Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Public Bill Committee, 1 March 2001.

Standing Committee F

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to make some housekeeping announcements. For ease of continuity, I am taking the Chair until 10.30 am to monitor the debate on the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, which met yesterday. The resolution is at the back of today's amendment paper.

I have courteously been given notice that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be taking evidence on the Bill at 5.30 pm on Monday, 5 March, when the Minister of State will give evidence. Those Committee members who are available and wish to attend are entitled to do so as observers.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move,

That the Programming Order of the Committee of 6th February be amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting at the end the words ``and on Wednesday 7th March at half-past Ten o'clock''.

(2) in paragraph (3), by substituting ``15'' for ``14''

(3) in paragraph (4)—

(a) by inserting the words ``New Clauses'' after the words ``Schedule 1''; and

(b) by omitting the words ``New Clauses'' where they appear after the words ``Clause 132'';

(4) by substituting the following for paragraph (5)—

``(5) the proceedings at the 9th to 15th sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE SittingProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 9thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 10thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 11thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 12thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 310.00 pm 13thClauses 70 to 851 pm 14thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules— 15thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules5 pm"

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I reiterate our oft-spoken objection that the Programming Sub-Committee's proceedings are not recorded. The Minister is now referring to discussions that occurred last night and only those of us who were fortunate enough to be present know what happened. It would have been helpful if there had been an official record of what happened because it would then have been possible to refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am not sure that that is a point of order for the Chair, but I shall repeat my view that it is desirable that a record is made of at least the formal part of the meetings of the Programming Sub-Committee. However, that is entirely a matter for the Modernisation Committee. The Chairmen's Panel will make recommendations to that Committee in due course.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I agree with your comments, Mr. Gale, and after discussion of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill I wrote to the Leader of the House with some views on the conduct of the Programming Sub-Committee for consideration by the Modernisation Committee. It is a pilot project, and from it we must learn its weaknesses and strengths. The point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has weight and should be considered.

However, it is a fact that the meeting yesterday was acrimonious--I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman dissents from that--and much of the language used was difficult. I want to reflect on some of the points made.

On the amount of time that we have spent debating the Bill, I said on Second Reading that I hoped to be able to have 16 sittings. For reasons that the Committee knows, it was decided at the first Programming Sub-Committee to have 14 sittings, and we gave a commitment that we would be prepared to extend that. We have in fact had two extra sessions that were not anticipated and do not count as extra formal sittings of the Committee.

Through the programming resolution, we have allowed for 15, rather than 14, formal sittings. Rather than the 16 sittings that I originally specified in the House, we will now have 17—that is, 15 plus two evening sessions. The Opposition's proposal to have two extra sittings would have taken the original 14 to 16, so their charge that we are giving significantly less time than they want is unfounded.

On guillotines, my experience of the Committee is that although there have been some positive aspects—for example, last Tuesday's sittings were full of constructive debates and contributions—some time wasting took place during earlier sittings. All the debates have been in order, not only because they were regulated by you and your colleagues, Mr. Gale, but because all members of the Committee took the trouble to be in order. I shall cite two examples of time wasting. First, during one debate, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—a signed-up member of the criminal barristers' tendency—simply read for the record the Criminal Bar Association's evidence from the consultation process, which was one of 111 submissions. Although he had the right to do so, I saw no need for it, and it was time wasting. Secondly, we spent four and a half hours on clause 1—a long time with a great deal of time wasted in the process.

I pay tribute to hon. Members for the parts of the debate that were constructive. The Parliamentary Secretary and I tried to respond as constructively as possible. Neither he nor myself have spoken at undue length and we have always given way to allow for proper debate. Labour Members have universally spoken to the point and to effect. Surprisingly, I can say that the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have been almost pithy. He has been clear and to the point and has debated properly. That has not been my experience in previous Committees, where he has spoken at inordinate, lawyerly length. I praise the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), whose contributions, throughout the proceedings and without exception, have been constructive and to the point.

I cannot say the same of other Opposition Members. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, has popped in and out of the Committee from time to time, has shown no evidence of having read or discussed the Bill, and has been repetitive ad nauseam on points of no substance.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it right for the Minister to be passing remarks of that sort about an hon. Member who is not present?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

As the Minister is aware, he is responsible for his own words, so that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. It has always been the custom and courtesy of the House that if one Member intends to make a personal attack on another, he should seek to inform him first. I have no way of knowing whether that was done in this case.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have not done so, because I worked on the assumption that all members of the Committee would be present this morning. Given the nature of the acrimonious exchanges last night, I felt it necessary to respond to the issues that were raised about my conduct and that of my hon. Friends and to set out my position.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. The Minister responded to my previous point of order by saying that he assumed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire would be present, which is why he gave him no notice that he intended to make a personal attack on him. Surely even if my right hon. and learned Friend had been present, it would have been necessary for the Minister to give him notice.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that no such requirement is placed upon Members, who are responsible for their own words, whether temperate or intemperate. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, and I do not intend to take another point of order on it.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I will talk to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter when he deigns to attend the Committee. I am responsible for, and have considered, my own words, and I must give my own assessment of events. Other hon. Members might disagree with it—that is a matter for them. In my opinion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not addressed the Bill seriously. The many extremely tedious exchanges on minor points that have taken place show that he does not understand the essence of the subject under discussion.

Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath were rather more serious. However, he, too, has spoken at inordinate length and extremely repetitively—I am thinking in particular of the discussion on the Criminal Bar Association—and that appears to have been a deliberate tactic. I exonerate the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire from much of what I have to say on this matter. As with other Committees in which he has participated, in general he has sought to speak effectively and to the point. In tabling amendments to probe the issues that have arisen, he is behaving quite reasonably. For the most part he has not spoken at inordinate length, although I cannot say the same for his colleagues.

Last night, my assertion about the use of the usual channels was challenged, and I want to return to that issue. In fairness, the Opposition have made it clear from the outset that in their view insufficient time has been allowed for consideration of the Bill, and they have argued for a finishing date later than 8 March. Although we do not agree with them in that regard, we have been prepared at all times to agree programming informally, through the usual channels and without the need for a guillotine, so as to ensure proper consideration of the Bill throughout. However, my hon. Friend the Whip has found it difficult to secure agreement on those points.

I contrast that with last night, when the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a commitment to try to reach the end of schedule 1 by the end of today. I accepted that commitment implicitly, immediately and without question, and as a result I have amended the programming resolution to remove the guillotine in respect of that point. However, he could offer no further commitments. That is his prerogative, but we therefore decided that the guillotine process must be retained, and I shall once again explain why, in order to make matters as clear as possible. The Committee must consider properly all the issues with which the Bill deals. We cannot allow an entire chunk of clauses to fall off the end simply because we did not guillotine. The Opposition have given no assurance that they will honour that process, so there is no choice but to retain the guillotine.

I know that the charge will be made that we are being arrogant and are not listening to Parliament, but I do not accept that for one moment. We have sought to discuss matters in the best possible way, and to address issues of substance rather than playing to an audience by making rhetorical debating points. All Government members of the Committee—in particular, my ministerial colleague and I—have conducted the debate in that way, and that is the way in which we shall continue.

I shall conclude by repeating the offer that I made last night. We would be absolutely open to reaching agreement through the usual channels on an approach to timetabling that is informal in every respect, and to an additional meeting to debate further matters in a different way. For example, last night we were ready to agree to an evening sitting next Wednesday, Budget day. You rightly said, Mr. Gale, that we needed some certainty about a programme for Budget day, but no agreement could be reached on how to proceed, so we had no choice but to act as we have.

The Opposition's approach to this matter is informed by party political electioneering in the light of a possible general election. They are trying to argue that there has been insufficient time to consider the Bill, but their argument is false and I hope that the Committee will support the Government by supporting the motion.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we embark on debate on this matter—I shall add a minute to our proceedings to allow for what I am about to say—I want to make a personal observation. It is regrettable that proceedings of the Sub-Committee are not minuted. Although members of the Committee may attend as observers—indeed, last night one did—that is not always possible. A written record would be helpful because the meetings are informal and not a matter of record, so comment on the proceedings can be reported only through the eyes of those who were present.

I understand that hon. Members have strong views—they would probably not be Members of Parliament had they not. I also understand that occasionally those views will be expressed forcefully. However, I must make it plain that I deprecate acrimony and will not tolerate unparliamentary or discourteous behaviour. Since I joined the Chairmen's Panel, every Committee that I have chaired has been courteous and harmonious within the bounds of proper political disagreement. I am certain that the Committee will want to continue in that vein.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I would not want the Committee to think that I said anything rude or unparliamentary in yesterday's Sub-Committee. I have always thought that courtesy is important and I have always been extremely courteous to the Minister. However, one is entitled to be angry if one feels that the Government are interfering with something important—namely proper scrutiny.

I sat on criminal justice Bills when we were in government, when I listened to Opposition Members and thought, ``Gosh, that is a tedious point. They are going on at tremendous length.'' The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was subject to 240 hours of scrutiny, but we did not guillotine it because we felt that it was important. One may argue that we guillotined other legislation, but when it came to Committee we tried to allow the Opposition enough time.

Labour Members may think that we have been going on at great length in this Committee, but the Minister disagreed. He said many times that we were making good points and debating seriously. It is worth remembering the Home Secretary's view when he was in opposition:

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

On our first day in Committee, the Minister, who was making his first point on the first clause, said:

``Many valid issues have been raised.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 26.]

In the debate on unlawful street trading, he conceded that we had made a good point:

``I am ready to think again about the hon. Gentleman's point and see whether we might consider widening the scope in the way he suggested.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 31.]

In the same debate, the Parliamentary Secretary immediately accepted one of our amendments. He said:

``The amendment deals with whether subsection (5) should be changed so that positive resolution procedure was required.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 38.]

He then agreed that that should happen.

In the afternoon sitting, the Minister said:

``This is an entirely legitimate debate. There was a wide range of evidence from different bodies in the consultation process.''

He continued:

``I was at pains to tell the hon. Gentleman that his amendment was perfectly reasonable.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 79-81.]

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has also expressed sympathy with our views. He said:

``It would be a mistake if people who, under normal circumstances, were entitled to criminal compensation found themselves deprived.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 86.]

In a later sitting, the Minister described an Opposition amendment as ``perfectly well meaning.'' He also discussed the Opposition's many contributions to

``what was nevertheless a serious debate''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2001; c. 105.]

He mentioned that we had made ``points of substance''.

The Minister also applauded the serious approach to the Committee adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. He referred to

``the spirit of constructive inquiry.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2001; c. 146.]

He said:

``I commend the issues identified by Opposition Members for inclusion in the guidance . . . Some of the issues that have been identified, particularly in relation to restorative justice, are serious and appropriate.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2001; c. 166-7.]

Who made those suggestions? It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the former Attorney-General, who has been so castigated today. He is also a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It had important business that clashed with the business of this Committee. He was entitled to be away from the sitting. He should not be criticised.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Not at the moment.

The attitude of the Opposition to the Bill is not wrong. The criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath with regard to the Criminal Bar Association is misplaced. I have read the file of submissions that came from outside bodies about fixed penalty notices. The Criminal Bar Association was referred to because it was the only organisation to come up with a detailed analysis of the Bill. I do not accept the charge that my hon. Friend has misbehaved. The length of time spent on clause 1 was not unreasonable, given the Minister's own comments, which I hope will be documented fully in the record of our proceedings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire should not be criticised. In fact, he has made some acute legal points, which Ministers have acknowledged as such.

That brings me back to whether the Committee was allowed enough time in the first place. The Minister must agree that I am always consistent about the matter. Not enough time has been allocated to us. A 132-clause Bill such as this probably needs 18 to 20 sittings. Originally, he offered us 16. He went back on that proposal after the Sub-Committee met and offered us 14. It is wrong to say, ``You've had evening sessions on Tuesday. They can count as extra sittings.'' They do not.

The original proposal was that we could sit on Tuesday evenings. It did not mention our having to finish at a particular time. If it had, we would have opposed it. We were entitled to long Tuesdays. We wanted extra days, which we have not had. It was extremely bad to offer that timetable and to mislead the House—inadvertently, I am sure. The Minister told the House that we would have 16 sittings. He then offered 14. He is now offering us 15, and we are supposed to be grateful. We are not.

The programme motion suggests that, on the last day, we should deal with 50 clauses and the remaining schedules. It is laughable. The Opposition should not be treated like that. It was always the case that, for a Committee to be guillotined, members had to have misbehaved. It was an insult to the Opposition to guillotine a Committee. In this case, I do not think that the Government have reached their decision because of time wasting. It has been done to fit in with their election timetable. It is an outrage. The Minister said that I used bad language towards him. I did not use bad language in the sense of calling him anything personal, but I am annoyed about the matter and he should be privately, quietly ashamed. If we want proper democracy in this country, the ability to debate matters and to ensure that matters are subjected to the careful scrutiny to which the Home Secretary referred, we need time to make our points.

I agree with the Minister that we should be able to debate Huntingdon Life Sciences next Tuesday. I want to do that. It was my idea, and it is important to people who want scientists to be protected. However, he need not take credit for that. We suggested such a debate. The fact that he agrees is good, but it does not get away from the fact that, overall, the timetable is a sorry disgrace.

Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)

Bearing in mind the comments that have been made about the procedure of the Programming Sub-Committee not being recorded, I do not intend to deal with what might have happened. I want to deal with the facts. The Opposition's position vis-a-vis programming motions is well known. It is not officially recorded in terms of the Sub-Committee, but it is well known and well documented from the Floor of the House and in our proceedings from columns 3 to 11 of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings. That is clearly laid out. We can repeat that ad infinitum, but we are using up time in which we could be looking at the issues that matter and delivering the provisions of the Bill—which is, I suspect, what we all want to do.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has just talked about the business of wanting to deliver, and to discuss properly the new clauses. The new resolution from the Programming Sub-Committee picks up what is clearly recorded in the Official Report, when the hon. Gentleman said that the most important issues were being raised under the new clauses

``but they will not be considered until the end of the Committee.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2001; c. 6.]

Clearly, that issue has been taken on board in the new programming motion because of concerns expressed not only by Opposition Members but by my hon. Friends and other interested parties.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Clark (Labour, Gillingham)

No, I will not, because time is short.

The matter has been taken on board and clearly laid out in the new resolution. With due respect, we talk about wanting proper democracy. I would not disagree, but I suspect that proper democracy for Mr. and Mrs. Smith in Gillingham or, dare I suggest, for Mr. and Mrs. Smith in North-East Hertfordshire is about how they can go about their business without the threat of being abused in the street, meeting drunken people with disorderly behaviour, or people trespassing on the railways. That is clearly what is in the interests of democracy. I would suggest that were we to discuss with our constituents the number of hours that are programmed to deliver the Bill, they would want the provisions to be delivered rather than for us to devote endless hours to them.

I accept that there is always a case to be made for giving a Bill endless hours of discussion. However, when we have got on with business—on Tuesday, for example—as the Minister suggested, many good points arose from proper and sensible discussion. Clearly, we should be trying to deliver what is in the interests of people and democracy in a proper way, with reasonable opportunity for discussion in Committee.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I will oppose the motion. We made our opposition to the timetable apparent at the beginning, and things have got worse rather than better. First, by virtue of the fact that we now have sittings on Thursday mornings that stop before the House sits, we effectively get only one and a half hours. In the old days, morning sittings were normally two and a half hours, so on each of those three occasions, we lose one hour, making three in total. We sat late for half an hour on one occasion and for an hour and ten minutes on the other. Therefore, we have hardly made up the lost time that has not been allocated by late sittings.

Secondly, there is now a proposal before the Committee that we make up for the lost time in an additional sitting. In itself, that is welcome, but it is scheduled for Wednesday morning. The business in Westminster Hall at that time is a debate on the United Nations convention on human rights, in which some of us have an interest that falls directly within our responsibilities. It is hardly convenient or sensible for a Committee on home affairs business to be sitting when there is a direct relationship with other business that we may want to attend.

We are perfectly happy that the new clauses come at the end of the section that we are dealing with in schedule 1—that is entirely proper. However, I have just observed that we now have a guillotine that requires us, by the end of next Tuesday, to deal with underage drinking, travel restrictions, intimidation of witnesses, other witness matters, the curfew issue—which is extremely controversial—and disclosure of material. The Government have already tabled seven new clauses and 43 amendments to be debated by the end of that time.

A proper Committee structure does not allow time to debate such a proposal. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark). If our constituents realised how intent our Government so often are in so many ways on pushing through legislation, when most Labour Back Benchers say nothing most of the time and the only chance to scrutinise is given to Opposition Members who are willing to speak up and time is so limited, they would find our democracy increasingly unrepresentative. That will discredit the hon. Gentleman's party in government as well as Parliament as a whole.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I was the Member who sat through the entire Programming Sub-Committee, although I am not a member of it, to observe its proceedings. In his personally directed remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, a distinguished former Attorney-General, the Minister once again lived down to my expectations. You, Mr. Gale, have pointed out that it is only a parliamentary convention that hon. Members should be warned in advance if another Member wants to make remarks about them. The Minister said that he has not done so on this occasion. For Ministers of State deliberately to ignore a parliamentary convention that has been observed down the years is appalling. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire says, the Minister should be ashamed of himself. However, I do not expect the Minister to be ashamed of himself.

Listening to the Minister for the first time, some people might believe that he sometimes gives the impression of being reasonable. Those of us who have got to know him during consideration of previous Bills know that whenever the Minister has an opportunity to make an attack he does so below the belt in precisely the way that he did about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire this morning. I believe that he will come to regret that. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) says, disgraceful.

I am present, and I—

It being 30 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000.]

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am not taking a point of order during a Division.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

TABLE SittingProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 9thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3 — 10thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 11thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 3— 12thClauses 27 to 45 (so far as not previously concluded), Schedule 1, New Clauses, Clauses 46 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 69, Schedule 310.00 pm 13thClauses 70 to 851.00 pm 14thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules— 15thClause 86, Schedule 4, Clauses 87 to 101, Schedule 5, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 6, Clauses 107 to 127, Schedule 7, Clauses 128 to 131, Schedule 8, Clause 132, new Schedules5.00 pm

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You will have seen that I tried to rise during the debate that we have just had on the programme motion. The Minister took up 14 minutes of a 30-minute debate on the matter, which relates to the highly controversial issue of programming. I wonder whether you might be able to take back to the Speaker, through whatever channels are available, the message that 30 minutes for such a debate is plainly inadequate, as is the entire business of programming, which does not enable someone like myself, who has, as the Minister said, been tentative and constructive in handling the Bill, even to make my views known on the programming. I have extreme views about the way in which the Government have behaved.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister referred to the usual channels. I was keen to place on the record precisely what discussions we had had through the usual channels—I know that that is a breach of convention, but as the Minister raised the matter, it was important that I should have an opportunity to do so. I regret the curtailment of democracy this morning, and that discussion of that curtailment has itself been curtailed to only half an hour. Would it be possible to ask for an extension of such debates in future?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Although those are points of interest to the Chair, they are certainly not points of order for the Chair. I have made my view known, and will make my views further known to the Chairmen's Panel, which in turn will express a view to the Modernisation Committee. It is of course open to any hon. Member to make representations to that Committee. Whether members of the Committee like it or not—and whether the Chairman likes it or not—we must operate under the rules and regulations of the House as they stand.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am not prepared to allow points of order to prolong the debate that we have just had. I call Mr. Hawkins, on an entirely separate issue, I trust.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is a separate issue, Mr. Gale. When you make your representations to the Modernisation Committee, would you be prepared to consider whether those who are not members of Programming Sub-Committees, but who are able to attend, should be able to speak but not vote, rather than simply attending, neither speaking nor voting?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

That is a perfectly valid point, and is well made; yes, I will.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who is a member of the Programming Sub-Committee, could not attend yesterday because she was in her constituency—the date of the meeting having been fixed only after it became impossible to alter her arrangements. Given that one provision of the resolution that we have just passed is that we sit next Wednesday when the House is sitting, albeit in Westminster Hall, may I ask whether, if a preferable time for the additional sitting were discovered in informal conversation, you would be willing—because I believe that it is in your discretion—to call a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to agree an alteration? I have objections about other matters, but that is one issue on which it may be possible to reach an accommodation across the Committee. If that were the case, would you be willing to preside over a meeting to deal with that?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman is correct that it is open to the Chairman to receive representations concerning further sittings of the Programming Sub-Committee. If I receive such representations from the usual channels, and it appears reasonable, the Chairman is of course at the Committee's disposal and I shall endeavour to accommodate the Committee. However, I point out that we sat for a considerable time last night and the Committee has further discussed the issue this morning and has just passed the Programming Sub-Committee's resolution. At the moment, those are the terms under which the Committee will now sit. Under those terms, we have probably had sufficient discussion on the subject.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

One moment, Dr. Ladyman. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the point that time is at a premium. We are now spending time discussing matters that could properly be discussed outside the Committee and informally, rather than discussing the matters that we are here to discuss formally. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a specific point to make, I propose to proceed.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

On Second Reading, I said that I wanted amendments to the Bill to help to protect scientists, one of which was an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to prevent terrorists from acting in concert. Have you, Mr. Gale, been given any indication whether the Government intend to table such an amendment in time for us to discuss it in Committee?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that however much Chairmen may wish it, the Government do not normally make their intentions known in advance to Chairmen of whatever party. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point, the Minister has heard it and, again, I am sure that that can be discussed informally.

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Clause 27 - Enforcement of closure orders

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I rise briefly to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath about clause 27(1)(b). He questioned what was meant by the expression that a constable who is attempting to enforce a closure order may

``do anything reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with the order.''

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood, with a brief explanation that the constable is entitled to do anything which is reasonable that he considers necessary. If there is something which is reasonable that the constable considers necessary, it is plainly appropriate for him to be able to do it. I would not have thought that the Committee would greatly benefit from further discussion of the meaning of such plain, usual and much used words.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I previously said that Opposition Members regard the wording as wide. We still think that. However, the Minister has given his explanation, and I shall not seek to press the matter further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Offences by body corporate

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The clause is perfectly reasonably intentioned, and relates to the debate about who is held liable in practice and how the corporate liability of the owner of the licensed premised is tied up with the practical liability of the person on site. Is that part of a general proposition by Government, or is it restricted to licensed premises? There are often issues in relation to liability and corporate responsibility. As I understand it, there is an implied connivance of the ownership if anybody, in any of the positions—especially a manager—is liable.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Has the precise wording about corporate responsibility been used in other legislation? Will the Minister write to members of the Committee to tell us whether the Government intend to use such wording more widely, not only in future licensing legislation but in legislation generally, and whether there are specific precedents? If he will undertake to do that, I will be satisfied.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The first issue raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was whether the provision was part of a general proposition by the Government to define the responsibilities of corporate owners. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of corporate governance. As far as criminal statutes are concerned, the liability of those associated with companies, who stand behind corporate entities that are responsible for ownership or control of premises, must be determined case by case. In response to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the wording of clause 28(1) is based on the equivalent clause in the City of Westminster Act 1996, which refers mainly to sex establishments, although this clause refers to alcohol establishments.

It would not be helpful to conduct a wider trawl of legislation, whether passed under this Government or under previous Governments, for the equivalent form of words, for the reason that I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Liability must be determined case by case, depending on the mischief against which the offence is determined. We must compare like with like.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Service of notices

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 23, line 24, leave out `a copy of'.

This is an entirely technical amendment. Under subsection (6), a document that is to be served under clauses 21 to 28

``shall be taken to be duly served if a copy of it is fixed in a conspicuous position on the premises which are alleged to have been used for the unlicensed sale of''

alcohol. To constitute proper service, there is no doubt that the document itself, rather than a copy, should be so affixed. The amendment is designed to assist those against whom this offence is directed, and I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Does the service of notice procedure in the Bill differ from current law? I have neither the time nor the resources to establish whether the clause will vary that procedure, so if there is a difference I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain what it is. If the procedure is exactly the same as under current law, it is clearly uncontroversial.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The provisions for service depend on the precise circumstance in which a document is served. For example, service on an individual differs from service on premises, which is modelled on the City of Westminster Act. I am not aware of any way in which these provisions differ from other provisions of service that are customarily expected, so I do not consider them controversial.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am prepared to accept that. Given that I gave no notice of my question, I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would ask his officials to check on this matter. As I have repeatedly said, if people are not to be caught out by technicalities, the law must be as consistent and clear as possible. We do not want to give further work to lawyers—to use the Parliamentary Secretary's phrase—by requiring them to establish whether there was service and whether people knew there was service. We must ensure that the procedures are streamlined, common and collectively similar and will apply common time limits, regardless of whether the notice is being served on an offending pub, amusement arcade, sex shop or anything else.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

The point is well made and I shall ensure that my officials look carefully at what I have said when it is published in Hansard. If there is any way in which my comments can be amplified or clarified, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and provide copies for other relevant members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Confiscation of alcohol containersfrom young persons

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 24, line 11, leave out `substituted' and insert `inserted'.

This is a technical amendment that is necessary because the purpose of the clause is to insert the required wording in section 1(1) of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. The use of the word ``substituted'' is not appropriate, given that the clause will not substitute one set of words for another. We want to ensure consistency between the 1997 Act and the wording of this Bill in respect of the confiscation of alcohol containers from persons in designated public places. The amendment has been tabled in the interests of accuracy, and I hope that it can be agreed to.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

This seems an entirely sensible amendment and we have no further comments to make.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We dealt with the issue of open containers that might contain alcohol when we debated clause 14. I have no problem with the power to take, in certain circumstances, what looks like a can of lager, when no one could know, without taking it, whether it actually contained lager. Will the Minister assure me that there is consistency between this provision and the earlier one?

More importantly, the Bill significantly changes the law on alcohol and alcohol-related disorder in public places and it would be beneficial if the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 was incorporated into the Bill. It seems pointless to keep a small Act, which was a private Member's Bill, on the statute book, with all the necessary cross-referencing, when it could be accommodated in the Bill. I would be happy to consider a proposal outside the Committee--I hope that Conservative Front Bench spokespeople would also be prepared to do that--to introduce a non-controversial, consolidating provision. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on my suggestion.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Gentleman said, we discussed our amendment to delete the words

``other than a sealed container''

during an earlier debate. We would be happy to take part in discussions outside the Committee and without commitment, but I want to consider further his new idea of incorporating into the Bill the good piece of legislation that was introduced by our former colleague, Dr. Robert Spink, when he represented Castle Point in the House. We need to think further about that suggestion, but we are happy to discuss it.

On the issue that we raised of sealed containers being used as weapons, has the Minister yet had a chance to discuss with representatives of the Police Federation and other police organisations whether an amendment on that would be useful, or are the Government considering introducing a version of our amendment on Report? We feel very strongly that it is important to protect ordinary police officers in difficult situations when dealing with drunkenness, often among young men, late at night in inner cities, when sealed containers are often used as weapons. Has he yet had discussions on that and, if not, is he planning to?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I confirm that we are still considering that matter, and my mind is not closed to it. I have not had a chance to discuss it with other organisations, because of the time involved, but it is on the agenda.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the purpose of the clause is to provide consistency and it is consistent with other provisions. His general point is interesting, important and difficult. With my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I sit on a group that considers the recommendations of the Law Commission. It is striking that Parliament has difficulty--my hon. Friend is working hard to improve matters--in considering how to address such issues.

The hon. Gentleman was in the House last Monday afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on our proposals for criminal justice until 2010 and will recall the exchanges during which my right hon. Friend waved a copy of the Canadian codified law. He and the Government are committed to codification, but it is difficult to achieve and will require the all-party approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman. There are serious issues concerning parliamentary scrutiny, but in the interest of enabling people better to understand the law, we are none the less committed.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 should be incorporated into the Bill. I had not considered that, but I am prepared to find out what can be done. I commit myself to respond to him on whether that will be feasible within the necessary time scale.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response. As I am sure he agrees, legislation must always have a bias in favour of doing something rather than a neutral view that it might be possible. Without being disrespectful of any individuals, there is always a civil service drag effect by which 78 reasons can be found for not doing something and Ministers need to push it over the top.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Not in the Home Office.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As the Home Secretary said to me yesterday, there have been no leaks from the Home Office recently, so I have no evidence to contradict the Minister.

The amendment was tabled in a probing but hopeful way to ascertain whether Ministers will consider introducing this relatively small provision, on Report or in the other place. It must be in the interests of those who need to know the law to have to look in one place, not two.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Sale of intoxicating liquor toa person under eighteen

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 24, line 19, leave out `nobody could' and insert `he could not'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 102, in page 24, line 23, after `for', insert `written'.

No. 103, in page 24, line 23, after `age', insert `or a prescribed card'.

No. 104, in page 24, line 25, at end insert—

`or the card was obviously a forgery'.

No. 105, in page 24, line 25, at end insert—

`( ) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe a card or cards establishing the age of persons.

( ) Such a power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

No. 107, in page 24, line 25, at end insert—

`( ) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a person shall be treated as having taken all reasonable steps to establish another person's age, if he complies with guidance that the Secretary of State may issue about the use of proof of age cards.'.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I was not singled out in the Minister's earlier Ofsted report either for praise or blame, but I am always brief and I shall be so this time.

It is important to restrict the sale of alcohol to people who are over the legal age. One often sees young teenagers who have obviously taken alcohol, and it is clearly far too easy for them to buy it. As the clause stands, the seller would have a defence if he could prove that nobody could reasonably have suspected from a person's appearance that he or she was under 18. We believe that the clause is too narrowly drawn. Judging someone's appearance is subjective, not objective. The seller can be responsible only for his or her judgment on the day, not for a judgment that anyone else might conceivably make. Their judgment may partly depend on their experience of teenagers—for example, their knowledge of how young girls can look many years older than their age. I recently told the Minister a story about my daughter, who was able to buy age-related products that she should not have bought when she was only 13 or 14. As she was almost 6 ft tall at the time, it would have been difficult to blame the retailer for being unaware that she was well under 18.

If the test is to be that nobody could reasonably have thought that the person was under 18, that inevitably leads to the view that one can be certain of someone's age only if they produce a proof-of-age card. That is the most reasonable step that can be taken to ensure that a person is of a certain age. I strongly support proof-of-age card schemes, and I recently launched one locally. The young people involved, who were from an independent school and a state school, thought that it would be helpful if they were able to buy other age-related products, of which there are a range, including fireworks and cigarettes. However, it has not been easy to persuade a large number of retailers consistently to use the scheme, so there has been a disappointingly slow take-up. If young people are not regularly asked for a proof-of-age card, there is less incentive for them to get one.

The logical consequence of the clause, and of the fact that there are local proof-of-age card schemes with varying degrees of success, is the introduction of a national age card scheme. The Minister has responded to that proposal in the past, and perhaps this is not the time for him to do so again in detail, but I hope that it has been seriously considered by the Home Office.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 and 107 would change the clause to ensure that proof-of-age cards or other written evidence would be the focus of the licensee when he or she establishes evidence of age. Obviously, underage drinking concerns the trade, the general public and all political parties, so we must tackle it.

The industry supports initiatives related to proof-of-age cards, such as the Portman Group's ``Prove It'' scheme and ``Validate''. Furthermore, the trade is doing good work in training licensees and staff to eliminate underage sales. The effect of current proposals will be that retailers must ask to see proof of age. The concern is that unless there is an effective system that establishes the right card or document, retailers and licensees will not have the tools to police the proposed system, in which case it would be too easy for them to break the law unknowingly by selling to children who do not look their age.

The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the Association of Convenience Stores take the view that the Government should either have a national proof-of-age card of their own or should designate the necessary requirements for such cards. The ALMR states that it

``echoes the recommendation of the Health Select Committee in its inquiry into the health risks of tobacco that the Government should forcibly endorse independent effective proof-of-age card schemes. The ALMR accepts that the Government may be reluctant to endorse a single commercial venture, but believes that the Government should clearly set out the criteria against which such schemes may be judged. This should include the geographic and age-related coverage of the scheme.''

It also points out that

``the Alcohol and Society survey, conducted by MORI for The Portman Group, found that 83 per cent. of people support the compulsory use of proof-of-age card schemes in order to tackle under-age drinking.''

We should like a progress report from the Minister on his views on proof-of-age cards, which is something that I know he has discussed with the industry. We also want to know what is happening with the Department for Education and Employment Connexions card. Would the Government prefer retailers to ask for that?

Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton that there are difficulties for retailers in determining the age of many customers. The Association of Convenience Stores states:

``A recent survey asked staff in high street shops selling age-restricted products to determine the age of five young people aged between 14 and 20. Nine out of 10 staff had difficulty in determining young people's ages. If there is to be a more stringent regime governing under-age sales with tougher penalties''—

which is the purpose of the clause—

``retailers need the tools to be able to police such a regime. The ACS believes that a credible and reliable proof-of-age card universally recognised and accepted by the public as a whole is the only means of giving retailers and their staff the reassurance they need''.

Whether we are discussing is a universal card, the criteria for a clutch of cards or the DFEE Connexions card, we want to probe the Government's thinking. How will they give the people at whom the clause is aimed the tools to do the job? What should retailers ask to see, and will they be free of liability if they have seen it?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

At the risk of being quoted against myself at some point in the future, I can say that this is an important issue that has been well debated and discussed. I apologise to the hon. Member for Taunton for not having been able to refer to her in my Ofsted assessment. I place it on the record that her contributions, like those of her colleague, have always been pithy and to the point.

Amendment No. 5 would introduce a subjective rather than objective test of age by providing that the retailer does not have a duty to ask the customer for proof of age when the retailer forms the opinion that he could not reasonably have suspected from the customer's appearance that he or she was under 18. The hon. Lady referred to her own daughter as an example. We ask her to withdraw the amendment, because it would undermine the purpose of the clause by reducing the obligation on the alcohol retailer to take steps to ask for proof of age from the customer in appropriate cases.

The use of an objective judgment of age, based on appearance, is more desirable than a subjective estimate. It avoids the possibility of staff on licensed premises avoiding asking for proof of age on the basis of their own subjective opinion, which would be difficult to challenge in court. The amendment would deny the courts the right to test a defendant's judgment against that of an ordinary reasonable person.

The Committee may be interested to know that, in some interesting research by Professor Paul Willner at Swansea university, published by the Alcohol Education and Research Council last August, test purchasing studies were conducted using 13 and 16-year-olds. His research showed that many retailers who demanded to see the card—60 per cent. did not do so, which is unsurprising because that is not yet part of the culture—went on to make the sale, even when the card confirmed that the child was under age. That surprised me, but it is backed up by evidence.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I am confused by what the Minister is saying. On one hand, he says that the only objective test is the proof-of-age card; the logic of that is that he should accept the amendments tabled by Conservative Members. On the other hand, he says that it would not be a defence to say that, on that day, the retailer judged by the person's appearance that the customer was over 18, if other people might have made a different judgment. That suggests that the court might take a group of people and ask them how old they judge the customer to be. Most people would judge a person in school uniform to be under 18, but if that person wore high heels and make-up—I am assuming that the person is female—it would be easy to believe that she was over 18.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It may be like that in Taunton, but it is not in Norwich.

My inclination is towards the objective test and the proof-of-age card system, as I shall make clear when we discuss the other amendments. However, in having an objective test, we should not take away the obligation of the retailer to exercise his or her power in selling alcohol to young people responsibly. The amendment would increase the subjective element and diminish the objective element. Perhaps the hon. Lady will withdraw it when I have spoken about the objective test.

As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, amendments Nos. 102 to 105 would provide that the production of written evidence of age or a prescribed card would meet the ``all reasonable steps'' defence, unless it were shown that the evidence was such that no reasonable person would be convinced by the card, or the card was obviously a forgery. The amendments suggest that the Secretary of State may prescribe one or more cards by statutory instrument. We are sympathetic to the point. We have had substantial discussions with the industry and have concluded that the case for proof-of-age certification is powerful. We are actively considering the best way in which to deliver that, through further discussions with the industry.

Three different alternatives are under consideration. First, we may use the Connexions card issued by the Department for Education and Employment, which would be given to all 16 to 19-year-olds in education. It might be possible to add a proof-of-age element to that. That is attractive for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Taunton—the card would be used for other facilities as well—and it is also obviously administratively attractive and effective. We are still discussing how to proceed, but that option would be attractive if it could be achieved. It has serious limitations, because the card would be issued to all 16 to 19-year-olds in education, which begs the question of how to deal with 16 to 19-year-olds not in education. We are considering whether there is a way round that problem.

The second alternative that we are examining is the creation of a national structure for the wide range of proof-of-age cards that already exist, providing a framework of certification or ratification to make them work together. In many ways, that is the most attractive option, because well-established organisations that we respect greatly have worked well to develop such an approach.

The third option is that of a specific national proof-of-age card. We have not ruled that out, because there may well be a case for it if we cannot succeed with either of the alternatives, but it is less attractive, because it would require setting up a separate structure for what is the rather limited purpose of dealing with the proof of age for alcohol, rather than with a range of matters.

I emphasise, because it is important in relation to amendment No. 105, that the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance; that does not need statutory backing, and I give the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire the absolute assurance that we are ready to do so. We are not opposed to that amendment in principle. We simply do not think that it is necessary, because guidance can be issued without statutory backing.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Our real concern is that at present a lot of youngsters are using cards that are forged or borrowed, which is unsatisfactory. There is a plethora of cards that could prove their age—anything from a student union card to a driving licence. Is it not urgent to sort out what the proof of age should be? Can the Minister give us a timetable by which the Government's deliberations will be complete and we will know what is the real proposal?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I accept that the matter is urgent. When I became a Home Office Minister and started convening the seminars on alcohol to which I have referred, which have been constructive, I was struck by the strong force of opinion from a wide range of organisations about the urgency of that matter. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timetable to satisfy him, but I can tell him that we are urgently and actively considering the matter and count it a high priority. The greatest problem in conducting discussions is that the Connexions card appears to be the best option for many reasons—it would be uniform in character and would overlap with the student union card in many colleges of further education—but we have not yet been able to find a full solution to the problem of those in the age range who are outside education. We are considering that actively and urgently.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not know whether the Minister can help us on this, but there is a strong rumour circulating in the industry that the DFEE may not be happy with the idea of its card being used in that way, because part of the purpose of the Connexions card is to give benefits to those who undertake study. Without lifting the veil too much, can he tell us whether using that card is really a runner, or whether he is really thinking that the DFEE is not keen and it would be best to go for the clutch of cards approach?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My colleagues at the DFEE are committed to that approach. This week, I met the Education and Employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) to discuss alcohol and education, precisely to consider how to work together more effectively. However, there is the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman mentions: some people within the education system are keen that the card should be focused on that system; I understand and respect that view, but it makes reaching agreement difficult.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

An issue cropped up some years ago when I took on someone who was in his last year at university. He had been involved in a trial project of age-related cards. He was about 20-years-old, but looked about 16. He worked for me periodically until he was 25, when he still looked about 17 or 18. We must bear in mind the civil liberties issue involved when those who are not necessarily at university or institutes of education might always be expected to keep producing proof of their age well into their 20s. It is the opposite case to that cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, of people who look considerably older than they are.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Identity cards are a difficult issue. The Government do not want to follow that course at the moment. Speaking personally, I do not have civil liberties objections to identity cards. There is a strong case for having one card instead of a plethora of cards. However, that is not the Government's position. The hon. Gentleman is right that such issues need to be resolved. The utility of having a card is so powerful that it is worth trying to solve the problem. As I explained to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, that is why the Government intend to take such action.

We are sympathetic to amendments Nos. 102 to 105, but we do not believe that they are necessary. I hope that they will not be pressed to a vote. We do not agree with amendment No. 107, because it implies that guidance issued by the Secretary of State could be used to evade the responsibility not to sell to minors. It is important to reinforce the role of retailers and to say that they have an obligation under the law if they decide to trade in such products. The proof-of-age card is to help them, but it does not take away from their obligation to go through the process.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

May I take the Minister back to amendment No. 5? It concerns someone being prosecuted for selling drink to someone under age when the test says that no one could reasonably have suspected from his appearance that he was under 18. Will he reflect on the question of objectivity? Strict liability should be used only with the most careful approach.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I emphasise that there is no obligation on the licensee or retailer to sell. I have no right to go into an off licence and demand that beer be sold to me. If there is any doubt, there is no obligation to sell. The British Institute of Innkeeping says in its advice to the trade that, if there is any doubt, one should not sell. That should be the position, particularly in respect of alcohol and young people. If there is doubt, the sale should not be made.

Not long ago, I visited several off licences in the Wirral where sales were taking place to young people who were drinking high-proof alcohol in parks. I discussed that with the licensees and the retailers and they accepted the point that, along with a proof-of-age card, they need a regime that reinforces their ability to take such action and become involved in partnerships with the police and others to help them. That is the thinking behind the clause. With that, I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I stress that, apart from the organisations that I have already mentioned, I have also discussed the matter with the BLRA, Whitbread, Shepherd Neame, McMullen's and other big companies involved in the industry. They feel very strongly the urgency of the Government's deciding what proof of age should be. I want to stress that point and press as strongly as I can the urgency of the problem. We need a solution. On that basis, I will not press our amendments to a vote.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Having listened to the Minister's arguments and having thought further about the matter, I still agree with my hon. Friend for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that ``nobody could'' is a high test. The amendment, to say ``he could not'', could be criticised for allowing too much leeway. On reflection, a better amendment would have been ``a reasonable person could not''. I take on board the debate on a proof-of-age card scheme. The inexorable logic leans towards an objective test. The only way of ensuring that there is no doubt is to ask for such a scheme, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider an alternative wording of ``no reasonable person''. On those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. In preparing for the debate this morning, I realised that I needed to refer to the Licensing Act 1964. I was surprised to find that the Act as amended is not available in the Committee. The Library staff told me that, as far as they understand from volume 24 of the fourth edition of ``Halsburys Statutes'', no alteration is shown in the supplement, but it is plain from the references in the Bill that the Act has been amended since it was passed in 1964. I am at a disadvantage because I have to ask the Minister about references to the Act that I want to make in my remarks. Surely every Act to which a Bill refers ought to be available in the Committee Room, and not only those that the Clerks may deem important, especially given the wretchedly little time that we have and the speed with which we must consider the Bill in detail.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, I am advised that availability of information to the Committee is a matter for the Chair, and it is my view that the information, if not exactly to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, is in order for the Committee.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. If the Government can help with any of the material that the Committee and, in particular, the hon. Member for Reigate are looking for, I am happy to make a commitment that we will try to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right—the Committee needs to have all the material available. We will look at the matter and see what can be done to help the Committee and the hon. Gentleman. Clause 33 Enforcement of certain offences relating to under-age drinking

Clause 33 - Enforcement of certain offences relating to under-age drinking

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I beg to move amendment No. 135 in page 25, leave out lines 5 to 8.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we will take the following amendments: No. 47, in page 25, line 17 at end add—

`(4) A constable or an inspector of weights and measures may only request that a person under eighteen buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, or send such a person to buy such liquor, where that constable or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under section 169A or 169B of the Licensing Act 1964 has been committed on the premises in question within the preceding six months.'.

No. 108, in page 25, line 17, at end insert—

`( ) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance—

(a) about requests made by constables and inspectors to persons under 18 in accordance with this section;

(b) about the manner in which purchases and attempted purchases are to be made under this section;

(c) with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with the operation of this section.'.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I preface my remarks by making it clear that it is difficult for Back Benchers to suggest sensible amendments to Bills given all the other demands on our time as Members of Parliament. For example, under the programming motion that was approved earlier today, the Committee will have an extra sitting at the same time as an important evidence-taking sitting of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions, on which I am supposed to be serving. I will therefore have to make an uncomfortable choice about my priorities, in exactly the same way as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We are trying to complete a vast amount of detailed scrutiny of legislation in the absurdly short time given by the programming motion, and such problems make life totally impossible for Committee members who are not Front Benchers, who have other responsibilities in this House and who try to carry out a wide range of scrutiny functions as Members of Parliament. I make those comments to apologise for the fact that the amendment is probing, or must be seen as such, because I do not know its precise consequences. The Library was not able to find the information even with half an hour's notice. If the House of Commons Library is not able to produce the information, I think that I can be forgiven for not doing so.

The amendment relates to legislative enforcement. I am worried about our capacity in the United Kingdom for gold plating legislation in terms of the way in which it is enforced. Proposed new section 169I states:

``It is the duty of every local weights and measures authority in England and Wales to enforce''.

The word ``duty'' makes the task almost the first priority of the authority's work. If anything goes wrong, and the authority has a duty imposed on it by Parliament, it will have to ensure, determinedly, officiously and zealously, regardless of whether there is a problem, that the provisions of clauses 31 and 32 are enforced. I am grateful to have been passed the appropriate part of the Bill, and I shall do my best to read it and speak at the same time. If any Member wants to intervene on me, so that I have an opportunity to read that section, I would be extremely grateful.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Has the hon. Gentleman taken an intervention?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Yes.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the duty imposed on every local weights and measures authority in England and Wales to enforce the provisions of sections 169A and 169B of the Licensing Act 1964 would relate to provisions dealing with the offence of selling to somebody under the age of 18 or of permitting a sale to somebody under the age of 18?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Yes, that is my understanding. I am concerned about the language used by the Bill to place that duty on every local weights and measures authority. I do not know whether the Licensing Act 1964 or other legislation, as it relates to local weights and measures authorities when they are given a responsibility to take action in relation to certain affairs, encapsulates that duty. I presume that the weights and measures authority officiously prosecuted a gentleman in the north-east who wanted to sell bananas by the pound rather than by the kilogram. Most people consider that an absurd prosecution, but those responsible could not exercise any discretion in carrying out their duty, presumably because of how the legislation was framed.

If the provision were removed, presumably the duty, or responsibility, would still lie with weights and measures authorities to test the powers provided in clauses 31 and 32. However, if no particular problem was experienced in an authority's area with people under the age of 18—

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

Enforcement of certain offences relating to under-age drinking

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 47, in page 25, line 17, at end add—

`(4) A constable or an inspector of weights and measures may only request that a person under eighteen buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, or send such a person to buy such liquor, where that constable or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under section 169A or 169B of the Licensing Act 1964 has been committed on the premises in question within the preceding six months.'.

No. 108, in page 25, line 17, at end insert—

`( ) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance—

(a) about requests made by constables and inspectors to persons under 18 in accordance with this section;

(b) about the manner in which purchases and attempted purchases are to be made under this section;

(c) with a view to encouraging good practice in connection with the operation of this section.'.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I have made the point of principle about duty which concerns me. Amendment No. 135 is a probing amendment to ask the Minister whether omitting new section 169I from the Weights and Measures Act 1985 would affect the wider details and whether it would have to be replaced with another form of words.

I am also concerned about the balance between what the police should be doing and what weights and measures authorities should be doing. The weights and measures authorities already check whether people are being swindled by being sold less than is stated, and cover a range of other issues, but the sale of alcohol to under 18-year-olds is a criminal offence and I wonder whether it is appropriate for local authorities to have a duty to enforce the law on that. Should not that duty be exclusively for the police?

I support amendments Nos. 47 and 108, particularly amendment No. 47, which deals with the concern addressed in my amendment that there should be evidence of the activity before children under the age of 18 are sent into pubs or off licences as agents provocateurs to try to trap people into selling them alcohol to enable a prosecution to be sustained. We do not want the provision to be officiously and zealously enforced so that law-abiding licensees are trapped by the authorities, whether the police or local authorities.

I support amendment No. 108, because it is important to have clear guidance on how the process will work, and I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have raised.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend has set the scene, and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister responds to amendment No. 135.

The purpose of amendment No. 47 is to target the power to allow more test purchasing than at present. If it is thought that young people are buying alcohol under age and the pub or off licence is not asking for proof of age or attempting to verify the age, test purchasing should be possible to ensure that those licensees are dealt with firmly. There is no dispute about that, and amendment No. 47 would require that there had been at least reasonable grounds to believe that the offence of selling to someone under age or permitting that to happen had occurred before the test purchasers were sent in to do their work. I would be grateful if the Minister considered targeting and answered that point.

Amendment No. 108 deals with the Government setting out guidance on the use of underage people as test purchasers. Although we would all accept that the possibility of test purchasing should exist where there is a targeted reason for it, no one would be happy if it reached the point to which my hon. Friend referred, which was close to that of an agent provocateur. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that this provision will not be a licence to dress youngsters to look much older than they are, to allow them to use forged identity documents and to show cards similar to proof of age cards. Such an approach would be worrying, particularly as some of the premises where underage purchasing is allowed are not very desirable. Do we want to send young people into undesirable premises dressed to look much older than they really are, perhaps supplied with forgeries or documents which resemble proof of age cards? Those concerns were expressed when the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill was going through the House. At that stage some assurance was given. Although test purchasing was not included in the Bill which was passed, it was included in the earlier Bill, which was not. Could the Minister flesh out exactly what he has in mind?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I did not have the opportunity to make my first point, which concerns making legislation easier to manage, when we were debating clause 19. We are adding subsections, in this case subsection 169I, to a Bill which is already the Licensing Act 1964. In clause 19 there were many pages of subsections. I ask that we try to avoid having seven pages of the same clause all subdivided, having been added to and subtracted from. That is not manageable.

I share the view of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about duties. I have made this point throughout the all-too-many years since I first came here. When we impose duties we should ensure the capacity of the person on whom the duty is imposed to carry it out. There should be a mechanism to send a little electric shock through Members of Parliament every time they are about to pass legislation imposing a duty on someone without ensuring that the resources—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke) rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall give way in a second. We impose duties on local authorities almost every month of the year without asking whether they have the necessary resources, personnel or ability. The poor people on the receiving end say, ``For heaven's sake, spare us.'' The education service is the most obvious example. The head teacher of the school where I am the chair of governors keeps saying, ``Spare us from yet another obligation for which we may not have the resources.'' I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee that all the so-called local weights and measures authorities will have the capacity to comply with the duty. Does he want to intervene to tell me that that is absolutely the case?

Mr. Clarke indicated dissent.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As so often in life, the moment has clearly passed.

It is rather 19th century—or certainly 20th rather than 21st century—for there to be a local weights and measures authority. I realise that we are amending earlier legislation, but we are in danger of having a local authority, a local education authority and a local weights and measures authority, which actually describe functions of the same body; they are the same people. I am keen to try to clarify their functions. My understanding is that they are trading standards officers. I sense the magnitude of professional support for that view. If that is the case, we should probably call those people trading standards officers. I understand that we may be under an obligation, because that is what we have always called them.

I want to pick up the other two points made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). When I was a health spokesman for my party, I supported a proposal to extend the law so that test purchases, which have been possible for a long time for cigarettes, could be carried out properly in association with the police or trading standards officers, allowing an underage youngster to go into a newsagent to discover whether the owner is flogging cigarettes to kids, thus enabling a prosecution to be brought against him. There must be a mechanism by which one can collect the evidence from somebody who will be willing to stand by it. The danger of relying on illegal drinkers is that they may be embarrassed and not go through with it.

I support the proposal that it should be possible to carry out test purchasing. Although I understand the concern that prompted the hon. Gentleman to table amendment No. 47, I do not entirely agree with him. If one only ever acted on the basis of a suspicion, one could never undertake general testing across a local authority area. It is sometimes necessary to have the power to do a sample test—using, say, 10 different kinds of pubs at different times of day in different areas of Southwark—to provide a random sample of how commonly offences take place. On balance, I support the power unamended owing to the need to be able to do that. The merit of amendment No. 108 is that it would provide the scope for guidance or back-up direction to ensure that the power is not abused. In my experience, such powers have not been abused and have been used infrequently. They are normally used where there has been a complaint or a series of complaints that kids have been buying cigarettes from a newsagent. It is even more important to be able to deal with that in respect of alcohol.

Probably every single person in the Room—including members of the Committee, Officers of the House, civil servants and visitors—has played the game of trying to get an illegal drink or two before reaching the age of 18. [HON. MEMBERS: ``Oh.''] Methinks my colleagues protest too much. I was not even referring to the leader of the Conservative party—who did it all the time according to his own reminiscences—but speaking for myself.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Only you can do that.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Indeed.

It was part of school life to go to places that were out of bounds and where one could buy cigarettes and drink. I shall not mention the third thing, but that was available too, if one looked in the right place. It probably had more attraction than the other two for some people.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

What?

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Sex.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend is helpful to the Minister, who is clearly innocent of such matters and must have had a delayed upbringing. In the days when the Minister was president of Cambridge students union and I was a mere college union president, sex was very much on the agenda of our student campaigning in terms of liberation and equality.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that we should send agents provocateurs into the establishments to which he appears to be referring.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am aware that I must resist getting carried away.

This is a perfectly proper power that needs to be used. It has been beneficially applied in relation to underage tobacco sales, and I believe that it also applies to solvents, which can be highly dangerous and, indeed, fatal. I have had constituency experience of that.

To end on a serious note, the Minister and I, together with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), have been recording a programme about crime, particularly in Kent. If we are to reduce the amount of addiction to and abuse of alcohol by people who are the under the lawful age for purchasing it, it is important that pubs, supermarkets, shops and off licences do not get away with regularly selling alcohol to those people.

There must be a draconian regime or groups of youngsters will easily be able to intimidate the owners of isolated off licences or newsagents. The life of a shopkeeper often consists of doing valuable community service, but getting a tremendous amount of grief from people who are trying to get him or her to act illegally in relation to tobacco, alcohol, fireworks or solvents. The law must be tough and clear, so I am happy that there should be a mechanism for testing it and dealing severely with lawbreakers. We shall quickly eliminate most abuse if shopkeepers know that that is the regime. They break the law for personal profit, but that causes considerable harm and loss to young people who purchase their goods.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the general points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in relation to the consolidation and codification of legislation. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are sympathetic, but we must create a suitable process. Forthcoming licensing reform, which will overhaul the Licensing Act 1964, will complement the Bill. Licensing law will be recast in response to the approach that we set out in the White Paper. We shall have an opportunity to address his concerns when those proposals are placed before the House. However, I also appreciate his general points about the way in which the law is made.

Amendment No. 108 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police and trading standards officers concerning the use of children to make test purchases, the conduct of test-purchase operations and best practice. I assure both the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the Committee that we consider appropriate central guidance of the type that he envisages to be both necessary and worth while, but the participation of organisations directly involved in the area is also important.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey remarked that test-purchasing operations are mounted in relation not only to alcohol but to cigarettes, videos, solvents and fireworks. That technique is appropriate, but guidance should come not only from the Secretary of State but from organisations that are experienced in such operations. The Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards—LACOTS—currently issues such guidance, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Association of Chief Police Officers are involved in its preparation.

The best practice guide on test purchasing, which is currently being revised, was issued in November 1995. It will be further revised when the Bill becomes law. We accept the need for central guidance, but we do not accept either that the Secretary of State should issue it or that it should be set in statute. It is important that local authority bodies, the DETR and the police are directly involved in the process. Given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will be prepared to reconsider amendment No. 108.

Amendment No. 135 concerns the important issue of duty. Test purchasing is necessarily part of the duty of trading standards officers because the defences that clause 33 provides will be available only when they are acting in the course of their duty. If they are not acting in the course of their duty, the various defences set out in clause 33 will not apply, which is why we have the closing words of subsections (1A) and (2) of new section 169A. Of course, we do not want police and trading standards officers to send young people to buy alcohol at all times, but only when they are performing their duty. I must emphasise that there is no intention to entrap people selling alcohol. Current practice involves young people who are under 18 with genuine identification that they reveal on demand.

It is also worth having on the agenda the provisions of the current Act. Section 169A is a reformulation of an existing offence under the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, which came into force on 23 January this year. The Act was the product of a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), and his reformulation was warmly welcomed by both Houses. The Act had wholehearted cross-party support and made it an offence for any person to sell alcohol to a minor on licensed premises.

Before the reformulation, a loophole in the 1964 Act allowed some workers on licensed premises to evade prosecution when they sold alcohol to children. Section 169B makes it an offence for any person with the authority to prevent the sale of alcohol to a minor to permit such a sale on licensed premises. That is why new section 169I(1) states that it is the duty of every trading standards officer to enforce the provisions.

I shall come in a second to test purchasing. I have tried to explain why the word ``duty'' is in the Bill. When I almost intervened earlier, but then declined to do so, I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was in favour of various forms of cruel and unusual punishment for Members of Parliament who do silly things. I understand the point about not referring to a duty without having the capacity to deal with the implications of the duty, and we have tried to take that into account after consultation with various organisations. Does the hon. Member for Reigate wish to raise any matters before I go on to amendment No. 47?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

No. I understand the Minister's explanation of why the word ``duty'' is in the clause. He invited my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire not to press amendment No. 108 about guidelines. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say about amendment No. 47, because it concerns whether the power will be used officiously. However, if ``duty'' is used in the traditional sense, that should not happen. If we are not to have guidelines, there needs to be some limitation, which amendment No. 47 would provide.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the point about officious use. I reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. We have experience in test purchasing in relation to other products and the reason to involve the local authority, a professional body, is to ensure that such a power will not be used officiously.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

That the local authority will be involved does not particularly reassure me. Let us consider, for example, the recent prosecution of the greengrocer in the north-east. Numerous other cases have been outlined in the press of trading standards officers who have been excessive in the use of their powers, especially in areas that overlap with the criminal law. Will the Minister consider criminal versus civil law?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Perhaps I was not clear. The hon. Gentleman's worry is that, by their nature, local authorities want to accrete power, and sometimes use it officiously, so they might not be the best bodies to have the responsibility. I explained earlier that the police and the Government were involved in the process. When dealing with such matters with local government, the Home Secretary will not want the power to be used officiously, so there will be a countervailing power.

Trading standards officers have a responsibility to enforce the law. It is a matter of judgment as to which side of the line a particular activity goes. It can be argued that the line is the criminal/civil division. I shall find some specific examples to illustrate the point. In the sale of alcohol, it is reasonable to add the power to those of trading standards officers, rather than to require the police to establish a separate, wholly parallel process. That returns us to our discussion about the benefits of building partnerships between different agencies—I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have similar views on this—and the partnership between the police and trading standards is an important part of our approach.

Amendment No. 47 concerns test purchasing, which is not a new concept in liquor licensing, as test purchases have been carried out for some time in some areas, but prosecutions have not resulted because of uncertainty about the legality of the operations. However, it has led to the revocation of some liquor licences. Doubts exist because the Licensing Act 1964 makes it an offence for an adult to send a minor into licensed premises for the purpose of obtaining alcohol for consumption off the premises. In addition, it is an offence under section 169C of the Licensing Act 1964 for a minor to buy or attempt to buy alcohol on licensed premises. No exceptions to those offences exist for test purchasing operations, so there is confusion about the legal power.

For that reason, the Bill will place test purchasing on a statutory footing in two ways. First, it will provide exemptions to the offences that I have mentioned for the police, trading standards officers and the children involved. However, police and trading standards officers will have that protection only when they are acting in the course of their duty—which returns us to our earlier debate. Secondly, new section 169I(1) confirms that it is among the duties of trading standards officers to act to enforce the provisions relating to the underage provision of alcohol. That is the normal legislative style to bring clarity to the issue. It is not the purpose of that section to place a burden on every trading standards authority to conduct wave after wave of test purchases, although I certainly hope that the protection of children will continue to be a high priority.

That is why the provision is important. For the test purchase power to be effective, it is imperative that the enforcement authorities have operational freedom to decide where and when such operations should take place—for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. In practice, enforcement authorities will not attempt to trick the retailer but will deal with genuine identification, as I said earlier. Amendment No. 47 would place an unjustified restriction on the powers needed, because the authorities, before embarking on a test purchase operation, would be obliged to obtain evidence of possible previous offences committed in the target premises, so that they could justify their action in court if any prosecutions were brought following their action. That would create an additional burden that would undermine the purpose of having an effective enforcement measure.

I acknowledge that the amendment was tabled to probe the issue. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Member for Reigate will withdraw it.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister is misinterpreting the amendment. He said that it would mean that offences or convictions for such behaviour must have occurred. All that it says is:

``where that constable or inspector has reasonable grounds to believe''.

That is not a huge test. The Minister may have misdirected himself.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I did not mean to do that, and I am sorry if I have. Officers would need to demonstrate in court, by hypothesis, that they had reasonable grounds to conduct a test purchasing operation in a particular shop. To show those reasonable grounds, they would have to produce evidence. Reasonable grounds cannot simply be that an off licence was in a particular area or ward, for the sake of argument. Unless I have misunderstood the amendment, it would not constitute reasonable grounds simply to say that a shop was in X ward in Reigate. There would have to be specific reasonable grounds for each retailer subject to a test purchasing operation. That would lead to a separate burden on the trading standards authorities that would undermine the purpose of having an effective enforcement operation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have a question prompted by that exchange. Is it being considered—it has always struck me as a sensible thing to consider—whether those who run off licences, places where drink and tobacco are sold and where age limits relate to their premises, should be required to have closed circuit television or the like on their premises? From experience, it could work well if those in such shops know that a perpetual record is kept of who has been in and out. It strikes me that, although we would not want to impose that on the retail trade in general, it might be appropriate for those who retail items that involve an age limit, safety or other crime-related issues.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We are approaching the matter in two ways. First, the new guidance on CCTV, which we published in February, specifically highlights as one of the three new priorities out-of-town parades that typically include an off licence or betting shop, for example, where there is often a lot of low-level crime of the type that we are discussing, and where people congregate, but which do not have enough money to invest seriously in CCTV as many retail centres involving major chains do. We said in the bidding round that we would give priority to such schemes for exactly that reason.

Secondly, through our retail crime action team, we are discussing with the industry, including post office sub-postmasters, the range of security devices that we as a Government can encourage in such shops, and what support we can provide. We are developing, although we have not yet brought into the public domain, because the conversations on them have not yet finished, a range of proposals that we hope will help security across the range, and they include CCTV.

CCTV could be a matter for licensing justices, who could require an undertaking that it will be used in an off licence in particular circumstances. Many small CCTV systems now available are relatively cheap. That is an interesting approach.

I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendment to a vote.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The Government should think a little more about the matter. We do not want test purchasing to become a widely used method of dealing with the problem. It should be used sparingly, and it should be targeted. The idea that we should have random testing across large areas is misconceived. At this stage, however, I do not intend to press the point, although we may return to the matter on Report, because we believe that the proposal should be targeted.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I listened to the Minister, and it would be useful if he could give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks so that it is on the record of our discussion that the power is not intended to be used—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am happy to give that assurance. We do not intend as a matter of course to assume that blanket sweeps are the right way to proceed. We believe that the operational decision on how to approach the matter should be taken on operational grounds. I can confirm that it is not part of our game plan to have blanket sweeps for particular circumstances.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

That is helpful. I hope that those words will be of guidance to the police and local authorities when they use the powers, if the Bill ever reaches the statute book. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I realise that planning permission may not be granted in every case. However, when planning permission for off licences has been applied for and granted, might conditions be attached with the same sort of jurisdiction as applies to pubs, for example? That would make the permission conditional in time and would involve a reporting back mechanism to determine whether it should continue, and if offences have been committed, the business involved would not be allowed to continue to operate. That applies to pubs. It is a way of keeping in touch with and in control of the licensee. I wonder whether we might do the same for outlets that cause a lot of low-level crime through selling drink.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It may interest the Committee to hear that the comprehensive spending review published in July included a cross-cutting review on crime reduction, which I chaired. The report on that, which forms part of the CSR, sets targets for several other Departments for contributing to crime reduction. Our theme is that the problem runs through all parts of society and life and is not the responsibility only of the police. The DETR accepted an obligation to revise its planning guidance to ensure that secure by design was included as an element in planning. We are funding the development of secure by design. A lot of research is being done in that area, and there is a good Association of Chief Police Officers scheme on it.

We are working further on what secure by design means, and I am discussing with my counterparts in the DETR exactly how we can put the requirement into effect, because there are serious issues involved. We are actively pursuing the possibilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Drunkenness or disorder on licensed premises

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 25, line 22, after 'not', insert `knowingly'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this we will take amendment No. 49, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—

`(2A) It shall be sufficient, for the purposes of proving that all reasonable steps were taken within the meaning of subsection (2), to show that the person became drunk other than on the licensed premises in question, and that no reasonable person would have believed that he was drunken when he entered those licensed premises.'.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The amendments are designed to deal with a case in which a person comes into licensed premises appearing sober and it subsequently becomes apparent that he is drunk. The offence that we are discussing is permitting drunkenness or violent conduct on licensed premises. It is well known that alcohol can have a delayed effect, and that some of the cocktails drunk these days can take effect suddenly. We want to provide a defence for licensees in cases in which they will be assumed to have taken all reasonable steps necessary to prevent drunkenness if they can show that a person did not become drunk on their premises through the alcohol that he was served there. In such cases, no reasonable person would have believed that the person was drunk when he entered the premises. The amendment deals with the issue of delayed effect. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister will remember that exactly the same point was made on the Terrorism Bill and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill in the previous Session. It concerns the shift between the burden of evidence and the burden of proof. I would like to probe him, and I support the amendments. One must ensure a degree of personal liability and knowledge. Otherwise a ridiculous burden is placed on a publican, who must constantly judge between people who may be sober, not quite so sober, slightly less sober, beginning to be slightly drunk, more drunk or very drunk. People could start in one category and quickly move to another. One can go from being merry and pleasant to being not quite so merry, more merry and violent, bothersome and riotous.

Proposed new section 172A(2) would be affected by amendment No. 49. I understand that a publican may be charged with permitting drunkenness. All that must then be proved is that there is some evidence that a person was drunk on the premises. That is a ``how long is a piece of string'' sort of qualification. It is probably not difficult to find a drunken person on any premises containing a significant number of people—one needs only to find a person who looks as if he has been there for a long time.

Under the Bill, the burden of proving that the relevant person and any persons employed by him took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness will lie on that person. One has only to put the allegation on the table and it is for the publican, manager or licensee to refute it. I am unhappy with that presumption. I understand the public policy objective of ensuring that landlords keep an orderly house, to use the old phrase, but I would be much happier if, prompted by the amendments, the Minister would look again at the wording, and if he would go further and reconsider the way in which we would have someone convicted. It seems wrong that a conviction should arise because one cannot prove a negative, rather than its being necessary to prove an offence.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us that his legal advice was that knowledge was necessary in order to permit drunkenness or violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct? It would imply that the knowledge was part of the offence.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I think that the Minister will respond to that in a moment. I do not know whether the Licensing Act 1964 includes a definition of the word ``drunk''. I presume that it does not. I presume that it is a matter of evidence and case law. Therefore, it is rendered more open to abuse and variable interpretation by magistrates or others who do not require the qualification of a breath test. We are talking about evidence such as singing and being red in the face.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to support the amendment and the tone of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. There will be real concern about how broadly the provision can be interpreted. If there is not a statutory definition of drunkenness—plainly, there is not—the wide powers that will be given will provide significant opportunity for prosecutions to occur. We must do better for those in the licensed trade, who will have enormous difficulty in enforcing the provision. It is not fair to impose that on the licensed trade without a set definition of drunkenness.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The purpose of the clause is to insert proposed new section 172A into the Licensing Act 1964. It will extend to all staff employed on licensed premises, rather than just the licensee, the responsibility to prevent drunkenness and disorder and not sell or serve alcohol to drunks. Section 174 of the 1964 Act has also been amended so that all staff, rather than just the licensee, would have the right to refuse to admit, or to expel from the licensed premises any person who is drunk, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly. The use of the power will enable all staff to take action to prevent the committing of offences under proposed new section 172A.

The amendments would qualify that significantly. Amendment No. 50 would mean that the relevant person named in proposed new section 172A could only commit the offence of permitting drunkenness or violent, quarrelsome or riotous conduct to take place in licensed premises if he did so knowingly. Amendment No. 49 would provide a new defence, which relates to proposed new section 172A(2), if he or she could show that the person became drunk other than on licensed premises, or that no reasonable person would have believed him to be drunk when he entered.

Amendment No. 50 is answered by the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on the hon. Member for Southwark and Disorderly—[Laughter.] I abase myself and apologise to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I know that he advises people to run away from burglars, but not, I think, from disorder.

The amendment would mean that the offence of ``knowingly'' permitting drunkenness would differ from the offence of permitting drunkenness under section 172. No justification exists for such a distinction because the use of the word ``permit'', in exactly the way to which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred, implies knowledge. The addition of the word ``knowingly'' is therefore unnecessary.

It is important to understand that proposed new section 172A does not apply to licensees. The offence in respect of holders of justices' licences is contained in section 172 of the Licensing Act 1964, but it is far older than that. It relates to the point about the definition of drunkenness. Case law on the offence goes back more than 100 years. That case law establishes that to permit implies power to prevent, and, therefore, knowledge that the person is drunk. That is the logical use of language that leads us to suggest that the word ``knowingly'' is not necessary.

Proposed new section 172A recognises that it is now not uncommon for pubs to be run by staff who are not holders of justices' licences. Licensees might be absent from the premises, and control might be in the hands of managers or other staff. Alternatively, the spouse of the licensee might be in control. Proposed new section 172A describes a ``relevant person'' as any person who works on the premises in any capacity, whether paid or unpaid, who has the authority to deal with such matters.

Amendment No. 49 would weaken the clause. First, the proposed defence would not be available to licensees covered by section 172 of the 1964 Act. A different regime would therefore apply to a manager running a pub who was not actually a licensee. That does not make sense.

Secondly, those in the licensed trade have known for more than 100 years that it is unlawful for a drunk to enter licensed premises. When the licensee or manager is aware of the drunk's arrival, his presence constitutes an offence. For example, it would be unlawful to serve a drunken person with a sandwich and black coffee, because his presence alone is an offence; he simply must not be there, and that has always been the case. The licensee and his agents are empowered by the 1964 Act to expel such people, and it is the duty of the police to assist them in doing so.

Amendment No. 49 would change the approach to the control of licensed premises; it would be all right to have drunks on the premises as long as they became drunk somewhere else. The law must remain that people who are drunk and disorderly, wherever they became drunk, should not be permitted on licensed premises, and it should be the responsibility of the people operating the licensed premises to keep them out. If they ignore that duty, they should be liable for prosecution.

Finally, the additional test that

``no reasonable person would have believed that he was drunken when he entered those licensed premises''

is unnecessary for the reason already given. The offence is one of permitting, which, as I have explained, implies knowledge.

The clause is important because the pattern is changing in the way that licences are offered, just as multinational corporations develop. However, we must not allow the change in the structure of the industry to weaken the obligation of the people on the premises, in whatever capacity and whoever they may be, to ensure that drunkenness and disorderly behaviour cannot take place on the premises.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister clarify two points of interpretation in proposed new section 172A(2)? First, are the two parts cumulative for the offence to be committed, so that a person has to be charged before it is proved that he or she is drunk? Secondly, will the burden of proving that all reasonable steps have been taken for preventing drunkenness be a ``beyond reasonable doubt'' or a ``balance of probabilities'' burden—in other words, a civil or a criminal burden? If it is a criminal burden, an unfair obligation may be placed on the defendant.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, the offences are cumulative, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, the ``all reasonable steps'' test is a criminal test; I am aware that that is tougher, but I defend that on the grounds that our aim is to recognise the changing nature of the industry and the obligation of licensees to ensure that the situation in the premises is properly supervised.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have no problem with the public policy issue, but I ask the Minister to think again about the latter point. It is extremely difficult for a defendant to satisfy a bench or jury that he or she took all reasonable steps beyond reasonable doubt. The police will arrive on the scene later; they will not have been there at the time of the events leading up to their arrival. The alleged drunk—the person who caused the problem—may say, ``No, they did not ask me'', or ``I was only asked once''. The landlord must not only say that he took all reasonable steps but prove it in a way that leaves no doubt at all, although he may be the only person present who is on the side of that argument. It may be that no one else is capable of giving circumstantial or additional evidence. I shall not vote against the clause, but I ask the Minister to take advice and consider whether that measure does not add a level of obligation that is not generally the case in licensing law.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will take further advice, but the public policy issues are important, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, which is why we have adopted our position.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I was going to press the Minister to give that assurance about the shifting burden. However, as he gave the assurance, I will say no more. We may want to return to the subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 124, in page 26, line 13, after `servant' insert `or'.

No. 125, in page 26, line 14, leave out first `or'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Power to make travel restriction orders

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 26, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—

`(a) to consider whether likelihood of reoffending would be realistically minimised by including in the sentence the making of a travel restriction order in relation to the offender.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 160, in page 26, leave out lines 40 to 45 and insert—

`(b) the court shall only impose an order if it considers that it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further offences of a similar nature.'.

No. 161, in page 27, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

`(c) the court shall state the reasons for its decision'.

No. 162, in page 27, line 5, leave out from `custody' to end of line 7.

No. 6, in page 27, line 6, after `years', insert—

`and not more than the same number of years as the sentence of imprisonment to which the offender was previously sentenced'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We wondered whether it might be helpful to refine the way in which subsection (2)(a) works, and that is what amendment No. 19 seeks to do. Amendment No. 160, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, relates to preventing the committing of further offences. Our amendment, which approaches the same subject in a slightly different way, would require the court

``to consider whether the likelihood of reoffending would be realistically minimised by including in the sentence the making of a travel restriction order in relation to the offender'',

and would replace the existing, wider requirement for the court

``to consider whether it would be appropriate for the sentence for the offence to include the making of a travel restriction order in relation to the offender''.

We believe that that further refinement might be helpful, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. However, I should point out that we are simply probing this issue.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 160 to 162 and 6. On Second Reading, we expressed our support for proposals to restrict drug traffickers' freedom to travel, but we gave notice that we would seek to amend the open-ended nature of the restrictions. Like us, the Minister will doubtless have received briefings from Liberty, which questions whether such a restriction is compatible with the European convention on human rights, the freedom of movement and the right to trade in goods and services throughout the European Union. I am sure that he will say that, as with all the other clauses, this one has passed some form of compatibility test. Indeed, the Government are hardly likely to table legislation that they do not believe complies with the European convention on human rights, but that does not guarantee that the clause does indeed comply.

There is no upper limit to the length of the orders. Although they will apply only to people who have been given prison sentences of four years or more, first-time offenders—as well as those who offend repeatedly—could be included. Amendment No. 160 would replace subsection (2)(b) to make it clear that

``the court shall only impose an order if it considers that it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further''

drug trafficking offences. A pre-sentence report might well state that, on the balance of probabilities, the offence was a once-only occurrence. Indeed, we might all imagine circumstances in which a person was used as, say, an unknowing mule. Amendment No. 161 would change the balance by requiring the court to

``state the reasons for its decision'',

whether or not it decides to impose a travel restriction order. At the moment, the norm is that a travel restriction order should be imposed, and reasons must be given for not imposing one. If our amendment were accepted, reasons would have to be given in either case.

Amendment No. 162 would remove the minimum restriction of two years and leave it to the discretion of the court. Amendment No. 6 would set a maximum time limit that is no more than the original prison sentence.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

This is an important clause and I am glad that the hon. Lady raised those points. It provides a new sentencing option for the courts: a travel restriction order. The reason for it is straightforward. The trade in illegal drugs is an international multi-million pound industry, which, in 1997, was estimated to have a turnover of approximately 8 per cent. of total international trade. That is an extraordinarily large figure, which shows the task that we are wrestling with. We believe that travel restriction orders will make it more difficult for drug traffickers to travel overseas, thereby helping to prevent or disrupt trafficking. That is one of the main objectives of the Government's drugs policy, which commands general support throughout the House.

The orders will be available when the courts impose a sentence of imprisonment of four years or more for a drug trafficking offence. That threshold has been chosen in accordance with the sentencing guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal to distinguish serious cases. In such cases, the courts will be under a duty to consider making a travel restriction order and if a court decides that a ban is not appropriate, it will be required to give reasons. The period of the order will run from the time of the offender's long-term release from custody--for example, on licence--and will last for a minimum of two years. Courts may also order the surrender of any United Kingdom passport.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the rationale for the minimum period of two years.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall come to that when I deal with the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 160 would have a similar effect. We intend the order to add to the range of powers available to the courts to deal with drug trafficking offenders and to be a discretionary measure, subject to the sentencing threshold stated, which was chosen to distinguish serious cases in accordance with Court of Appeal guidance. The effect of the amendments--I accept that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that they are probing amendments--would be to impose on the courts an unreasonable speculative requirement. The Government want the courts to make the judgment set out in subsection (2)(a) in lines 37 to 39--that is, whether a travel restriction order, in all the circumstances of the individual case, is an appropriate sentencing option. That requires a broader sentencing judgment than that suggested by amendments Nos. 19 or 160, both of which would require the court to speculate unreasonably.

Similarly, the Government are not suggesting that the mere imposition of a travel restriction order will necessarily prevent reoffending and I do not understand how a court could reasonably be asked to make such an assessment. The phrase ``similar offences'' in amendment No. 160 is too vague.

The amendments would also prevent the courts from applying travel restriction orders when they consider that to be an appropriate punitive sanction--I emphasise punitive. Overseas travel is a common prerequisite for drug traffickers and we are discussing international drug-dealing businesses. It is right that the courts should have the option of punishing those who abuse the freedom to travel with an appropriate sanction. The Government believe that for individuals convicted of drug trafficking offences, whose life style involves frequent overseas travel for pleasure or other purposes, the imposition of a travel restriction order may be an effective element in the overall punishment, as well as an appropriate and justifiable way of expressing society's condemnation of their unlawful activities. We do not accept that the conditions set out in amendments Nos. 19 or 160 are appropriate.

Amendment No. 6 is technically flawed because ``previously sentenced'' could refer to any previous offence. However, we believe that its broad intention is what the Government envisage in the new sentencing option--an escalator based on the sentence of imprisonment handed down at the same time. The record of our debate today will confirm that intention and the courts will be informed when notified of the introduction of the new power.

I cannot accept the amendment because it would unacceptably limit the discretion that we want to give to the courts and could have an adverse impact on the sort of offenders that we want to protect. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) gave the example of a single mother acting as a mule for a drugs gang. That is a serious offence, but the courts may decide that, in all the circumstances, an appropriate punishment would be a short prison sentence relative to the period of the travel restriction order. The Government do not want such discretion to be limited.

Amendment No. 161, as with amendments Nos. 19 and 160, has the clear intention of shifting the presumption of the use of travel restriction orders to only those cases in which the court believes that there is a strong likelihood of similar reoffending that would be prevented by imposition of a travel restriction order. I have explained that this is not the test or the rationale for travel restriction orders that the Government intend. I see no merit in requiring the courts to explain their reasons for making a travel restriction order. If an offender believes that an order was inappropriate in his or her case, the normal appeals mechanism provides a means of redress.

Amendment No. 162 seeks to remove the minimum duration for travel restriction orders. Clause 35 stipulates that the new orders will not run for less than two years and I hope that it is self-evident that for those orders to be given a chance to impact on drug trafficking activity, or to represent a meaningful punishment, a sensible minimum period for the prohibition on overseas travel is necessary.

Members of the Committee may not be aware that offenders released on licence are already subject to a ban on overseas travel, without the permission of their parole officer, for a set period of the licence. In the case of an offender sentenced to four years' imprisonment, that restriction would currently last for one year. In response to the hon. Lady's question, the reason for the two-year period is that the Government intend that travel restriction orders should be a tougher restriction on overseas travel than already exists under the terms of the parole licence, which would need to be more than one year. That is why we have set two years, which is a sensible and reasonable minimum period.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Will the Minister confirm that the restriction order would be an addition to the one-year restriction on travel under the licence?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was just taking advice on that point. No, it would not be an addition; it would be a parallel restriction. The offender would have one year under parole and an extra year in this situation. With your permission, Mr. Gale, I have dealt with that matter at some length because there will be public interest in the Government's intended application of the order. It was important to place on the record the thinking behind the various aspects of the order. I apologise for taking the Committee's time. I hope that, with those clarifications, hon. Members will consider withdrawing their amendments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I said in opening, we were simply seeking to probe. The Minister's comments have been helpful. We in the official Opposition definitely want to crack down on drug traffickers. It may help the Minister and, indeed, the Committee, if I say now that when we deal with clause 37 I do not propose to speak to amendment No. 18. The matters raised in our probing amendment, No. 19, on this clause are similar and the Minister has given us a full and adequate response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want briefly to refer to a constituency case that came to my attention. A constituent was convicted of a similar offence, but his job required him to work largely overseas, as part of the motor racing industry. On the face of clause 35 as it now stands, there is absolutely no appeal once the order has been imposed. When my constituent came to see me, I was convinced that he had every intention of being a good citizen. He was extremely remorseful about what he had done. His employment and his future financial success for his family depended on his being able to travel, because that was the nature of the industry in which he worked. I should have hoped, if a travel restriction had been imposed on him in those circumstances, for the capacity for some form of appeal against the travel restriction order, so that he should have the ability to convince a court or the Secretary of State, or simply for some mechanism by which that travel restriction could be changed. If I am correct in believing that there is no way of altering a travel restriction order as it stands on the face of the Bill, would the Minister consider before Report whether there should be some appeal mechanism in such circumstances?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I support the Government's general public policy intention. There should be a tough regime to deal with people trafficking in drugs who use trafficking and travelling to supply, getting people into addiction and sustaining their addiction, and in doing so making large profits for themselves . We are signed up to the Government's agenda in that respect.

I should like to ask a question relating not to UK passport holders, but to non-UK passport holders. Do the Government propose, under the Bill or existing legislation, to take powers to deal with people who are not UK passport holders in terms of equally restricting their movements? I ask that question also in the context of the EU-wide discussions in which the Home Secretary has been taking part. There should be the power, at least within the EU, to ensure that someone who has been convicted of drug trafficking in the UK but who is, let us say, a Dutch, Spanish, Italian or Swedish national, is as liable to lose their rights as a UK passport holder. It is entirely unsatisfactory that someone who would be caught in another nation state and brought before its courts cannot be dealt with in an equally severe and rigorous manner in this country. How does the law stand in that respect? Are proposals on the table to ensure that there is a common EU-wide mechanism for dealing with drug traffickers? The issue may go beyond the EU, but it would be encouraging if we could at least get it working within the EU.

After the debate on this clause I shall have to leave the Committee. I should have liked to be here, but I have another commitment in the House. That does not undermine my commitment to getting this part of the Bill right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton will fully look after our interests in that respect. I do not want my absence to be taken to mean a lack of interest in the next clauses.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's final remarks. I am aware of his commitment, and I assure him that if I am going to mention him in his absence I shall write to him beforehand.

With regard to appeal, according to clause 35(2)(a) and (b) it is a matter for the judge to decide how to deal with the situation. If they wish, the person concerned can appeal against that decision through the legal process. I understand the concerns of the motor racing constituent of the hon. Member for Reigate, but a pretty high test is involved. Orders are available only where the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of four years or more for a drug trafficking offence. The threshold was chosen in accordance with sentencing guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal to distinguish serious cases. The individual would have to have been fairly seriously involved. I cannot see how we could raise the threshold much higher, but there will be a right to appeal against the sentence.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about passports. A travel restriction order can be made whatever the nationality of the person concerned, and deportation is also an option. Passport confiscation is available in respect only of UK passports, because the passports of foreign nationals, whatever their domicile, remain the property of the issuing Government, not of Her Majesty's Government.

However, that does not weaken the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He was right to say that we are working hard to get much better EU co-operation on international crime, especially drug trafficking and trafficking in people, and to ensure that the agencies concerned are much more focused on those problems. That is the significance of the work that we have been doing in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which deals with such matters under the aegis of the EU. The Government can legitimately take some credit for trying to advance and accelerate the progress that is being made. I can confirm that EU Governments are engaged in active discussions about the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am encouraged by the Minister's comments. Will he confirm whether it is the Government's objective to secure an EU-wide system that would allow either for penalties to be imposed, following consultation, on behalf of the legal system of one of the other countries, or for the automatic reference back of the foreign national in question by the relevant UK court, which would guarantee further consideration of the matter? I understand that double jeopardy issues may be involved. However, the objective should be to prevent someone from escaping justice in a particular EU national court, and to rein in the various forms of trafficking to which the Minister has referred.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall not comment on the detail of the hon. Gentleman's question, because to be frank the relevant discussions are being conducted not by me but by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I am insufficiently familiar with the state of those discussions to comment on the Government's negotiating position in relation to that of other Governments. However, I can confirm that it is our policy goal to work properly in those ways, and I therefore hope that the clause can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I hope that it is in order for me to correct the record in respect of a statement that I made on clause 34. In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey during the stand part debate—and having taken advice on the hoof, as it were—I suggested that the burden of proof was criminal. However, my advisers have double-checked the matter and the offence in question is in fact civil, so the points that were made should reflect that fact, rather than the answer that I gave at the time.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Happily, that is not a point of order, but it is now a matter of record.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Revocation and suspension of a travel restriction order

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 28, leave out line 35.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 164, in page 28, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

`(2) The court shall revoke the order unless it considers it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further similar offences'.

No. 165, in page 29, line 6, leave out `exceptional'.

No. 166, in page 29, line 7, leave out `on compassionate grounds'.

Jackie Ballard rose—

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

It is no reflection on me that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has to leave the Committee at this precise moment.

The clause deals with the revocation and suspension of travel restriction orders. Both the wording of clause 35 and the Minister's response to amendments to it made it clear that the message to the courts is that travel restriction orders for drug traffickers are expected to be the norm rather than the exception. All of us want to eradicate drug trafficking and other forms of trafficking, but the issue is the duration of a travel restriction order and its impact on an offender's choices and life style on completion of a prison sentence.

Amendment No. 163 would delete the phrase

``after the end of the minimum period''.

If it were accepted, a first-time offender who received a four-year sentence—in this context, the minimum sentence—could apply for a revocation order before the two-year period was up, two years being the minimum period for which the travel restriction can be imposed.

Let us consider the first-time offender who is perhaps the na—ve mule to whom we referred earlier—I do not deny that in such a case an offence has none the less been committed—and who since release has led a blameless life for 18 months and secured a job involving overseas travel. If the amendment were accepted, in circumstances where imprisonment had proved successful in terms of rehabilitation it would be possible for that person to pursue their career by travelling overseas.

As it stands, subsection (2) makes it clear to the court that revocation is an exception to the rule. Again, that takes a pessimistic view of the rehabilitative role of a prison sentence. Such a view might reflect the reality of prison life, but it should not be reflected in the aims of the criminal justice system. Amendment No. 164, which would replace subsection (2) with a more positive wording, states:

``The court shall revoke the order unless it considers it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing further similar offences'.

Looking into my crystal ball, I can imagine that the Minister's response will be similar to his response to clause 35 in respect of a court's judging the likelihood of reoffending.

Amendment No. 165 clarifies the circumstances in which suspension can take place by removing the word ``exceptional''. I question how that word is defined. Let us imagine someone who has been served with a four-year travel restriction order, which would mean that he had been a serious offender, who is a United Kingdom citizen both of whose parents live in France—which is not so unusual these days, with free movement throughout the European Union—and who becomes seriously ill during those four years. The first time that the person goes to court to ask for a lifting of the travel restriction order, the court may say, ``Yes, this is an exceptional circumstance involving a seriously ill relative'', but on the second occasion, would that still be an exceptional circumstance? Would the Minister clarify that?

Amendment No. 166 would remove the words ``on compassionate grounds'', because if they remain in the Bill, the court will feel that it can lift the restriction order only in the event of serious illness or death, not for work-related reasons. I fully accept that it would not be inclined to lift the restriction order for a holiday, but if as part of someone's work he was asked to attend a conference in Paris, for example, ``compassionate grounds'' would imply to the court that that was not something on which to exercise its discretion—normally, one considers compassion to relate to illness or death, rather than to professional work.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The clause sets out the circumstances in which a person who is made the subject of a travel restriction order will be able to apply to the court for suspension or revocation of the order. Those are quite separate provisions and it may help if I explain the distinction.

Suspension is to cover circumstances where overseas travel is needed for urgent, exceptional, compassionate reasons, whenever that might arise after the travel ban takes effect. The explanatory notes cite the example of the need to travel overseas for urgent medical treatment. Applications for revocation are to cover other circumstances, where the offender wants to apply for the travel restriction to be lifted, such applications to be made after two years in the case of an order made for four years, four years for orders of between four and 10 years duration, and five years in all other cases. Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 deal with applications for temporary suspension, amendments Nos. 163 and 164 to applications for revocation.

I shall deal first with amendment No. 164 for brevity, because I dealt with the relevant arguments during debate on the previous clause. I shall not repeat those arguments, but simply urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment once she has had a chance to consider the points that I made.

Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 refer to applications for temporary suspension and would weaken the provision for such applications. Both would lessen the test to be applied by the courts when considering applications for suspension of travel restriction orders. That is unacceptable and would risk undermining the orders. An ''essential'' business appointment overseas—such as the example of a conference in Paris cited by the hon. Lady—might be offered as a reason to justify the suspension of the travel restriction order, and indeed there might be such a meeting or conference. However, that could all too easily provide a simple cover for illegal activities.

Indeed, if we do not make the sort of distinction that the Government have in mind, there would be little point in having separate suspension and revocation mechanisms. A drug trafficker bent on continuing his illegal trade could simply apply to have the order lifted as required, availing himself of sick relatives or urgent business trips as necessary. Under the lesser tests proposed by the amendments, such circumstances might all be reason to grant suspension of the travel restriction order.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

It sounds as though the Minister is suggesting that it will be easier for the courts to determine whether compassionate grounds exist—whether sickness is genuine—than to determine whether there is a genuine work-related reason for going abroad. I should have thought that in most circumstances it would be easier to produce documentary evidence of a work-related need to travel abroad than of the existence of a sick relative.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is true, but sick relatives are less common than business opportunities. I should have great difficulty inventing a sick relative in Paris because I do not have a relative in Paris, let alone a sick one. On the other hand, I should find it quite easy to invent a business event or conference that I needed to attend in Paris—even if the meeting actually took place—and to provide documentation to progress my application. The genuineness of the compassionate ground is much more restrictive, because the circumstances are far narrower. It is possible to invent fully documented activities in respect of business grounds in a wide variety of ways, which might require my presence although the real purpose of the visit was to continue conducting my drug trafficking arrangements. We worded subsection (3) so as to balance the need to respond appropriately in genuine exceptional compassionate circumstances and the desire to operate an effective sentencing regime.

Amendment No. 163 would remove the notion of the minimum period. If the amendment were accepted, a person subject to a travel restriction order would be able to apply to have that order lifted the day that it took effect, which would clearly be nonsense. In deciding whether to grant applications for revocation, the court will need to be able to consider the range of circumstances set out in subsection (4), including the conduct of the offender since the making of the order. Such a judgment can be made only after a passage of time as, by definition, taking account of that conduct—since release from prison, for example—depends on there being such a passage of time.

The amendment would give the court an incomplete picture on which to consider any application for revocation and weaken the effect of the clauses, so I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton will consider withdrawing it.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I anticipated the Minister's argument on amendment No. 164, and I am convinced by his argument on amendment No. 163, but not on amendments Nos. 165 and 166. I do not know what sort of school he attended but, having been a teacher as well as a pupil, I know that it is common for people to invent a host of sick relatives who prevented them from doing their homework or attending school.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In my school there was plenty of creativity in those areas, too, but people did not invent sick relatives in other countries.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I hope that the Minister will forgive my saying so, but there was probably less travel between European countries than there is now. I am not suggesting, of course, that he was at school so very long ago.

I am not convinced that it is more difficult to invent a sick relative than a work-related reason to go abroad. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Intimidation of witnesses

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The official Opposition have pressed for the introduction of new powers in law to prevent intimidation or threats of witnesses in previous legislation. We welcome the fact that the Government have introduced such a provision here, and we do not intend to block it. However, I was personally involved in some debates on other Bills in which we called for such measures and said that an early opportunity should be found to bring forward legislation. We are pleased that the Government have responded.

The provisions are, sadly, necessary at this point in time. That was reinforced for me during a visit in a neighbouring constituency with one of the Minister's colleagues—the Solicitor-General. He was making an official visit to the Crown Prosecution Service for the south-east, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I was visiting as a neighbouring Member and a shadow Minister. Both the Solicitor-General and I were surprised to hear that a notorious family of criminals from another area had not only been threatening witnesses but issuing personal threats and taking action against a senior prosecutor. I would not want to exacerbate the problem by drawing attention to the people concerned, but it was happening to someone involved in the administration of justice at a senior level, who suffered serious fears about what was being threatened against him and members of his family. If people involved in the administration of justice can be subject to attempts by serious criminals to exercise such intimidation, how much more necessary is it to protect witnesses and potential witnesses? We fear greatly that we may have to return to the matter and consider yet stronger powers than the Government are introducing in this and the subsequent two related clauses. Although we welcome the fact that action is being taken in response to calls that the Opposition have made for some time, it may be necessary to go even further. However, we do not want to delay the Bill's passage by tabling amendments, as it is worth seeing how the protections that it will introduce will operate.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I do not want to take up too much time. The clause relates to the intimidation and protection of witnesses. A lot of progress has been made on the treatment of victims and on recognition that they need to be kept informed at every stage of the process. However, there is not yet enough understanding of how witnesses feel. Many people are reluctant to come forward as witnesses, especially in relation to serious crime. Even if the crime is less serious, potential witnesses might not want the hassle of going to court.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

I do not know whether it will affect the hon. Lady's remarks if I point out that the clause relates primarily to witnesses in civil cases and the small category of criminal cases that are not provided for under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is designed for someone who would be a potential witness in a domestic violence or antisocial behaviour case, rather than one relating to a serious crime.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. He spotted that I was taking the opportunity to say something more general.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

He is very clever.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Yes, he is too clever for me. I will not develop the point that I was going to make.

As hon. Members will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has a special interest in criminal matters. However, he wanted me to make a couple of points on his behalf in this context. What steps are being taken or are envisaged to encourage witnesses to come forward in future? His second point might relate more to criminal proceedings, but not necessarily exclusively. It concerns the ability of witnesses to be moved before the trial takes place. He says that the current system is a complete lottery and depends partly on how well local authorities co-operate. He suggests that witnesses could be moved to a network of addresses or accommodation. I can imagine all sorts of practical difficulties in that, but I would be grateful if the Minister were to tell us the Government's thinking on the matter.

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

As I mentioned, the clause relates to new powers to provide similar protection for witnesses in civil cases and other categories of criminal cases as is currently provided under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act provides for protection of witnesses purely in criminal cases.

The hon. Lady asked what is being done to encourage witnesses. I assure her that the Government are committed to encouraging witnesses. She might be interested to know that we are currently rolling out an additional programme to make Victim Support available at all 413 magistrates courts following an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in February 1999. I had the pleasure of visiting the Birmingham magistrates court Victim Support service on Monday. It provides an excellent service. Victim Support is well recognised in Crown courts and now operates in magistrates courts as well. We look forward to the rolling out of that programme during the next two years. Support will also be provided for witnesses in civil cases in the magistrates court, notably in family cases in which, I am afraid, there is as much intimidation of witnesses as in many criminal cases.

The hon. Lady also referred to the moving of witnesses' accommodation prior to trial. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was extremely brave and prepared to go public in his support for witnesses in a recent case. He received commendations from across the political spectrum for the stance that he took.

The hon. Member for Taunton is right in that if Whitehall imposed a ``one size fits all'' system, it would cause enormous administrative inconvenience. I assure her that I shall pass her observations to the Home Office, which is co-ordinating the Government's approach to support witnesses, and ensure that they are taken into consideration before any decisions are taken. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Extension to older children

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We referred earlier to the problems faced by those at the sharp end—police constables and sergeants. There are particular worries about the Government's failure so far to introduce an effective curfew regime. When Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, was asked recently what he thought about curfews and the Government's proposals, and whether he had the numbers to enforce the curfews, he said:

``No, we have not...We have insufficient people patrolling and don't have the people with time to devote to this particular problem...At the moment, the current law applies to the under-10s. Whilst there are some out-of control nine-year olds, and we do encounter nine-year-olds who are burgling at night, causing major problems in their community, intimidating people, committing damage and being generally unruly, the larger, problematic group is the under 16s.''

That is obviously why the Government are talking about older age groups. Fred Broughton said that that was originally the Police Federation's suggestion, but that the Government rejected it. They have now learnt some sense as a result of their existing law being unworkable. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I both told the Government that that would not work when they came up with their original proposals.

Fred Broughton went on to say:

``But a larger group will require more police resources. Curfews are also highly bureaucratic and forces have been telling me they can't break through the bureaucracy to implement them in the first place.''

The Government may have learnt a lesson in terms of the age group and realised that we and the Police Federation were right when we objected to the original proposals. However, they have not learnt a lesson about bureaucracy. It may help the Committee if I say that, although we will certainly return to this subject on Report, I shall not invite my hon. Friends to vote against clause 43, but I shall invite them to vote against clause 44 because that is entirely over-bureaucratic.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is bad enough being bureaucratic by introducing a proposal that would not work in respect of local authorities. If the Government want to extend the age, so be it, but to impose such bureaucracy on the police would be wrong.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is right. What he said reinforces how misleading the Government's spin has been on the matter, as it has been on so many other subjects. In March 1999, the Home Secretary told the Association of Local Government and the Metropolitan police that the Government's original proposals for child curfews would

``serve the dual purpose of protecting the community and young children.''

The proposals have patently failed and the Police Federation are reporting from forces thoughout the country that they have failed.

In June 1996, when Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister told the national press that child curfews were ``eminently sensible'' and that they would tackle

``young children wandering the streets at night, getting into trouble, growing into a life of criminality.''

He went round the country making such statements. However, when the Labour party came into power, it produced something that was bureaucratic and unworkable. Unfortunately, it has not learnt its lesson. I do not want to take up much time of the Committee. I just wanted to raise a matter of general principle. While we do not oppose the clause, we think that the Government are not learning lessons from the failure of their policies. While we shall return to the matter on Report, we will definitely formally reject the following clause.

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

Given the level of opposition and the derision that the clause received on Second Reading, I was surprised that no amendments had been tabled to it. Opposition Members have made their position clear to a certain extent, although I am not sure that it is consistent.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this clause and clause 44 build on the foundation of failure? What is the purpose of trying to amend such a failure?

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

Supposedly building on the foundation of failure, I find it odd that the Opposition do not intend to oppose clause 43.

Uniquely among the members of the Committee, I am still a serving councillor and have been so for the past eight years. During that time, I have seen the great majority of complaints at my surgeries and the telephone calls to my home change from issues related mainly to housing to issues relating to youth behaviour and neighbourhood problems with which the clause deals.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is the Labour Government for you.

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

No, the past eight years since 1991. I appreciate that Opposition Members have not had the benefit of the literacy and numeracy hours that were introduced by the Government. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order.

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

May I continue? Comments have been made about the so-called failure to take any action on the legislation that is based on the 10-year deadline. That is because, while 10-year-olds can be and, indeed, often are involved in group antisocial activity in certain locations, it is rarely solely 10-year-olds. Unless the age limit is extended, the opportunity for the proposals to be effective is limited. Happily, the proposals deal with the problem.

My experience of complaints is that there are hotspots in certain localities. Sometimes, young people take an exception to groups of elderly persons and find them easy to intimidate and, on occasions, terrorise. Sometimes, the construction of a certain site causes problems. A convenient wall or a specified area within a housing estate may lend itself easily to young people's congregating there. At other times, empty premises can provide a convenient squatting area plus an opportunity to vandalise and pick up materials that can be distributed throughout the area, to the dismay of all the neighbours. Sometimes, the location of shops may be the problem; any shop that stays open at night provides a convenient pool of light in the dark and is a magnet to young people who want a place to congregate. Other members of the public have to make their way through a barrier of young people, which may add an extra intimidatory factor. We want to remove the opportunity for young people to intimidate others in those spots.

Previously, complaints have been made to the police, who are often overworked and cannot get to the area in time to deal with the problem. If they manage to turn up, it is difficult for them to discover the main perpetrators and distinguish between them and the hangers on. They are also limited in their powers to move groups on. Groups can be intimidatory simply by virtue of being a group; they may not be engaged in anything identifiably antisocial. Elderly people are intimidated by large groups of young people in closely defined locations.

When the police are unable to do anything, they may pass the buck to the local authority, which may then say that it is really a matter for the police. That means that no action can be taken, to the increasing frustration of local residents.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I am worried by the implication of the hon. Gentleman's comments. He seems to mean that, because the police cannot deal with the problem of young people in numbers who intimidate other people in the community, a geographical blanket curfew should be enforced. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is an appropriate response to the situation that he has described?

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

No. I am saying that this legislation may be appropriate for dealing with identifiable hotspots.

As for the alleged bureaucracy, it was implicit in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that local authorities, the police and the community had to work in tandem. The legislation will not be successful unless those parties work together. The police and local authorities are unlikely to respond unless there is a problem in an area, defined by the complaints made by local people.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

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

I shall curtail my remarks, because we do not have injury time in Committee. Most local authorities and police forces have well-established mechanisms by which particular processes may be determined without any increase in bureaucracy. The Government's funding policies mean that police numbers are rising—they are certainly rising in the West Midlands force—so I do not anticipate the strain on police manpower that concerns Opposition Members.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

The hon. Gentleman asked why the child curfew order clauses received such derisory opposition on Second Reading—only one amendment was tabled. The Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to both clauses and would have considered an amendment to remove them, which would have been unacceptable. I want a vote on clause 43, which I shall vote against. I will also vote against clause 44 if there is a Division.

We opposed the imposition of the original child curfew orders for under-10s and—along with other members of the Committee—we are unaware of any occasions on which they have been used. We were concerned by the wide-ranging nature of the powers. Those concerns are increased by the proposals to extend the orders to age 16 and to allow their imposition by a chief of police acting alone, rather than by a local authority. In terms of civil liberties, the extension to age 16 is far worse. Although most reasonable people would argue that a 10-year-old should not be out on the streets after 9 o'clock in almost any circumstances, it is clearly unreasonable to argue that a 15 or 16-year-old should not.

Our major concern is that child curfew orders target geographical areas with blanket bans on the activities of young people instead of on individuals who are causing problems. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that the police may find it difficult to identify the perpetrator. That is not an excuse to blame everyone.

We expressed concern about the impact of the Human Rights Act on the previous legislation, and whether it was compliant. I suspect that no orders have been applied for because local authorities have felt unable to show that such orders would be a proportionate response to a problem or necessary in a democratic society. I also suspect that the Minister will refer to Scotland and the Strathclyde scheme, because that has been prayed in aid when the matter has been discussed in the House. However, there is a fundamental difference because, in Scotland, curfew orders are not imposed in isolation but are part of a wider scheme that includes investment and activities for young people so that there is less motivation and need for them to hang about on street corners causing trouble.

We are worried about the practical effect of blanket curfew orders. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred to police availability and time. If the police are available to enforce sanctions and curfew orders, surely they would be available to deal effectively with young people who are breaking the law. Imposing a blanket curfew order could prevent innocent young people who are out on legitimate business from entering the curfew area. They may stray into a curfew area unknowingly, because they could not be expected to know what part of a city or town is subject to a curfew. If they were aware of it, they might decide to go home by a different route, which could be less familiar and perhaps more dangerous.

I strongly believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that strategies should be encouraged to allow the police and local authorities to deal with individual young people who cause problems, but not to cover a whole area and to add to the bad name that teenagers are often given. I am distressed if elderly people feel intimidated by the presence of teenagers, but that is not a reason to lock up those teenagers if they are doing nothing wrong.

I recall, in the dim and distant past when I was a teenager, that teenagers enjoyed just hanging about. I enjoyed hanging about on the steps of the cenotaph in the middle of the small town where I lived just to see who else was hanging about. Hon. Members will remember that hormones are rampant during teenage years and teenagers are often interested in seeing which members of the gender to which they happen to be attracted are hanging about at the same time. For many teenagers, that is the main purpose of hanging about, and I should hate us to be killjoys and decide that that is not a legitimate activity for teenagers.

A blanket curfew order on a geographical area because some teenagers have been causing a problem is similar to keeping the whole class in after school because one or two pupils have misbehaved. I want to press the amendment to a vote. I may be on my own on this, but that does not mean that I am wrong.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall be brief because our time has been curtailed by the Division. This debate is more political than some of our previous debates and I want to deal quickly with the main points.

My very good friend, Fred Broughton, has never, to my knowledge, said that there were too many police officers in Britain. Whenever an issue arises, he and the Police Federation reasonably say that they need more police officers. I shall not rehearse the debate and the fact that police numbers are rising for the first time since 1993--between a third and a half of forces already have more police officers than in March 1997, and that process will continue--because that is not relevant to this debate.

On the impact of the curfew, I want to emphasise that a two-pronged approach is required to deal with youth disorder. One prong is a range of activities, such as the youth improvement programmes under the youth justice scheme, out-of-school schemes and genuine activities for young people so that they do not just hang out at cenotaphs and so on. The other is an exceptional range of sanctions that can be applied to young people who are disorderly in their behaviour and cause misery for other people, because that is not acceptable.

The political points made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West were a bit ripe. He put his arguments exceptionally powerfully. I recall visiting him during his election campaign and meeting a group of ethnic minority community leaders in his constituency to discuss various issues. They raised the problems that their communities were experiencing from precisely that type of youth disorder. Labour won the by-election convincingly, even though the Conservatives were expected to do so. The electors of West Bromwich, West are extremely fortunate to have my hon. Friend as their Member. It was because they were concerned about those issues and they believed that the Labour party had policies to deal with them that he was elected in that critical by-election. The political point needs to be understood in that context.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No.

The question of sanctions is important in relation to the bureaucracy argument. I saw a most interesting presentation from Chief Inspector Ron Hope, the commander of the Islington borough, with the housing department of Islington Council, about acceptable behaviour contracts under which young people are required to sign up to behave in an acceptable way, with the housing officer, the police, and the parent. The sanction against them is the application of such orders. The existence of the sanction has led to children ranging in age from eight to 19 following the terms of those contracts. That scheme has been running over the past few months and has been extremely effective. It has now been taken up as a standard form of contract with the Metropolitan police.

We need sanctions to deal with the situation. It is not a question of building on a foundation of failure. We inherited the ``no such thing as society'' generation from our predecessors and we are seeking to put back the strong communities and strong society that we need.

I hope that the official Opposition will put their votes where their mouth is on the clause. We have heard from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and others a great string of weasel words on curfews, and general cynicism and undermining. They are entitled to express themselves in that way, but they should have the courage to vote against the clause and stand with the Liberal Democrats, though for different reasons. The Liberal Democrats' position is based on their view of civil liberties, and I understand that, but the official Opposition should have the courage to vote as they feel. They should stop their mealy-mouthed words and decide that they are either for or against the measure. Let us see where the vote is and what the people think.

I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the clause.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 1.

Clause 44 - Power for police to make schemes

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 34, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

I am surprised that the official Opposition do not have a position on the extension of child curfew orders to teenagers under 16. I have made clear my position and I shall not take up much of the Committee's time in moving the amendment, because we do not want either clause to be in existence. However, accepting that it was likely that clause 43 would be passed, we decided to try to improve clause 44.

The idea of the measure is that the public should not be subject to intimidation from large groups of young people, but when the Government talked initially about the provision for under 10-year-olds, they said that child welfare was the key issue. Local authorities were to make child curfew orders, because they have to provide for the education and welfare of children, through social services, youth services and a whole raft of measures that may give young people alternatives to hanging about on street corners. To say, as the clause does, that the police can also have the power to make local child curfew orders, independently of local authorities, which are reduced to the level of consultees, is to move away from any pretence of considering child welfare and into the sphere of criminal sanctions.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The amendment would remove the provision that allows the chief officer to apply for a scheme. It is technically defective—although I do not criticise it on that basis—in that it would remove subsection (2), yet subsections (3), (4) and (5) would make no sense without it.

The Government's position is that partnership is where we ought to be. The police are a front-line service and they must work in partnership with local authorities, which is the central function of the clause. Partnership is a two-way process, which is why the initiating role can be played either by the local authority or by the police. They work in partnership in practice, as is required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the crime reduction partnerships, which is the right way to proceed.

I understand the hon. Lady's general concerns, but I am genuinely surprised that she thinks that it is wrong to give the police as much power as local authorities to initiate action in such circumstances, given the proviso that both are required to work in conjunction with each other in accordance with the 1998 Act and the various partnerships. It is appropriate that both local authorities and the police should be able to initiate action.

I hope that the hon. Lady will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. If she decides to press it to a vote, I hope that the official Opposition will have the guts to vote as they should.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

If the clause was about genuine partnership, it would have said that the chief of police should consult the local authority and then, if they are both in agreement, either can initiate the procedure. As it stands, if the chief of police consults the local authority and it says, ``No, we think there are better ways of dealing with the problem'', he can go ahead anyway. The clause would permit that state of affairs, which would be a bad example of partnership.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely reject both what the Minister said in the previous debate about the official Opposition's position and his completely specious assertion that police numbers are going up. He appears to believe that, just because the Home Secretary says that provision will be made for recruiting more police, more will automatically be conjured up. In most areas, the numbers recruited have so far not made up the shortfall caused by the collapse in police morale that those in the Police Federation and others repeatedly comment on, which, as the Minister knows perfectly well, is the direct result of Labour Government policy. Consequently, in areas such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate—

David Lock (Labour, Wyre Forest)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, I will not. There is little time, and I want to reinforce the fact that our position on child curfews is absolutely clear.

I said at the outset of the debate on clause 43 that I intended to invite my hon. Friends to vote with me against clause 44, because the mischief lies in the bureaucracy. The Minister cannot claim that the original Labour legislation was a success—we know that child curfews have failed, because there have not been any. The legislation was wrong, as we pointed out at the time. To echo the words of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, we treated the matter with derision because it was such a catastrophic failure. The Minister should apologise to the Committee and to the nation for introducing a completely unworkable policy.

The Minister dismisses Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, as—allegedly—a friend of his who only ever calls for more police. The quotation from him that I read out went much further than that: he said that the measure that the Government introduced is completely unworkable. We know that, because it has not been used. This bureaucracy will be equally unworkable, which is why we reject the clause and will vote against it.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I share my hon. Friend's displeasure at the Minister's remarks about our attitude to the stand part debate on clause 43.

There have been no child curfew orders on children under the age of 10, and the scheme that the Government introduced in the 1998 Act was wholly unworkable. It is a question of judgment as to whether extending it to the age of 16 would make it more workable. I may not want to support the Government directly or oppose the extension of the schemes, and I do not believe that the Government should attack me for taking such a view on the measure. They should allow me to express my neutrality. I am also extremely suspicious when the Government are determinedly anxious that we should take a view one way or the other. If we were to support the proposal, and the practical merits of extending it to 16 are that it works in as non-existent a fashion as it worked up to 10, we would be lined up as supporting the Government's measures. If we were to oppose it, and it did not work in exactly the same way as it worked for those under 10, the Government would no doubt use their spin machine to misrepresent the Opposition, who, as Conservatives, have always wanted to support good order, proper public behaviour and responsibility. If the measures were going to deliver that, we would support them. However, there are serious questions about their practicality, which is why I believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

To address the clause directly, the provision has come into disrepute because local authorities have not found any occasion on which to make it work, although they might be able to make it work if the age range is extended to 16. I suspect that the Government's motivation is that they want to widen the ability of the police as well as local authorities to make such orders, so that they can at least say that some orders have been introduced. Currently, the provision is falling into disrepute because not a single order has been introduced.

The police have enough to do without being burdened by such provisions. The decision as to which authority should implement the provision should be straightforward. It should be one or the other. On the basis of conversations that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West had with people whom he represented as a councillor, the greater weight of concern is about child misbehaviour. As a member of a local authority, he would have been able to make those representations. At least it would be clear if it were solely local authorities' responsibility to initiate such orders. The Government were therefore probably correct when they attempted to introduce the measure for the first time in the 1998 Act. The fact that the age was 10 meant that the provision has not worked at all in practice. Raising the age to 16 at least gives it a chance to be applied.

It is wrong to introduce the police into the process. If the police want to initiate such matters, I am sure that they would be able to approach the local authority to invite them to do so. It should be the proper democratic responsibility of the local authority to make the orders as they see fit. That should be part of the new relationship that police and local authorities are trying to establish. Police boundaries have, in many instances, been aligned directly with those of local authorities. That has happened in my county of Surrey, and the Metropolitan police has reorganised itself to align with borough boundaries. That process should be happening; the police should be capable of talking to local authorities. Since the Labour party has become a rather more respectable institution and one rather more interested in law and order issues—that is, compared to the state that it was in during the 1980s. It is merely more respectable than it was; I did not say that it was respectable.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I think that what my hon. Friend intended to say was that the Labour party may superficially be pretending to be more respectable. Does he agree that the most interesting thing to come out of this debate was the hon. Member for Taunton pointing out that the most wonderful training for becoming a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament was hanging around on the streets doing little of any use?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I note what my hon. Friend says in respect of the hon. Member for Taunton.

My point is that most local authorities, under whichever political control, are now rather more likely to talk to the police. Some Labour councils have been deeply antipathetic to people in uniform, notably the armed services, and have not allowed the armed services to attend recruiting fairs in schools, for example. However, by and large, there is now much greater co-operation between local authorities and the police, which is why I oppose the police being given the powers, because in most circumstances if the police consider that there is a problem they will be able to talk to their local authorities and invite them to initiate the powers. The extension introduced by the clause is unnecessary; that is why I oppose it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I apologise because, as I anticipated, I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. Although I have not yet read the transcript, I share the views that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton expressed in my absence. Child curfew schemes should not be extended as proposed, and although the Committee has now agreed to that extension, they should certainly not be issued at the behest of the police rather than the democratic local authority, as the hon. Member for Reigate said. If the police cannot persuade the local authority, they have a pretty thin case. The local authority has local democratic accountability in a way that the police do not. Those who are elected can be dealt with accordingly by the electorate.

In her defence, may I say that I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton never hung around without clear purpose—[Laughter]—and, because she briefed me specifically on this point, she believes, as do I, that it may be rather good preparation for people, before they become Members of Parliament, to hang around occasionally to see what really happens on the street, rather than hiding themselves away in places where they do not have as much contact with reality.

I have been party to all the arguments about what happened in Strathclyde and elsewhere in Scotland. In my constituency, where, as everywhere else, the issue is live, all my conversations with the Metropolitan police, from the most senior to the most junior level, have confirmed that it did not seek the power and does not anticipate that it would need or use it. To borrow from what the Home Secretary said last week, the police want to concentrate on the criminal, the offender, rather than on the generality of the area or neighbourhood.

It will do no good to communities with high crime to be singled out as areas in which curfews are in place. That will reduce property prices and only attract more trouble and difficulty. I expect that, as with junior curfew orders, they will probably never happen; if they do, it will probably be for a short time. The police want to get on with dealing with the troublemakers; those who are lawfully going about their business should be allowed to do so, whether they are under or over 16. It is going down the wrong road in the wrong direction to be thinking of curfews for teenagers on their way to adulthood. That is another worrying example of the illiberal tendency that too often reasserts itself at the heart of the Government.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have argued the points already and I do not want to add anything to them. I urge the Committee to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour, Bradford South)

I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that under the sittings motion, business would normally terminate automatically at Five o'clock. However, in the interests of tidiness and completeness, I will accept the motion. The Committee will sit again at 10.30 on Tuesday morning with Mr. Hood in the Chair. I trust that those members of the Committee heading north will find more clement weather than during the past week, and I am sure that all of our good wishes go with the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), given the traumatic circumstances that his constituents have faced this week. I wish all the Committee a peaceful and productive weekend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 6 March at half-past Ten o'clock.