civilian police during trouble that often begins outside the main nightclub, so as my hon. Friend said, it might be necessary for their powers to be included.

After listening to my hon. Friends and to me, I hope that the Minister and his officials will undertake to consider the matter during next week's recess and that the Government may table an appropriate amendment on Report, although they may not agree to that today. His initial response to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire was firm, but I hope that, having heard all four of us describe our personal experiences, he will be prepared to consult his officials. He might consult officials in the Ministry of Defence who dealt with the Armed Forces Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred to the previous Armed Forces Bill, which was considered in 1996. He served on the Committee and I was the Government Whip for that quinquennial measure, which performs the important function of bringing military law in line with civilian law. I hope that the Minister will contact his opposite numbers to gain from their experience and discuss the interlinking between the two different kinds of police.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am glad that I got to my feet so quickly, Mr. Gale.

My only question is about registrable sums. On receipt of a fixed penalty notice, people might mischievously or maliciously give the name and address of an acquaintance, rather than their own. Eventually, the registered penalty would arrive through the letterbox of that unfortunate acquaintance. Would the sum be treated as registrable, or could the victim of the misdemeanour reopen the matter under clauses 12, 10 and 4?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point flows from his not being quick enough to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Gale.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Quite correct.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It has been confirmed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier dilatoriness led him to raise that point now. I will not say that that is out of order; it would be wrong to do so. He is a very intelligent and senior Conservative lawyer—and therefore, by definition, an exciting and vibrant lawyer.

In clause 13,

```registrable sum' has the meaning given in section 10(4).''

Proposed section 10(4) says:

``Registrable sum'' means a sum that may be registered under this section as a result of section 4(5).''

Proposed section 4(5) states:

``If, by the end of the suspended enforcement period— (a) the penalty has not been paid in accordance with this Chapter and (b) A has not made a request to be tried, a sum equal to one and a half times the amount of the penalty may be registered under section 10 for enforcement against A as a fine.''

That line of logic is very clear and is clearly set out in the Bill. I have no more to say on the subject.

The MOD police are an interesting subject for debate. As luck would have it, I was in Wiltshire yesterday morning. I went there after we had finished our proceedings on Tuesday night. Because of my devotion to Government business—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No. I went down to Wiltshire, to Devizes—not to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, if that was the trivial point that he was going to make—on one of my regular visits to regional police forces to discuss policing issues of local concern. I had informed the party chairman, in the normal way, that I would be going. I discussed many issues with the Wiltshire police both in Devizes and in Swindon. Amazingly, the role of the MOD police did not arise in that context.

I am interested to see than no amendment has been tabled on these questions, as could easily have been done. The role of the MOD police is an important and significant issue. The changes that are currently being made to the Armed Forces Bill are important, and not uncontroversial. There are many in the police who think that it is wrong to give the MOD police some of the powers set out in that Bill. While that is not necessarily a party political matter, it is a serious issue in relation to these questions. The Government would not give the MOD police extra powers in such matters unless there was a powerful reason to do so. No such reason has been advanced by the MOD police themselves, because it is important to have proper protocols of arrangement between the MOD police and other forces.

I saw that actively demonstrated yesterday in Wiltshire, where I was talking to the officers involved in the Porton Down inquiry, in which MOD police are working together with the Wiltshire force. It was also clear at the Farnborough air display last summer, when the MOD police were back to back with the Hampshire police discussing how to operate. There are complicated and important protocols of agreement between the MOD police and territorial forces about how such relationships should operate. That is one of the issues being addressed in the Armed Forces Bill.

The Government would not lightly introduce legislation giving the MOD police greater powers, because we would not want to jeopardise such relationships. The Bill gives extra powers are given to the British Transport police because there is a particular offence in clause 1 relating to the country's transport system. They were therefore included, at their request, because that was the right thing to do.

I do not accept the Opposition's points. If they seriously suggest that the MOD police should be included, they should table an amendment, which should be debated and then discussed with the MOD police. That is not said in a spirit of hostility. Getting such relationships right is important. It is not easy or straightforward, but the Armed Forces Bill is an attempt to do that in relation to general areas of concern. I hope that we can agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill despite the entertaining diversion that we have just had on the role of the MOD police.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has clearly been so affected that Hansard will not be able to report the tears in his eyes at the power of my rhetoric, which has persuaded him not to intervene on the matter—or perhaps not.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The controversy over the extension of the powers of the MOD police has arisen in the course of the Select Committee hearings on the Armed Forces Bill. I accept that it is going through that procedure because these matters are difficult, but I thought that it was right to probe the matter now. Given that there is controversy, we should know to what extent the Government intend to empower the MOD police. I raised the issue on clause stand part in that spirit; I did not have any intention of tabling an amendment on behalf of the Opposition. However, we do need to canvass the issue. As the matter is of interest to many people, will the Minister write to us if there are any developments?

In the Select Committee at least, a consensus is emerging, with curious alliances being forged between the Conservative party and the National Union of Journalists. A group of concerned bodies and political parties is examining whether it will work effectively, particularly as the MOD police are such an unaccountable force. Whereas local police forces are overseen by a police authority with a committee that is largely accountable, the Secretary of State for Defence has authority for the MOD police.

We do not intend to divide the Committee, but I wanted to explain why I raised the matter.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I was grateful to the Minister for giving some response to my question. It was intended to repair a deficiency in points that I raised earlier, and I make no bones about that. However, he has not answered a serious point that comes out of the use of the word ``issued'' in the relevant clause, as opposed to ``given''. Penalty notices have to be ``given''; they are not ``issued'' anywhere else in the Bill.

I ask the Minister—and those to whom we do not refer, but who might hear what we say—to ponder the matter. If the wording is changed, I hope that the net effect will be that any question about the identity or nomenclature of the person to whom the penalty notice had been given or issued could be reopened and heard under Chapter I if the first portion of it that came to the notice of the alleged offender were to arrive through the post in the circumstances that I described.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful for the clarification offered by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. He is right that serious issues are involved, and I know that he takes them seriously.

I have nothing to add to my previous comments on the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I seek clarification about what appears to be an astonishing piece of cross-party co-operation. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out to me that on page 161 of the Amendment Paper, the Minister's name appears alongside those of my right hon. and hon. Friends as a sponsor of amendment No. 138.

It would be helpful to know whether the Government wholeheartedly support the amendment, so that members of the Committee can prepare themselves properly during the coming recess.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am happy to say that that is not a matter for the Chair. As attention has been drawn to the subject, I am sure that the Minister will respond to the point.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, and to my Whip. Unfortunately, there is an error. I am not a sponsor of amendment No. 138. That will come as a tremendous disappointment to Opposition Members, but I would be grateful if that could be put on record.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The record will show the Minister's response, and on that unhappy note of unaccustomed discord, the Committee will now move on to Chapter II of the Bill. Clause 14 Alcohol consumption in designated public places

Clause 14 - Alcohol consumption in designated public places

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 25, after `constable', insert `in uniform'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be we may discuss the following amendments: No. 126, in page 7, line 27, at end insert—

`and reasonably believes that their behaviour may lead to an offence.'.

No. 26, in page 7, line 33, leave out `for' and insert `which contains'.

No. 53, in page 7, line 33, leave out from `liquor' to end.

No. 27, in page 7, line 35, leave out `he considers appropriate' and insert—

`the chief officer of police for that area has specified'.

No 54, in page 7, line 38, leave out `2' and insert `5'.

No. 55, in page 7, line 40, leave out subsection (5).

No. 106, in clause 31, page 24, line 12, after `liquor', insert—

`or any item containing such liquor'.

No. 75, in clause 31, page 24, line 12, leave out

`(other than a sealed container)'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The amendments relate to Chapter II. I take a strong personal interest in how the authorities may respond appropriately to combat public drinking, especially in inner cities. A successful pilot project was started under local authority byelaws in the city of Coventry. Like the Parliamentary Secretary some time later, I was in practice at the Bar in the west midlands from the late 1970s and did a lot of criminal defence work in the Coventry courts. There was a substantial public alcohol problem in Coventry and other midlands cities, where a large number of people caused a great deal of nuisance and committed other criminal offences.

After the appalling bombing of the city of Coventry in the second world war, the city centre was substantially redeveloped. A lot of drunks gathered in the shopping centre, but because the area was pedestrianised, police cars found it very difficult to get to them when they caused a nuisance.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The hon. Gentleman may know that there is a similar byelaw in Blackpool. The Lancashire police say that the ban works well in making Blackpool a safer place. Does he agree that the ban is successful when the police work together with the local authority and with the business and wider communities and that is important to involve all those partners?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do indeed agree. That is why I used the phrase ``the authorities''. The city of Coventry was a pioneer among local authorities in introducing modern byelaws to control street drinking—there were, of course, long-established, Victorian byelaws in some places—and its example was followed by many other local authorities, including Blackpool.

I want to make it absolutely clear that Conservative Members are not opposing in principle what the Government want to do to build on those byelaws. However, we want to discuss whether the wording in the Bill as drafted is the most appropriate way to strengthen police powers. Statute law may be able to build on what the byelaws have achieved in towns and cities such as Coventry and Blackpool.

The Minister knows that we are trying to be constructive in finding ways to improve the Bill, and I hope that he will consider the amendments in the spirit in which we tabled them.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not accept that the Opposition's approach has been constructive.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am sorry to hear that, but I hope that I shall convince the Minister that we are trying to be constructive when I speak to the amendments.

Amendment No. 25 would make it clear in the Bill that the constable should be in uniform, which is only a small point; much more substantial is our suggestion that we need to take out the words in brackets at the end of subsection (2)(b):

``other than a sealed container''.

If I explain to the Minister what was in our mind in tabling the amendment, he might realise why I say that we are trying to be constructive. Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know all too well that, when police officers try to detain or arrest for public order offences people have consumed a substantial amount of drink—precisely the type of disturbance targeted by the legislation—the protagonists quite often use sealed containers as weapons. Over the years when I did such work at the Bar, I frequently read in police officers' witness statements when cases went to court words to the effect of ``The defendant then tried to hit me over the head with one of the several cans of beer that he had.''

That is why we were initially puzzled when we saw the Bill's drafting, because the Government sought to exclude a sealed container. We can see that there is a clear distinction between something that is sealed and something that is unsealed, but we are not sure that the Minister and those who advise him have taken fully into account the frequency with which sealed containers are used as weapons. The deletion of those words from the Bill would be a helpful addition to police powers.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that amendment No. 26 would restrict the confiscation powers to alcohol containers that still had liquid in them. It would thereby preclude the confiscation of empty containers that had the potential to be used as weapons. I would be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification as to whether that is his intention.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No. I apologise if the Minister has misunderstood me. I am talking not about amendment No. 26, but about No. 53, which would take out

``(other than a sealed container).''

I will use the wording of the Bill, which I hope will make our intention clear. Under subsection (2),

``The constable may require the person concerned . . . to surrender anything in his possession which is, or which the constable reasonably believes to be, intoxicating liquor or a container for such liquor''.

The police officer will be able to require any person to surrender something that contains intoxicating liquor or a container for such liquor. The power should extend to sealed containers, because that would strengthen the police's hand.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I am sorry if I have failed to understand the hon. Gentleman, but it sounds as if the removal of those words from the clause would mean that someone who had been to an off licence to buy four cans of beer and was carrying them home to drink could be liable to be stopped and picked up, even though he or she had no intention of drinking the beer in the street. Leaving the words in means that the police will be unable to make that mistake, because the container would have had to be opened.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely accept that there is a danger that the police might on occasion make the mistake of wishing to take into custody someone whom they think is on the verge of committing an offence, but who is in fact a law-abiding person. However, if we talk to police officers at the sharp end, who patrol our town and city centres, they will tell the hon. Lady or any Committee member that having the power to take a container from someone who may be committing an offence or involved in trouble only if it has been opened, and not having the power to take away a sealed container that could be used as a weapon, will limit their ambit of operations. I accept what she says, though, which is why I said that these were probing amendments. We want the Minister to explain why they would not assist the police. Our drafting may not be perfect, but our intention is to extend the powers of the police—we hope, not too far.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

It seems that the hon. Gentleman wants to extend the range of items that the police could consider as dangerous weapons—in which case, what is the difference between a can of beer and a can of Coke that are sealed?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am not sure that there necessarily is a distinction in terms of their use as weapons, but the rest of the clause talks about intoxicating liquor. The restriction set out by the Government seemed to us unnecessary. We shall no doubt hear from the Minister in due course that he and his advisers chose that drafting for very good reasons, but we wanted to probe the matter because we know from talking to police officers that they appreciate fairly wide discretion to control what are in any view—I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree—very difficult public order offences. If one has been out, as I and other members of the Committee have, patrolling a town or a city centre with the police late at night, one sees how difficult the job of policing is for the ordinary PC in a panda car called to a disturbance.

I recently saw some closed circuit television footage of the policing problems in the centre of Guildford; the chief constable pointed out to all Surrey Members of Parliament the sort of behaviour that his officers had to face late on a Saturday night outside the nightclubs in Guildford. Local young men, whom he called the Guildford warriors, were wading into unprovoked, drink-fuelled attacks on law-abiding trainee solicitors studying at the law college who were just walking through Guildford town centre. Because of those difficult policing decisions, it seemed worth probing whether the Government have got that right or whether their wording, which may have been inspired by civil libertarian concerns, is unduly restrictive. That is perhaps the most substantive probing point in the group of amendments.

I shall deal briefly with the other amendments. Amendment No. 54 suggested that it might be sensible to have a higher fine available. The Minister will no doubt explain why the Government have chosen level 2 on the standard scale. It seemed sensible to probe the reasons for that, particularly when level 5 has been chosen elsewhere in the Bill—as we shall see in later clauses—and for the courts' not having at their disposal a higher level of fines. Amendments Nos. 106 and 75 are consequential on clause 31; it is logical for them to be in the group because they match clause 14. That would keep the different parts of the Bill in line with one another.

Amendment No. 55 proposes the deletion of subsection (5). It may have been that amendment that caused the Minister to intervene to say that he did not think that we were being constructive, but I repeat that it is a probing amendment. We want the Minister to explain the reasons for the choice of procedure for a police officer faced with difficult public order policing. There may be very good reasons for the inclusion of subsection (5) and I do not want the Minister to think that the amendments are wrecking ones. We are approaching this in a constructive spirit. We want to probe and see what the Government have in mind. We look forward to the Minister's response.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Broadly this is a sensible clause, but certain aspects need to be clarified. The amendments are helpful probing amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 25 and 26. I am not sure whether I understood the interesting intervention that the Minister of State made in relation to amendment No. 26.

It seems sensible that subsection (2) should apply to a constable in uniform; a brief explanation as to why it should not be so limited would be welcome. It makes good sense to have a constable in uniform because we are dealing with difficult policing in a public place. One would normally expect constables carrying out public order functions to be in the regular force rather than the Criminal Investigation Department, and to be in uniform, not plain clothes.

The next question, under subsection (2)(b), is the ability to require a citizen

``to surrender anything in his possession which is, or which the constable reasonably believes to be, intoxicating liquor''—

that is clear enough—

``or a container for such liquor''.

The amendment suggests the words, ``which contains such liquor''.

This is where I did not grasp what the Minister was intervening to say, but I took it to be that officers want the power to confiscate containers that might become weapons. With the thought of glassing in mind—when a person breaks a bottle or glass, and sticks it in someone's face—it is obviously sensible that the police officer should have the power to take that kind of weapon off someone. However, if that is the purpose of this part of the clause, I suggest that consideration is given to substituting a new subsection that makes that more explicit. At the moment, the subsection says,

``containers for such liquor (other than a sealed container).''

That does not make clear the aim of the clause. Our amendment, which states,

``container which contains such liquor''

is probably otiose, because the police officer is already entitled to take intoxicating liquor anyway.

Amendment No. 27 relates to subsection (3). The subsection concerns a constable's ability to

``dispose of anything surrendered to him . . . in such manner as he considers appropriate.''

Although the wording may not be perfect, the suggestion in amendment No. 27—that it should be in such manner as the chief officer has specified—has some sense.

People whose liquor is taken may get upset, and if they feel that it is taken in an oppressive manner, that will make policing no easier. In many sets of circumstances it will be extremely difficult for the officer to know what to do with the drink, and it may be best to pour it away quickly and to dispose of the bottle or container in a rubbish bin or bottle bank.

However, if an officer took a pack of 24 untouched bottles of lager from some youths because the officer reasonably believed that they might be drunk later, there could be problems if the drink was disposed of. In those circumstances it would be more sensible, particularly if the officer had a van available, to ascertain the name of the person, scrawl that on the drink, take it off to the police station and tell the youths that they could get it back later. The officer should then do his best to give it back. That would simply be better policing.

I would not like the idea to get around that these sensible powers should be used in a way that is likely to exacerbate, rather than calm the situation.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The absurdity of the clause as currently drafted, unless amendment No. 53 is accepted, is that in the circumstances that my right hon. and learned Friend described, where a person has a pack of 24 bottles, opens one and commits the offence of drinking in the designated place, the police constable would not be allowed to confiscate the other 23 bottles and put them into the police van. That is why it is so important that amendment No. 53 is agreed to.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I confess I had not noticed. They would, indeed, all be sealed containers, and would consequently be excluded.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I shall first speak to amendment No. 126 before commenting briefly on the others.

The purpose of this part of the Bill is to combat alcohol-related disorder, and there should be a proper test. The police will be required to deal with the type of disorder that will lead to an offence. If the Bill is not amended in the way that I propose, there is a danger that perfectly innocent people may be unwittingly caught up by oppressive police action in particular areas. Law-abiding people, who are having a drink at a particular place and who are not causing offence to anyone, may be unaware of the new legislation and be caught because the police feel that they must to enforce the law rigorously. People who were never intended to be caught by the section of the law dealing with alcohol-related disturbance may be caught.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

From experience, I support that view. We increasingly find that people are unaware of parking regulations, because they vary from local authority to local authority, particularly in areas such as London. The penalty period and the length of time for which one may park differ from area to area. It is sensible not to assume that everybody who goes to a place has collected all the information about where the law would apply in certain respects. The hon. Gentleman's point will be increasingly important since more and more people are travelling for entertainment, days out and holidays. They cannot be expected to know where designated no-drink areas are.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gives my argument more force than I have given it so far. No-drink areas will be designated by local authorities, which implies that local people will know the areas in which drinking should not take place. Society does not work like that. The Government must simply go back to first principles. What is involved in the Bill, and what is it designed to do? That test should be part of a police constable's decision on when to intervene. Of course, if a nuisance is created to others through drinking, that would be an offence and would meet the test.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is my hon. Friend not particularly concerned about the definition of designated public places in clause 15(5), which says that the local authority must, of course, publicise them, but which does not say that a notice must be put up in the designated place? If that is what the Minister intends, could he not answer my hon. Friend's point by saying that if there is a clear notice saying ``No drinking'', people would know not to drink?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I suppose that that would answer my point. However, there are quite enough officious signs around already, without our running around to put up more and further deface the environment as well as putting local authorities to further expense. All that could be avoided if the police simply had to meet the test that the relevant behaviour was going to lead to an offence. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept amendment No. 126.

I support amendments Nos. 25 and 26, which seem very sensible. The constable should be in uniform, particularly when dealing with what I assume would be people who were drunk and intent on causing mischief, rather than law-abiding citizens who just happened to be having a drink in the wrong place.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because an organisation that has contacted me about this part of the Bill is concerned that areas that may be used, for example, as a picnic spot or somewhere to have a summer's day lunch with the family could face such a threat. Does he agree that that is a concern?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I will not argue with the hon. Lady and hope that she will support my amendment if the occasion arises.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

I would like to present a slightly different perspective. As I mentioned earlier, in Blackpool there is a byelaw against public drinking, but having notices up in the centre of Blackpool is very important, because people come there to enjoy themselves who do not live there and may not know that there are byelaws. Having notices ensuring that both visitors and residents know the rules. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire about the importance of public notices so that people do not unwittingly break any law?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

That would be a matter for the local authority in Blackpool, which contains the people best placed to judge whether they want their environment defaced by signs or whether they want the corresponding benefit that people know that the byelaw exists and will obey it. In an area such Blackpool, which has a vast number of visitors coming in from all over the country, that is a proper judgment for the local authority to take, but it would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to say that every local authority in the country must put signs up to say which areas are designated. Such judgments are best taken locally, but I fully take the hon. Lady's point.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment would make it extremely difficult for a police officer confronted by a group of people drinking, one of whom may be behaving in a particularly disorderly manner, to single out just one person, using the definition that the police officer can reasonably expect that person to be acting in an offensive manner, without apprehending the rest of the non-offensive drinkers in the vicinity?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

We are inviting the police to make a judgment. If a police officer reasonably believes that that group of drinkers would cause trouble, that would result in an offence. The officer would have to have some reason for coming to that conclusion, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) is pointing out that people will behave in ways that differentiate them from perfectly law-abiding people. He has made my argument for me by saying that if the police officer is reasonably able to make that differentiation, that is the simple test that he must apply. My amendment is designed to protect perfectly good, law-abiding people who find themselves unwittingly caught out by a local authority regulation about designated areas, not least as described by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton).

I have a slight concern about the amendments—Nos. 26 and 53—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. I accept my hon. Friend's argument about the possibility of taking sealed containers from people in the circumstances described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, putting them to one side and returning them later. That would seem sensible, but the Bill should state, in that case, that any sealed container taken in those circumstances would, in effect, be confiscated for a short period before being returned to the individuals concerned. Furthermore, they should be taken only if a police officer has a proper reason to do so.

I am nervous about that idea, but I accept that there is an argument for it. I am more concerned about the situation in which the police are dealing with people who have sealed containers and who are likely to use them as a weapon. In such circumstances, the police should make an arrest, rather than taking sealed containers away from people. The circumstances in which sealed containers could be taken should be absolutely clear, though I believe that it would probably be better if they were not taken. I entirely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire about the challenge faced by police on the street, but if someone is about to lob a full beer can at them, they should make an arrest to deal with that disorder.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because these are matters of judgment and there will be different views on both sides of the Committee. Does he consider that these are difficulties of judgment for any individual police officer? Does he not think that it would be wiser to leave the maximum discretion? Does he not understand why we on the Front Bench are asking the Government why they should limit the powers? It is the Government who are saying that the power will be created, but that they want to limit it by taking away the power for a police officer to exercise his judgment to take away a sealed container.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I understand that point. My concern is that if the amendment were to be pressed, it should have to be more detailed about the treatment of sealed containers and their return to their proper owner. In addition, some form of test should be provided for the circumstances in which sealed containers could be removed from people. The containers, after all, are people's property and are not being drunk from.

I have some concern about amendment No. 26. Does it mean that police would not be able to take empty containers, which is, I think, its purpose? If people had empty bottles, the police would want to remove them. The change of language to ``which contains such liquor'' would mean that empty bottles could not be taken. I see the intention behind the amendment, but I draw that point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and the Minister.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Going back to the question of the return of the sealed containers, would the hon. Gentleman consider it, as I do, entirely inappropriate for those containers to be returned to someone from whom they had been confiscated if the person was under 18?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Yes. I am quite sure that such people should not be in possession of containers in the street. I am not certain of it—not being a lawyer, I labour under a disadvantage—but I assume that that would be an offence in any event, and in those circumstances it would be inappropriate to return them. However, if we get into the business of seizing people's property, we will need rather greater protection for the citizen than my hon. Friend's amendment provides. I fully understand the general thrust of the amendment and look forward to the Minister's response to it. It was tabled as a probing amendment, so I quite appreciate that it has opened up a very proper debate on how the police should handle disorder and the difficulties that we must weave around in trying to make the Bill clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath suggested that the fine should be set a maximum £5,000 rather than £500—that is level 5 rather than level 2. That might be a bit steep, but I look forward to the Minister's comments on that and hope that he will be able to give the amendment careful consideration.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I share the view of the hon. Member for Reigate about the desirability of keeping the fine at the level proposed, and not the higher figure that would result if the Conservative amendment were agreed to. I also support the Conservative amendment that would require the constable to be in uniform. That is exactly the sort of case where only someone who is visibly in authority, rather than a special branch or a plain-clothes police officer, should do the job. There are many precedents in statute for limiting powers to a constable in uniform. There could be an inelegant and unfortunate parallel. My understanding is that for drink-driving offences a constable in uniform is required, which is why the only time that I have ever been stopped—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Did you run?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No, because I was entirely innocent.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman might help us with the occasion on which he was guilty and did run.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I expected that that would be the next question.

I remember seeing the police officers donning their hats so that they were properly in uniform. Just to complete the story, it was a Friday night in my constituency and what was slightly embarrassing was that the breath test was carried out on the edge of a main road just as a large number of people whom I knew were going past. Although I was entirely innocent, it prompted a few questions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Did you gain votes or lose them?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have never worked it out. I guess that, if it looks as though the local Member of Parliament is stopped like everyone else and does not get any special favours, it probably earns him a few more votes.

I am very sympathetic towards amendment No. 126. We must try not to create more offences if we can avoid it. I remember the late David Penhaligon showing some people around the Lobbies downstairs. I will not attempt to imitate his Cornish accent, but he was looking at the volumes of Hansard, next to which there is a two-volume list of statutes that are still in force. The first volume is statutes from 1285 to 1951 and the second is statutes from 1951 to 2000. He made the point that, although we have apparently legislated 300 times as often in the past 50 years, we do not appear to have done any better as result. Everyone nodded approvingly and seemed to think that that was a profound Cornish truth.

I make the point seriously. It is like regulations and deregulations. We should avoid making regulations whenever we can. The same is true for offences: the fewer, the better—and the more straightforward they are, the better. It is better to change this strict liability offence, because that is what it would be, into an offence of intention or one where there is assumed to be a risk to the public because of the activity. I understand the Blackpool example cited by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). The Coventry example is the best known. Where there has been regular trouble, local authorities have used byelaws to designate areas, particularly in the centres of market towns and tourist resorts, to ensure that there is no antisocial drinking. The problem is not just visitors but the old lags, who gather together with their cans of lager and sit there all day and rather spoil the place for others.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I agree with 99 per cent. of the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He talked about strict liability offences. I do not think that the clause introduces such an offence. I hope that it does not.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I was inaccurate in that. A person has to be consuming intoxicating liquor or intending to do so. The hon. Member for Reigate seeks to add the rider that the constable has to believe that the behaviour would lead to an offence. He would insert an additional condition before an offence is committed. Drinking, of itself, is not enough: it must be drinking with a risk that an offence will be caused.

We must realise that, no matter how well intentioned local authorities may be, people may not see the signs for perfectly good reasons. They may not even be there, or they may have been taken down. A lot of us spend a lot of time trying to reduce street furniture—posts, pillars, signs and indicator boards—which can be unhelpful to people with disabilities, blind people and the like, making pavements much less accessible. Our towns and cities will not be improved by more signs.

I want to give a practical example. One of my great periods of employment was when I was the assistant local authority sign erector for Hereford city council. Actually, I have overpromoted myself—I was the assistant deputy sign erector. We were required to be at work at 7.30 am and were not allowed to do anything until after the tea break, so we had a quiet first hour and a half. We then went out with a barrow and the sign to be erected; we were allowed to take only one sign at a time. We took our barrow and sign, normally to the furthest part of the city, on foot. With any luck, we arrived just before the lunch break, leaving the barrow and sign, and then going off for lunch.

Several hon. Members rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

What a lot of interest this story is provoking.

After lunch, we would erect the sign—there were two people on each job—and return to the office. At the end of the day, if we were lucky, we would have put up one sign. That was unproductive enough in itself, but the local authority was so unreconstructed that signs were put up everywhere. We had a blitz one summer, and put up signs to stop people cycling on pavements. We were sent out—I kid the Committee not—for three days to put up ``No Cycling'' signs at the top and bottom of sets of 50 steps that no one, apart from a complete lunatic, would ever have thought of cycling down, let alone up.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Was that council under Liberal Democrat or Conservative control at the time? I cannot recall, and wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is so predictable. It was under Tory control. It is now under Liberal Democrat control, and those signs have gone.

Several hon. Members rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. One sign is quite clear. I hate to spoil the hon. Gentleman's anecdotes, or the Committee's fun, but the debate relates to clause 15.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Of course, I am keeping all that I say tightly to the issue: let us have no more signs if possible.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In pursuance of the point of history that the Minister raised, when nothing happened until the tea break, so that nothing happened at all, was that because of the restrictive practices of the trade union?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It is not only the Minister who is predictable.

My serious point is that we should avoid signs for aesthetic reasons in lots of conservation areas. Hereford provides a good example; it has a conservation area in an attractive city centre that is not enhanced by lots of signs. Chippenham, which I know, is similar. No decent market town is enhanced by more signs prohibiting people from doing things.

If anybody wants a good example of how to ruin a good place, I recommend to the Committee, when its members are not on parliamentary business, a visit to any of the larger Channel Islands, which have signs on every blessed lamppost, path and so on. People are generally law-abiding on the islands, which have low crime. Yet there are everywhere signs saying ``Do not park'', ``Do not spit'', ``Do not smoke'', ``Do not do anything''. That is a complete ruination of what would otherwise be a perfectly pleasant place.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Following the hon. Gentleman's dissertation on signs, would he agree that, rather than putting up extra signs, it might be a good idea for an officer to have the power to take action against the youths creating the mayhem outside any nightclub advertising itself as ``The Granada'' or ``The Broadway'' or whatever, where the sort of behaviour to which the Bill relates takes place?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That goes to the heart of the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I have no problem with the idea that local authorities should be able to designate areas in which antisocial drinking can be prohibited. That is why I said on Second Reading that we are happy with this area of the Bill, provided that it is properly drafted, but there is a problem with imagining that people should know that a particular road is a permitted drinking area, and another is not. We cannot assume that it is practical or possible for people to understand that. That does not work with parking, and people are regularly caught. I was caught once myself. People may have to spend time looking for the sign without being able to find it. In the end, they are caught through no fault of their own when they had had every intention of avoiding the offence if at all possible.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is a serious point. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister will have to address not only the issue of signs, which as the Chairman has pointed out comes under the next clause, but amendment No. 27, which relates to the chief police officer's specification? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is why we were probing that particular issue?

Mr. Hughes rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We are in some difficulty, and I appreciate the Committee's position. I have to accept that there is a specific reference to designated public places in line 26. That is what has generated the debate. I must point out to the Committee, however, that the whole thrust of clause 15 relates to designated places. I am prepared to allow that discussion to continue to its logical conclusion, as I suspect that the Minister will wish to respond. However, if I start to impose injury time on any stand part debate on clause 15, I am sure that the Committee will understand.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I was seeking to pick up the points reasonably put by the hon. Member for Reigate on how people might know the position that they were in. I entirely understand that a linked debate will follow. I have made my case and hope that amendment No. 25, about constables in uniform, will be accepted, that the Government will respond sympathetically to the hon. Member for Reigate, and that we can make the law as clear as possible and have as few regulations and additional pieces of legislation and offences as we can.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I support amendments Nos. 53 and 27, which address an important point. The purpose of the clause is that when a police constable happens on people drinking in a designated place, he will be able to require them to do two things. We are not talking about an either-or situation, or a case of 2(a) or 2(b): the word ``or'' does not appear. The first thing that the people involved are required to do is stop drinking. The second is to surrender whatever they have been drinking from. That seems eminently sensible. Some fellow is there, drinking out of a bottle of whisky or a can of beer. The policeman can take the bottle of whisky or can of beer away and tell the person that he cannot have another drink.

The bizarre part about the phrase

``other than a sealed container''

is that if the fellow has two cans of beer, the policeman may not remove the second can, even though there is an absolute certainty that the offender will open it and start drinking. It seems only sensible, if we are going to enact that part of the Bill, to allow the policeman to remove from the offender both unsealed and sealed containers. What then happens to the containers may be of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, and may be a matter for further consideration. Quite frankly, however, if the police constable makes a reasonable presumption that the person is drinking wilfully—clause 1(1) makes that clear—it is plainly perfectly reasonable that the police constable should permanently confiscate the offender's drink.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

May I clarify the hon. Gentleman's point? He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that he would be happy if the police had the power to confiscate two unsealed containers. He believes that if there is one sealed and one unsealed container, the police should have the power to take both. What would he say if there were two sealed containers? He made the point earlier about a six-pack or whatever it might happen to be. Is he saying that they shall have the power to remove those two sealed containers even though there are no unsealed containers anywhere about?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

That would seem entirely sensible. If someone has a six-pack, that should indeed be confiscated. It is common sense that the police constable should have the power to do so—particularly because there is an internal inconsistency in the clause, which worries me quite a lot. In subsection (1), the police constable has the opportunity to confiscate if the person is drinking or

``intends to consume intoxicating liquor''

We must presume that, if the person is not consuming intoxicating liquor, any container that he may have—one, two, three or six—will be sealed.

Let us suppose that a fellow is standing around, saying ``I'm going to open this can of beer and drink it'', and the constable reasonably assume that the fellow intends to consume. The words ``intends to consume'' are very important. As the clause is drafted, the police constable would be unable to remove the can of beer or bottle of whisky at all. He would have to say, ``Please don't do that, Sir. I should be most grateful if you would kindly put that bottle of whisky away.'' Even if the fellow holds up the bottle and says, ``The moment you're around the corner, constable, I'm going to open this bottle,'' the constable can do nothing about it except to say, ``Please don't.'' Amendment No. 53, which would give the constable the ability to remove a sealed container, would allow the constable to say, ``Oh no you won't, Sir, because I intend to confiscate your bottle of whisky.''

The words in subsection (1) and the words

``other than a sealed container''

in subsection (2) (b) are internally inconsistent; we can have one or the other. Equally, if the Government were not prepared to accept amendment No. 53, it would be necessary to insert the word ``or'' between paragraphs (a) and (b), so that the police constable may require the offender to cease drinking, and/or confiscate the sealed containers. It does not seem unreasonable to imagine the situation where the policeman would confiscate everything that the offender has. I suppose that if the offender is carrying a very large quantity of drink indeed it might be unreasonable, but we are not envisaging that sort of situation.

If amendment No. 27 is accepted, the local chief officer of police will be able to stipulate what happens to said sealed or unsealed containers. It might be sensible for the constable to take a name and address and to undertake to return said sealed containers at such a time as might seem sensible. As the clause is drafted, it would have no effect whatever. The offender would cock a snook at the law and say, ``Here am I. I know that you cannot confiscate this can of beer. Even if I swear on the Bible that I will open it, you, Mr. Constable, may not remove it under the law.'' That seems absurd, particularly in light of subsection (1).

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I want to ask the Minister a question about amendment No. 106, which deals with clause 31. I believe that the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 was once popularly known as the Spink Act, because Bob Spink took it through the House. One problem with it has been that although it has been possible to confiscate alcohol in certain circumstances since that Act came into force, there has been a problem with the containers. Clause 31 exists to tighten up that provision.

Amendment No. 106 goes a little further, to ensure that ``container for such liquor'' does not mean only a bottle or item of the sort that is particularly for liquor, because it is well known that youngsters put alcohol in lemonade bottles and all sorts of other things. The amendment is simply intended to probe the Minister—it is a short point, but it is important to get it right this time—to ensure that it would be possible to confiscate a lemonade bottle that contained liquor.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I invite the Minister to retract his perhaps rather churlish characterisation of our amendments as not raising serious issues. He has now heard a number of interventions from Labour Back Benchers who have taken up points made by my hon. Friends and he has no doubt realised that we are serious about probing the issues. I hope that this serious debate, which has addressed a series of real issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, will encourage the Minister to recognise that we are trying to improve the legislation and make it more workable for police officers who face difficult decisions on the street.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Many issues have been discussed, and I will go so far as to acknowledge to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that a significant number of contributions have been constructive in tone and have illuminated the debate. That is not true of all the contributions, but I acknowledge that this has in general been an interesting debate. In trying to disentangle the various points, I may stray for a second, Mr. Gale, and say a word or two about clause 14 to set the context of this complicated group of amendments, but I will not repeat them under clause stand part.

The clause makes it an arrestable offence for a person to consume intoxicating liquor without reasonable excuse in a designated public place after being required by a police officer not to do so. I emphasise the words ``after being required by a police officer not to do so.'' Subsection (4) states:

``A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (2) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2''.

Not acceding to the police officer's requirement is the offence, rather than simply drinking in a designated public place, which is not a trivial distinction. The picnicking point is correct. A person's not acceding to the request of a police officer who shows up and says ``Look, you mustn't drink here'' creates the offence, not his or her drinking in a designated public place, wherever it may be.

The clause will also give the police the power to confiscate and dispose of alcohol and opened alcohol containers in those circumstances to prevent further public drinking and the potential use of those containers as weapons, to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred. Failure to surrender alcohol or containers at the officer's request without reasonable excuse will be an arrestable offence. The clause will apply only to those areas designated by the relevant local authority for the purpose. As you said, Mr. Gale, we shall deal with that under clause 15.

Evidence of the mischief that this and subsequent clauses are designed to address is provided by the fact that 109 local authorities have so far adopted a model byelaw to restrict drinking in designated public places. That information may be new to the Committee and shows that there is wide support in various parts of the country.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely accept what the Minister says about the importance of dealing with the picnic approach. We are not in any way challenging what the Minister seeks to do, but simply trying to make the legislation more workable.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I accept that point. As I said in an unusual concession to the hon. Gentleman, much of the debate has been constructive in tone.

Replacing byelaws with what will be an adoptive power will provide the police with a direct power, which they do not have at present, to enforce the provision by arrest if necessary. It will certify the procedures for local authorities, speed up the process and allow for a uniform and comprehensive approach in all areas. People in the position of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood will know that, wherever they travel in the country, they will have to deal with a broadly similar pattern in the different localities, even though there will be different adoptive situations in different areas. That is the background to the clause.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister accepts that, whereas of course the proposal is to give a countrywide context within which these powers can be exercised, there is another geographical limitation, which we shall discuss in relation to a later clause, which is that one then has to have the designated place provision. The controversial aspect is how people know that they are in one of those places, rather than the general proposition that there should be designated places.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is true. I was trying to say, in my acknowledgement of the helpful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, that although local authorities in different areas of the country will decide for themselves how to operate such policies, it will be better if they at least do so within the coherent national framework that the Bill provides. That will be an improvement on the current position. At present, local authorities want to adopt a string of byelaws—109 local authorities have done so—that are not necessarily the same in every respect.

Amendment No. 25 restricts the power of the police to intervene in cases of public drinking in designated public places to those officers who are in uniform. We have some sympathy with the proposed amendment to restrict that power. If it would help the Committee, I should like to confirm and give an assurance that in normal circumstances we would expect that the power would be exercised by uniformed officers.

I shall answer the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on breath tests. I do not know how many breath tests he has had, or how much guidance. He has had a tremendous amount of experience in his life and his ever-intensifying efforts to identify with his constituents, of whatever criminal propensity, must be impressive to us all in deciding how we conduct ourselves as Members of Parliament. A constable does have to be in uniform to demand a breath test, as the hon. Gentleman implied, but he does not have to be in uniform to arrest if the test is positive or is refused.

The requirement to be in uniform under section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 is to apply the test but not to arrest in the event that the test is positive or is refused. That is one of those interesting aspects which I know are of tremendous interest to lawyers on the Committee, but the rest of us find it difficult to understand how it arose. That, of course, is the responsibility of our predecessors, over 30 years of appalling history.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

To make a non-lawyer point, I am very glad that the Minister has helpfully accepted that there is some merit in our amendment. He has not said that he will accept it today. He has given a Pepper v. Hart indication. Will he consider, during the forthcoming recess, with his officials, whether at a later stage he might be able to bring back something akin to this as an amendment on Report?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am always interested in the Pepper v. Hart amendment, as in the salt and vinegar amendment or any other combination that one might possibly bring forward. I was going to finish what I had to say on amendment No. 25 before coming to the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.

It is the case that the existing power to confiscate alcohol from young people, which is provided by the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997, does not require the officer in question to be in uniform. In general, that power has worked well. It is possible that there may be circumstances in which an officer who is not in uniform may wish to intervene in respect of persons drinking in a designated public place, and we should not wish an officer to be banned from doing so or barred from doing so just because he or she is not in uniform. The effect of the amendment would be to say that if an officer is not in uniform, he or she absolutely cannot intervene in that situation. We consider that that would be an unnecessary restriction, given the way in which the legislation is working at the moment.

Police officers may make use of their powers to stop and search, even when not in uniform, provided that they show their warrant card as proof of their identity. We consider that this should be the position in respect of the new powers of the police in respect of public drinking offences.

Clause 14(5) provides an additional safeguard, to which I have referred, which is that the constable imposing a requirement not to drink or to hand over the drink, must first warn the person concerned that failing to comply is an offence. That warning is an important point, which I shall address when we debate a later amendment.

In summary on this important amendment No. 25 about uniform, the fact is that although one has to be in uniform to conduct a breath test, one does not have to be in uniform to arrest on the basis of the outcome of that test. In line with the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act, a police officer is not required to be in uniform, and the powers work well. We accept that in normal circumstances the power would be exercised by uniformed officers. We also accept, in respect of these new powers, that officers should show their warrant cards as proof of identity if they are not in uniform. We do not accept an officer who is not in uniform who shows his warrant card and goes through the process should be prohibited from exercising the powers. That is why we are not inclined to reflect further on that point, although I was courteous about it earlier for genuine reasons. We thought that it was an appropriate debate to have.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have heard and understood the Minister's arguments. The weakness of the argument for allowing constables not in uniform to exercise the powers is that someone in uniform is much more obviously a copper than someone who simply produces a warrant. Someone who has been drinking is much less likely to be persuaded by a warrant. Not everyone knows what a police officer's warrant looks like. They can vary in different parts of the country. Having seen police officers' warrants, in perfectly respectable circumstances, I consider them a much less persuasive piece of evidence of authority and much less likely to bring respect for the law than a constable in uniform exercising his job.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that point. I tried to accept it by acknowledging that in normal circumstances we would expect the officer to be in uniform. We also believe that it would be more consistent with what is happening in other aspects of legislation. The question that the hon. Gentleman and others who support the amendment must consider when deciding whether to press it, is whether they want to exclude the possibility of an officer not in uniform intervening in a situation that may arise. Our view is that we should not do that, although we are prepared to give all the qualifications about the normal circumstances and so on. That is why we do not accept the amendment. That is a choice that the Committee must make.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I accept the Minister's response. Will he at least contemplate that amendments Nos. 25 and 55 are linked? When a police officer is confronted by a bunch of drunken yobs, it is difficult to require him to inform or warn them, as subsection (5) currently does. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says, it would be better to require him to be in uniform. That is a much better signal to a bunch of yobs, and that is why the amendments fit together.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I agree that a uniform is a better signal. That is why I have talked about the process. I also accept the invitation to link amendment No. 55 with amendment No. 25, as they are indeed related. Amendment No. 55 would delete subsection (5), which states:

``A constable who imposes a requirement on a person under subsection (2) shall inform the person concerned that failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirement is an offence.''

We oppose the amendment because we think that that requirement to warn is important. That is why it is in the law. The requirement to warn, whether in uniform, which we expect will normally be the case, or by presentation of a warrant card, in the unusual circumstances in which a uniform is not worn, will provide a safeguard. We oppose amendment No. 25 because we do not want to deny an officer who is not in uniform the ability to intervene. We oppose amendment No. 55 because we think that the requirement to warn should be there.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

On reflection, I agree with the Minister about amendment No. 55. I hope that he will deal with the point about glassing and containers and the disposal of unopened bottles.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am struggling hard through the string of amendments, and I took Nos. 25 and 55 first. I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote.

Amendment No. 26 would restrict the confiscation powers to alcohol containers, including open containers, that still contain liquid and it would preclude the confiscation of empty containers that have the potential to be used as weapons. There may have been a misunderstanding; perhaps the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will confirm that he accepts that we do not want to preclude the confiscation of empty containers which have the potential to be used as weapons and that his remarks were focused on amendment No. 53, rather than amendment No. 26.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is right; I was talking about amendment No. 53 when I made the point about the sealed container. I understand that the Minister is saying that our amendments do not perfectly achieve our aim, but I ask him to direct his mind to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire when he referred to the Spink Act, to which clause 31, and the linked amendments, relates. We want to make this part of the clause fit with our attempted improvement of that Act, as the Minister's officials and police officers will have advised him that there are gaps in its operation.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will come to every point raised, although that may take time, as it is important to deal properly with each amendment.

Amendment No. 126 would add a requirement that, before exercising the powers in clause 14, the officer must have a reasonable belief that the individual's behaviour may lead to an offence. The amendment would require the police officer in every individual case—I emphasise that phrase, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood about how groups are dealt with—to make a judgment about whether an individual who is drinking in a designated public area may go on to commit an offence if allowed to continue doing so before exercise of those powers.

We are anxious that the process of making an individual judgment would inevitably lead to disputes about the officer's judgment, because there will always be a question for every individual about how that judgment is made. In practice, it may also mean that officers may be seen to be treating people differently, permitting some to continue drinking because it seems unlikely that they will go on to commit an offence, requiring others to stop and confiscating alcohol from them. That will seem divisive and could, in some circumstances, of itself fuel further disorder.

Amendment No. 126 would weaken and complicate police powers to contain public disorder situations where alcohol misuse plays a part. We are concerned that the need to exercise judgment in respect of each individual may have an impact on the ability of the police to use the powers to defuse potential public disorder situations.

In the light of what was said earlier, I emphasise that just drinking in a designated area will not be an offence; there will be an offence only if the constable requires a person to stop and warns him that it is an offence not to comply. It is a police power available to be exercised, not a simple blanket offence.

I acknowledge the spirit in which the hon. Member for Reigate tabled the proposal; it is a desire to ensure that the innocent cannot be caught in such circumstances. That is why I said that the picnicking point does not apply because it is an individual who does not comply with the police who is in breach of the law, rather than one who is consuming alcohol in those circumstances.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the way in which a police officer operates in such circumstances relies on individual judgment and experience and to further complicate the situation would make it more difficult. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment No. 53 would remove the exemption from seizure power from sealed or unopened containers, which are a different matter. There is more likely to be a dispute about whether an individual intends to drink from a container that is sealed, or which has not been opened and which is the property of the individual concerned. We are worried that the power proposed in the amendment would go too far; power to seize sealed containers would bite on supplies purchased to drink at home. The power is designed to prevent drinking in public, hence the power to seize alcohol in open containers. It is open containers, glasses and bottles that are important to us here; I recall the point that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire raised about glassing. A balance must be struck, but I tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that I am prepared to think a bit more about the point raised by amendment No. 53. On the other points that have been raised, I do not agree with the amendments that have been tabled and I urge hon. Members not to press them, for the reasons that I have given.

On balance, amendment No. 53 is probably not right, but I thought that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire had a point with the picture that he drew about the situation, because the power is constrained by the overall power in clause 14(1). The police officer has to make his or her judgment on the basis of what is in that subsection and ``intent'' is an important concept, in the context of that clause, that helps the police officer to make the judgment. As the hon. Gentleman asked: how different is a six-pack that is all sealed from a six-pack, one can of which is open and the remaining five sealed? There is a real issue there, and I wish to reflect on that amendment to see whether we might go some way to meet that argument. However, I am not as strongly concerned about that amendment as I am about some of the others.

Amendment No. 27 would potentially restrict the options open to the officer at the time to decide on the most appropriate method of disposing of confiscated alcohol and containers. My response to that fairly straightforward point, which was not given a great deal of attention earlier in the tabling of amendments, is that we do not believe that this is a practical proposition. It is difficult to see how the chief officers could prescribe the manner of disposing of alcohol and alcohol containers seized in accordance with clause 14 without having a very bureaucratic and sometimes ineffective approach.

I was in Devizes yesterday, talking to officers in the Wiltshire force. One of the concerns raised with me was the requirement for an officer to report too much on some of the things that he or she was doing, creating the feeling that the officer was not trusted enough to make his or her own judgments in those circumstances. The amendment might take us too far down that line.

Amendment No. 54 would significantly increase the maximum fine for conviction from level 2 to level 5. I am fairly sceptical about this point. The offences that we are mainly concerned with here are offences that are, or could be, committed by people at a relatively low level, and I consider level 5 to be too high. It is obviously a matter of judgment and ultimately we all make our judgments on these questions, but I think that level 5 is too high a level of offence for this. I cannot offer a great argument of principle, but it seems to us that level 2 is more appropriate.

I have dealt with amendment No. 55.

Finally, amendments Nos. 106 and 75 would restrict the adjustments to the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act. We are more sceptical of those proposals. We understand the arguments that are being made and it may help if I confirm the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, that the basis for our opposition to these amendments is that we do not wish to create an inconsistency between this Bill and the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act in relation to the powers to confiscate alcohol and alcohol containers. We thought that consistency was an important virtue. However, as I have agreed to look again at amendment No. 53, I am prepared to look at these amendments also although not, I emphasise, from the point of view of raising expectations about the matter. I acknowledge that consistency is of itself only one argument, and not necessarily the most powerful. We have to look at the application in these circumstances.

I urge hon. Members not to press any of the amendments, with the assurance from me that with regard to the related points of amendments Nos. 53, 106 and 75 taken as a group, I am prepared to review the questions and see what can be done. I do not, however, want to mislead. We shall review not necessarily with the objective of agreeing, but because an important point has been raised, which the Government will want to consider when we read Hansard and have a chance to look more carefully at the arguments that have been advanced.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful for the constructive way in which the Minister has responded. In the light of what he says about amendments Nos. 53, 106 and 75, and his statement that he is looking at those again, I will not press the group of amendments that we have tabled to a Division.

I simply ask the Minister, when he is considering that group of amendments, to consult in particular with the representatives of the Police Federation. The Minister mentioned that he had been talking yesterday to ordinary police officers in Devizes, the neighbouring constituency to that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. This is, however, particularly and pre-eminently a matter for the organisation that represents the police officers at the sharp end—the PCs and sergeants who have to attend these town and city centre disturbances. If the strong urgings of representatives of the Police Federation persuade the Minister to table on Report something akin to our amendment No. 53, and the related amendments, we shall be very pleased. I am happy that the Minister is looking at this again; I accept that his undertaking is limited, and that he is not making a commitment to change his proposals. Given that we have concentrated our probing on amendment No. 53, we have had a good debate, and I welcome the Minister's response to that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the question, pursuant to Standing Orders, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we move on, I should like to clarify the situation that arose earlier. I said that the apparent discord in the Committee was uncustomary, and of course it was not discord at all. Those hon. Members who studied with due diligence the Amendment Paper for 13 February will have noticed that amendment No. 138 in the Minister's name is identical to the amendment published in the names of other hon. Members. In those circumstances, the hon. Member who tabled the amendment first has the lead name. All other names are added to that name, so concord would appear to have broken out. Clause 15 Designated public places

Clause 15 - Designated public places

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 8, leave out line 7.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 56, in page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (1)(b) and insert

`(b) any area to which members of the public have or may gain access'.

No. 57, in page 8, line 14, after `been', insert `or may be'.

No. 58, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—

`provided that a constable may lawfully exercise any of the powers in section 14 whether or not the place has been so designated if he reasonably believes the place of the offence is a public place.'.

No. 31, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—

`(2A) An order made under subsection (2) shall have effect for such period (not being greater than 12 months) as shall be specified in the order.'.

No. 28, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—

`( ) to specify that the order shall not apply to a particular area within a designated public place.'.

No. 29, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—

`( ) to specify that the order shall apply at particular times, or on particular days, only.'.

No. 30, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—

`( ) to specify that the order may be suspended for a period of not more than 48 hours by an officer or committee of the authority with the agreement of a superintendent of police.'.

No. 128, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—

'(2A) All orders must be confirmed by that local authority at least every five years or they will be deemed to be spent.'.

No. 59, in page 8, line 19, at end insert—

`and shall issue guidance to police and local authorities as to the exercise of police powers, and implementation by local authorities of these provisions and any relevant related by-laws operated by such local authorities.'.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

It was rather surprising that the Minister was not aware that amendment No. 138 was tabled in his name, but there we are.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.