Criminal Justice and Police Bill

House of Commons, 10 May 2001.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 25. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1 — Offences leading to penalties on the spot

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that the Government do not intend to divide the House on any of the Lords amendments that we shall consider this afternoon, including Lords amendment No. 35 to clause 126, on which the Government were defeated in the other place yesterday. I shall briefly set out the reasons for that in relation to each group of amendments when we come to them.

At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the Opposition--both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in this House and the other place--because we have all sought to work co-operatively and constructively to achieve a situation in which the Bill can be dealt with as effectively as possible. That is reflected in the amendments before us.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The Bill has been subject to a new form of scrutiny under the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Obviously, given the time scale, there has not been time to debate the Committee's report. Given the comments of the Father of the House yesterday about Parliament needing greater powers of scrutiny, will my hon. Friend comment on the grilling that he and his officials were given by the Committee and, in particular, on whether that was a constructive approach? It would benefit the House to know that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am happy to comment on that briefly. I was the first Minister to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the implications of the legislation, and that was a substantive and critical process. The Committee's report was positive and constructive and opens up ways in which we can address human rights issues more effectively. Many fears have been expressed about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for many aspects of public life. So far, however, the courts' decisions on those questions, including the High Court's decisions on planning yesterday, indicate that the Act can improve and enhance the way in which we work without jeopardising the traditional way in which we have done things in this country. The work of the Joint Committee, to which my hon. Friend referred, is important in that regard, and I pay tribute to its report.

The amendments will remove two offences from the list under clause 1 to which fixed penalty notices apply. That will mean that penalty notices cannot be issued for offences of criminal damage or offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Amendments were tabled in Committee by Lord Cope, Viscount Bridgeman and Baroness Buscombe. As a result of an extremely constructive debate in the other place and after careful consideration, we are content to omit both offences from the list of those for which penalty notices can be issued. That will allow time for further consideration of the practicalities of how the penalty notice scheme will operate in relation to such offences. The affirmative order procedure can then be used to put back in whatever is agreed.

I acknowledge that, in Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised many concerns about high level criminal damage and that well-motivated amendments were tabled by his colleagues in the other place; they were trying to improve the law, not adopting a pettifogging or nitpicking approach.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

What is it about those two offences that distinguishes them from the others? Why has the Minister agreed to the removal of just those two from the list?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

There was a different reason for removing each offence. In Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a series of arguments about criminal damage. He said that, with the higher level of criminal damage, there was a danger of the fixed penalty notice procedure being used to evade the full possibility of higher level criminal sanctions. I think that he would acknowledge that I made it clear that that was not our intention and that we were dealing only with offences that caused a lower level of criminal damage. However, there was the ambiguity to which he drew attention in Committee, as did his noble Friends in the other place. We therefore decided to remove the offence from the list.

On the public order offence, it was argued in the other place and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee--he can speak for himself in this debate--that it was important to have a clear record of individuals who had been involved in such offences. Concern was expressed that without such a record, the fixed penalty notice procedure could undermine what the police sought to achieve more generally.

We did not entirely accept that argument. We did not think that it had as much force as the criminal damage point that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, but we thought that it was not an insubstantial point. Because secondary legislation will allow us to revisit the matter, we were prepared to accept the amendments tabled in the other place. That was our reason for picking those two offences out of the list of eight--I think that that was the original number--offences under the fixed penalty notice procedure. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment tabled by the Lords.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

May I say how pleased I am that the other place has agreed the two amendments? As the Minister said, the matters were discussed in Committee. The argument for omitting the two offences from the fixed penalty notice regime was based partly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on Second Reading, and partly on our analysis of fixed penalty notices.

Fixed penalty notices should deal with the most minor offences of their type. They are not for more serious matters. As my hon. Friend pointed out on Second Reading, if a more serious offence of criminal damage was dealt with under this procedure, first, there would be a problem with compensation, which is payable only on conviction, and secondly, the procedure would not mark the event adequately. Serious offences of criminal damage are serious matters.

We took the view that public order offences are serious and that the fixed penalty notice regime was not entirely suitable. As the Minister observed, and as I pointed out previously, it is important that we know who is committing public order offences and that we have a record so that if, for example, we want to identify those who are guilty of football hooliganism in order to implement the appropriate provisions, or if we want to deal with those who are conspicuous in their activities on May day, we know how many times those people have committed public order offences and broadly what they have done. That was the thinking behind the amendments. I am pleased that the Minister agrees that the Lords amendments should stand.

There has not been an opportunity for members of the Committee to thank the staff, the police and the Chairman of the Committee. I shall say nothing further about the Committee stage. There is still a motion on the Order Paper, which I am glad will not be debated. However, it is right to put on record our thanks to the staff and all those who helped us in Committee, as we would have done if the Committee had ended in the normal way.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We support the amendments. The Government and colleagues will remember that our view was that the list of fixed penalty offences was far too long. To correct the Minister's recollection, there were 12 offences in the list that the Government wanted added. We thought that some of them were too serious to be the subject of fixed penalty notices, and some were not serious enough. We took the view that if the Government had been doing their work properly, they would have provided for other offences to be added, but allowed for separate consideration of those offences in due course, without pressure, rather than picking out of the consultation process such a motley group of offences.

The amendments whittle down the group of offences from 12 to 10. To that extent, the Bill has been improved and brought nearer to what we sought to achieve. However, it is still not ideal and contains offences that are inappropriate for the application of fixed penalty notices. It is sad that we must now proceed by amending legislation in future to get the matter right, rather than by deciding it through the secondary statutory instrument procedure that is otherwise available to us.

Neither the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) nor I engaged in the debate that we could have had a moment ago, as such discussion would have eaten into the time that is allowed us. However, I want to place on record one of the frustrations of the way in which the Bill has been considered--a frustration that does not apply only to amendments such as those before us. The process has ensured that the flagship Bill of this Session has been rushed through this House, pushed under pressure in the other place and then guillotined in its final stage. We all understand that matters are curtailed when the Dissolution of Parliament is announced and we make no complaint about that. However, it is entirely unsatisfactory to allow flagship legislation to be chopped for debate in the House of Commons, pressurised into less debate in the Lords and then chopped and curtailed again in this House. I regret that that process ensures that, although there are matters proper for debate, we will have the minimum time available--one hour--to debate them. The amendments improve the Bill, but in our view, they do not improve it enough. Of course, I expect that we will speak about some of its remaining defects later.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

As always, I declare an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and a deputy district judge.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I have been made a little happier, as the amendments remove two of the potentially more serious offences from the clause, so that we can see how it works. The problem with an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is that the top end of the scale is quite nasty and can be very serious.

If a youngster tells a policemen to "something off"--the House will know what I could have said--his action can be used by the police as a section 5 offence. That happens a lot in London. I would be a little unhappy if such an offence were to get a ticket. There is sometimes a risk of moving into the criminal sphere matters that it does not encompass, and the large scale of section 5 means that it is right for the specified offence to be removed from the clause. Likewise, for the reasons so eloquently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, there is an argument for removing the criminal damage aspect of the clause.

The Minister should note that the clause nevertheless contains two potentially troubling offences. First, it refers to

"Using a public telecommunications system for sending a message known to be false in order to cause annoyance."

I assume--and I should know--that that does not cover bomb hoax calls, which are dealt with by separate legislation and are a very serious matter.

The sending of false messages by telephone can be nasty. I am trying to think of examples. Certainly, the act of knowingly giving a false alarm to a fire brigade can be serious. The inclusion of such offences in such a small provision is odd. It is hard to say whether it is over the top to suggest that such offences can be serious and ask whether they can be just as serious as, for example, the bottom end of the specified criminal damage offence or of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I know from my colleagues on the stipendiary bench that they sometimes treat wasting police time or giving false report as very serious. I appreciate that the Minister intends that those offences should be suitable for a ticket only when they are at the bottom end of the scale. However, the wide-ranging nature of the issue means that it will involve the exercise of a certain amount of discretion by people whom I hope will be trained or adequately qualified to exercise it.

The Minister will know that what was then the metropolitan stipendiary bench was not consulted before the Bill was produced. That was extraordinary because 90 per cent. of all crime is tried in magistrates courts. The stipendiary bench, as it was, takes the lead in all crime in inner-city areas and, as he knows, is full of experts. It is too late to do anything about that now, but in future when he is consulting or discussing how the legislation is working I hope that he will not forget to consult that element of our judiciary.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First, I can give the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) a general assurance on future consultation of stipendiary magistrates. Secondly, I was remiss in not extending thanks to the people who served the Committee. I was unwilling to bring back to the House the memory of the disgraceful events at the end of the Committee, which brought Parliament, the Conservative party and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) into such disrepute. I am sure that the country will be aware of that during the coming general election campaign. It is absolutely right to pay tribute to all those who helped us in Committee: the Clerks, Doorkeepers, Hansard, my officials in the Home Office who were assiduous throughout the process, and all members of the Committee.

I do not accept the criticisms about the lack of time to scrutinise this matter in the Chamber. We have discussed it on other occasions. On the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Woking, we are removing the two widest-ranging offences for the reasons that he gave. Each of the offences has some range and we shall have to see how the system works. I should perhaps remind the House that there is power to remove as well as to add offences to the table in clause 1 by subordinate legislation. I can give the commitment that he seeks: the Government will keep under close review all offences in the operation of this legislation. Subsequently, we will decide what further action we might take.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 17 — Closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

These amendments would require that any disorder, or likely disorder, in the vicinity of the licensed premises must also be related to the premises in question before a closure order could be made on the ground that it is necessary in the interests of public safety.

This, again, was a matter that we debated at length in Committee. The various interests concerned have been assiduous in making their representations on the issue. The amendments were tabled by Lord Cope of Berkeley during the Committee stage in the other place. We took the view that they were unnecessary for reasons that I gave earlier. We accept the need for all the parties affected to be clear about the Bill and the case for making it absolutely clear that disorder or threat of disorder must relate to the premises in question before a closure order can be made.

The other four amendments make consequential changes to give effect to this change wherever similar tests must be applied by the courts and the police, for example when the police are deciding whether to extend a closure order. I hope that the House will agree the amendments.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The amendments were tabled in Committee in this House and in the other place, and I am delighted that they appear on the amendment paper today.

Those who keep public houses and licensed premises--the industry--accept that it may well be necessary to close rowdy premises at short notice. However, they were particularly concerned that that might happen when the likely disturbance or the disturbance occurring in the vicinity of the premises had nothing to do with their particular premises. A police officer might therefore believe that there would be trouble in an area and close the public house when its activities did not merit it.

The scope of the original wording was too wide to catch the badly run houses that cause serious disorder problems and put public safety at risk. We therefore welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to accept the view of another place that the wording should be narrowed to relate the disorder that is in prospect, or that has occurred, to the premises.

I believe that the Minister made a vow not to mention the Committee stage and it was therefore a pity that he broke it. I defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who did not act disgracefully. She took all the measures that were available to her to deal with circumstances in which democracy was at risk.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We welcome the amendments. The battle throughout our proceedings has been to restrict the powers that the Bill grants the authorities against the liberties of individuals and businesses. It was a perpetual theme of the Committee stage. A Labour Government, trying to be excessively authoritarian, had to justify themselves against all sorts of arguments. Some were made by Conservative Members, others by us and many by people outside the House. We tried to point out that the powers were simply unnecessary.

I put my neck on the block on Third Reading, and made it clear that, if a general election had taken place on 3 May, various clauses would not have been passed. I can say with authority, after conferring with colleagues in another place, that although we would have tabled amendments such as those that we are discussing, other amendments, such as Government proposals to extend curfews and to hold samples of DNA from people who were shown to be innocent would not have been accepted. The House of Lords would not have allowed the Bill to proceed. The month's delay has meant more time for debate in another place, where the Government argued that their proposals had been tested and were able to win votes. Consequently, the Bill has been allowed to proceed in its current form.

We were unable to win some of the big battles against a Government who have a majority in the House. They have a majority under our electoral system, but not in the country. We are therefore grateful for small victories. There was a danger of imposing closure orders on pubs for unrelated activities outside them. That is unacceptable. In a busy, built-up area such as the Old Kent road in my constituency, the police might take the view that some activities were causing disorder and intervene. If the amendments are accepted, closure orders can be imposed only if the prospective or actual disorder is "related to" the relevant pub. Pubs that keep good order will not be in trouble. That is progress. We wish that the Government had been more enlightened on other matters for which we would support a more liberal and less authoritarian regime.

Lords amendment agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to

Clause 19 — Closure Notices

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The amendments clarify that the power in clause 19 to issue closure notices can be used against premises, which, to the satisfaction of the police or the local authority, have been used for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor at some time in the previous 24 hours.

As currently drafted, the relevant subsections of clause 19 could be interpreted to mean that a closure notice could be issued only if the use of the premises for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquor had continued until the notice was served. That restricted effect was not intended, especially as it would not cover cases where use did not continue when the police or the local authority wished to serve their notice, although it had occurred in the previous 24 hours and was more than likely to recur later.

The purpose of clauses 19 to 28 is to allow action against specific premises, where there is continuing offending or where offending has occurred in the past 24 hours. The amendments therefore make technical changes, which confirm that action may be taken when illegal use has occurred in a previous period of 24 hours. I hope that they will be agreed.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We agree that the amendments clarify the Bill helpfully. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I repeatedly expressed our anxiety in Committee that some clauses, including those that we are considering, had been too hastily drafted. The Minister will acknowledge that several concessions that the Government made in another place and that he is confirming today are a response to the anxieties that we and people in the licensed trade have repeatedly expressed.

Many clauses have been drafted too quickly. We have used nearly half the time, which is too short, that has been allocated to consider the long list of amendments. That means that we are again rushing matters through with almost indecent haste. We shall consider matters that are even more significant later, and I therefore do not wish to detain the House for long.

The Government have belatedly acknowledged that, as we suggested in Committee, the aspect that we are considering was not sufficiently clear. We are pleased that the Government have accepted, at this late stage, that the drafting needed improving, as we consistently said.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but I want to make a further point. It is important that society clamps down on alcohol abuse, and abuse by those who are licensed to sell alcohol of the terms and conditions whereby they are permitted to do that. Alcohol is a major cause of crime. The Government acknowledge that; there is no disagreement between the parties about the matter.

Drugs--alcohol is a drug--often cause serious, especially violent crime. It is therefore appropriate to do all that we can to ensure that those who lawfully buy and sell alcohol act within the law. I hope that we shall continue to be vigilant to ensure that alcohol abuse does not continue to the same extent, with the terrible consequences that society currently suffers.

Lords amendment agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to

After Clause 37

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 39.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The amendment to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would facilitate police action against closed drug markets, such as crack houses. Under the 1971 Act, it is currently an offence for the occupier or manager of premises knowingly to allow illegal drugs to be produced or supplied on them. However, liability for the use of illegal drugs extends only to smoking cannabis or opium. That reflects the drug misuse patterns that prevailed when the Act was introduced. We believe that Lords amendment No. 15 will play an important part in updating the powers available to the police and the courts in tackling drug abuse, and it is supported by the police.

As we argued both on Report and in Committee, we felt that the change was not necessary. However, the official Opposition did not accept that view either on the Floor of the House or in private discussions that I had with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). In the light of concerns about a lack of clarity in the legislation, we decided that it would be better to accept Lords amendment No. 15 than to have a rather arcane discussion about the legalisms involved in the particular circumstances. Consequently, both in the other place and in this place, we have accepted the amendment, which we hope will have the effects that have been widely advertised.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am very glad that the Minister expressed his concession as he did. The amendment is the result of a very long-running campaign by the official Opposition which has been led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and, in another place, by my noble Friend Lord Cope. My noble friends Baroness Buscombe and Baroness Hanham also have continued to press the Government on the issue.

We knew all along, as the Minister has very fairly conceded today, that the police were desperate for an amendment to the 1971 Act that enabled them particularly to clamp down on crack houses. As my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe said:

"These amendments represent the closing of a frustrating, glaring loophole in the law given the now sadly prevalent use of crack cocaine by illegal drug users."

My noble Friend also mentioned the fact that, back on 23 January, Baroness Hanham had

"laid down a challenge to the Government to crack down on crack houses."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2001; Vol. 624, c. 1759.]

A moment ago, in our previous debate, I mentioned some important amendments that have to be made to the Bill, and Lords amendment No. 15 is one of the most important of them. All of us know, and police are particularly aware, that crack cocaine is one of the most dangerously addictive illegal drugs. Very sadly, crack houses have become increasingly prevalent in our society, especially in inner cities and town centres.

The Opposition have been surprised that it has taken the Government so long to accept our arguments on this vital issue. Nevertheless, there is even greater joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth. Even at the 59th minute of the 11th hour of this Parliament, the Government's acceptance of our view is welcome. We think that the amendment will add a strong weapon to the police's armoury in dealing with one of our society's most important scourges--illegal drugs, and particularly crack cocaine, which is one of the most dangerous.

I therefore welcome the Government's concession, although I wish that they had made it a great deal earlier. Nevertheless, even at the last minute, it is greatly to be welcomed.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Liberal Democrat Members welcome Lords amendment No. 15. I have just one question for the Minister which I hope that he will be good enough to answer. It seems that the amendment would not only achieve its main purpose of making crack house activity illegal, but that it could change the law to legalise other activities that currently are illegal. Is that so? I ask the question simply because the offence was previously defined as

"knowingly permitting cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium to be smoked on premises",

and that definition is being changed to encompass different types of activity.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Reflecting on the question, as the hon. Gentleman asked it, and quickly taking advice from colleagues, I think that I can confirm that the amendment does not have the effect that he fears it might have.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It was a neutral question and did not express a view. I simply wanted to ensure that the Government's understanding was that the amendment will extend the remit of the 1971 Act without reducing the provision in other spheres. I appreciate that I asked the question without providing notice of it, and I would be grateful if the Minister would place on the record any advice that he might receive on it. It is important that we are clear on the issue.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 41 — Police directions stopping the harassment etc. of a person in his home

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 22.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The origin of this group of amendments, which are essentially identical, was concerns expressed in Committee in the other place by the Opposition, who suggested that the person concerned should be described as a target rather than as a victim. We felt that the precedent for use of the word victim lay in its use in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Having given further consideration to how to try to meet the concerns expressed by the Opposition in the other place, we feel that the word resident is a better choice than either the word victim or the word target. We do not believe that the change would have an impact on the effect of the clause.

We believe that the change will provide a higher level of objectivity in the terminology that is being used. Specifically, it will take account of the sensitivities of those who are subject to such harassment and may well not wish to be defined as victims because of the association of the word victims with particular circumstances. Consequently, we propose to replace the word victim with the word resident in this group of amendments.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We are content with Lords amendment No. 16. I should say that the concerns expressed in the House on Second Reading about events at Huntingdon Life Sciences have been dealt with in the Bill. Amendments to the Bill allow the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to be tightened up and enable directors to register their addresses confidentially. Other provisions deal with the practice of besetting people's homes. Amendment No. 16 deals with one of those matters.

It is good that both sides of the House have agreed on the need to tackle the issue and that it has been possible to make progress. However, the official Opposition cannot take the credit for this group of amendments, as they address a Liberal Democrat issue that was raised first, in Committee, by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and later, in the other place, by Lord Phillips. They should take the credit for the amendments, with which we are happy.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I should like simply to press my hon. Friend the Minister on the use of language in the clause. Definitions are sometimes extremely difficult. I suppose that it is pretty obvious to individuals when we are victims, although it may not always be entirely obvious to the courts. Is my hon. Friend happy that the full spirit of the original clause is encompassed by use of the word resident? Does the word encompass only permanent residents, or does it include, for example, those who are temporarily resident in a dwelling or legitimately resident in an hotel room? Are all those potential circumstances covered to his satisfaction in the Bill?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman might be assisted by considering the points that my noble Friend Lord Cope made--on 1 May 2001, at column 1782 of the House of Lords Official Report--when he asked about using the word resident, victim, target or person in the clause. The official Opposition in the other place suggested using the word person. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. We want to ensure that the clause in its final form is workable, so that those who are doing that very important scientific work are properly protected.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am speaking in the debate because of the type of English that the hon. Gentleman has just used. Although I am used to dealing with scientific terms, in the Bill we are addressing much more complex definitional issues. I am merely seeking to determine whether my hon. Friend the Minister is satisfied that the intention of the clause will be the same as when it contained the word victim, and that it will operate similarly in all circumstances in which a person is a victim in a dwelling. It would be helpful to clarify the issue.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I can give the hon. Gentleman a response, although it is not yet the official Government response. It may be shorter than he anticipated.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Yesterday, I was able to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was a coincidence that the Prime Minister had visited his constituency on Tuesday and he had a red box with him during our debate in Westminster Hall yesterday. Now he seems to be telling us that he is about to form a Government. He is obviously having a good week, but I do not think that he should let the fact that Millwall won 5-0 last Saturday go to his head.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

In reverse order: the Millwall victory that sent the Lions roaring into the first division is entirely to be commended; the red box yesterday was entirely coincidental as it was supplied by my office with some letters for me to sign, but it was good practice. I should also put it on the record that no deal has been reached between the Liberal Democrats and any other party before the general election. Lastly, the Prime Minister made a terrible error of judgment by coming to the school and making a speech over the heads of the young people. It may have lost him the votes of many of the parents at that school, but that is to be seen.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

What was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) doing?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. There has been quite some latitude. Will hon. Members get back to the subject of the debate?

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman was at a primary school with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats that very afternoon.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman and tell him that we spoke to the pupils rather than ignoring them.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important point about the wording and I am grateful for his attribution to my noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. There was a debate about what the right wording should be. The term "victim" was deemed inappropriate because it prejudges the outcome of the complaint and that clearly would be wrong. The term that had been used in the past was "person" and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is used in other statutes. However, I think that we can get away with using the word resident although it is not necessarily the best word. My understanding is that it does not cover only those who are permanently at an address, but anyone who is there at the time. Of course it would not cover someone who was there for a matter of moments and that may be a weakness. It may therefore be that we need to give the matter more consideration. The reason it is right to change the wording is that it is wrong to prejudge the outcome of the complaint.

The legislation received wide support across the House and, as the Minister and his colleagues were at pains to point out, it gives the police a discretionary power in respect of certain activities. We look to the police to be wise in their discretion because there is a need to get the balance right between allowing lawful protest on the one hand and preventing intimidatory and improper protest on the other. The second should be outlawed, but absolutely not the first.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

To respond briefly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I am advised that we consider that the amendments do not change the effect of the clause and the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) are right. It covers any protests outside residential premises, anywhere being used as a dwelling, but it does not include hotels, for reasons that we discussed in Committee. We are satisfied with this and I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 22 agreed to.

After Clause 44

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 24.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall devote a few moments to presenting this important new clause, which carries the support of the House. The two new clauses would make it an arrestable criminal offence to place prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes.

To combat any changes in advertising strategy that result from attempts to circumvent the new offence, the new clauses would allow the Secretary of State to extend the provisions to cover other street furniture.

Let me pay public tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who was motivated by events in her constituency to introduce a private Member's Bill. She has been a consistent campaigner on these matters, with general support across the House. The Government have long agreed with the policy ambitions set out in the new clause, but we did not feel that we had enough space to include them in the Bill. As the matter was pressed in the other place and because we have no policy disagreement with the provisions, we are glad to agree to the Lords amendment and to commend it to the House today.

Prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes are a matter on which there has long been concern, which is reflected in the two new clauses. The cards are often explicit. They can be seen by children and can obscure important information, such as advertisements for Childline and the Samaritans. They are offensive and intimidating to those who use public telephones. They are part of the increasingly organised business of prostitution and can advertise young people involved in prostitution and, importantly, those trafficked for sexual exploitation.

The individuals who are paid to place the cards can be intimidating, threatening and sometimes violent to members of the public and those employed to clean the telephone boxes. Telephone companies incur great expense in removing the cards while losing revenue from legitimate advertising.

We recognise that the problem is at present confined to specific areas, such as central London and Brighton. It is also a serious issue in my Norwich constituency. However, it is a very serious problem. Every week, British Telecom removes some 150,000 cards from its 700 telephone boxes in central London. It is also a growing problem, which is why the offence would apply nationally. The offence would be committed by any person who places what a reasonable person would consider to be an advertisement relating to prostitution in a public telephone box.

We are confident that the definition is sufficiently robust to cover advertisements that imply that the services of prostitutes are available without making this explicit on the face of the card. Equally, in the exceptional case where a person has naively put up an advertisement which appears to be for prostitution, but is genuinely shown not to be criminal, liability will not follow.

The offence will attract a power of arrest. This will enable the police to take swift action to stop this nuisance occurring. Those convicted of the offence will face a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine. The level of penalty reflects the serious nature of the nuisance caused by the cards and our determination to prevent the individuals concerned from blighting the lives of those who live in the areas affected.

We recognise that those behind organised prostitution will seek to circumvent any legislation that we introduce. That is why the second new clause gives the Secretary of State a power to extend the legislation to cover other types of public structures, such as bus shelters, by affirmative resolution.

Finally, I should note that although this amendment is an important part of tackling the problem, there are other measures that can complement legislation. Oftel has had talks with the telecommunications industry about a call barring scheme and will develop further proposals in consultation with the industry. Part of the agreement with the industry is that we will do what we can in legislation and the industry will do what it can on the technological side.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

The Minister told us that the penalty would be a level 5 fine and a maximum of six months' imprisonment. He said that that demonstrated the Government's view of the seriousness of the crime. Can he give us some examples of other crimes for which the penalty is a level 5 fine and six months' imprisonment?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information off the cuff. One of the pieces of advice that I have given myself--and usually taken--is not to give off-the-cuff information across the Floor of the House as it might not be well-informed. However, we take the matter extremely seriously, particularly the trafficking in people for prostitution. There is a whole range of other offences that are designed to deal with people who traffic in migrants in that way.

I commend the amendments to the House. They are an important step forward that will help communities work in a more effective way.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The amendments were moved in the other place by the noble Baroness Buscombe, and I would like to pay tribute to the campaign that she and others have waged on the issue. Westminster city council was particularly concerned about this issue, which has also concerned hon. Members for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will recall that Olga Maitland also campaigned on the issue--

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

She will be back, in Sutton and Cheam.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am told that she is coming back to represent Sutton and Cheam and that will certainly be a happy moment.

The concern that prompted the amendment was that people in areas such as Brighton and Hove, and central London, should not have to be confronted with sordid images when they are simply trying to make a telephone call. It is also expensive for an organisation such as British Telecom, which spends £250,000 a year clearing the cards from its 1,000 boxes in central London. The measure will allow people to make telephone calls without being pestered in that way.

It is right that relatively serious penalties should be applied, for the reasons that the Minister mentioned. Those who are involved in the trade are often making considerable sums of money. If there are persistent offenders who, time and again, place cards in boxes and will not learn their lesson, tough penalties should be available to deal with them.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We agree strongly with the need to take action on this activity. It is offensive that every phone box in London is littered with such cards. As the Minister said, it is bad enough for the mass of the population, but it is particularly offensive to many women and inappropriate and unsuitable for children, as well as being unhelpful. We need to protect the public interest, albeit in what is technically private space. I am glad to hear that the private telephone companies are also taking their share of the work.

I hope that when the police take action, with the support of local authorities such as Westminster, which has been assiduous in the matter, they will concentrate not on the runners--the people who are paid a bit of pocket money to put the cards in the phone boxes--but on the people who are making a lot of money behind the scenes. They are the big fish who need to be caught because they make a lot of money exploiting people in the sex trade.

We must also revisit the wider debate. We are living a fiction in this country about prostitution. Like abortion, it has always happened and will always happen. If we delude ourselves into thinking that the present laws against it will stop it, we will deceive the public whom we are here to represent. It is right to deal with the issue of the cards in this Bill, but I hope that whichever party or parties are in government after the election, they will be brave enough to reconsider the law on prostitution.

Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

Part 2

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 40 and 41.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Amendments Nos. 25 and 41 will have the effect of removing part 2, on information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings, from the Bill. Amendment No. 36 is a drafting amendment consequential on the removal of the words in amendment No. 37, which is consequential on the removal of part 2 from the Bill. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 are also consequential.

This is the first group of amendments to be considered today with which the Government disagree, but we accept them under force majeure of the balance of the parties in the other place.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am somewhat surprised by the Minister's remarks, because Lord Bassam said that he was happy to be associated with the amendments. He also complimented Lord Cope on the cogent way in which he had expressed the Opposition's view on the Bill. Lord Bassam also admitted that the Government's proposals required better and more detailed evaluation. He certainly seemed to say that he did not disagree with the amendments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My noble Friend Lord Bassam was trying to pay tribute to the way in which Front Benchers had tried to work together to reach solutions in everybody's interest. However, on the substance of policy, we do not agree with two groups of amendments before us today--the current group and the other on clause 126, which deals with police conduct. We will accept the amendments because of our desire to get the whole Bill through.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendments were jointly tabled by the Government and the official Opposition in the other place. Is it in order for the Minister to resile from them?

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

The Minister can do anything.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That is entirely a matter for the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am trying to express the Government's position as clearly as I can. Part 2 would have implemented Government policy to improve the ability of public authorities to disclose information for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings. That is an important part of the Government's overall strategy in the fight against crime and it is why I am disappointed that those clauses are being removed.

Given the short time available to complete the parliamentary stages of the Bill, we have decided to give further scrutiny to that part of the legislation. If the Government are re-elected, we will consider the best way to proceed with those useful reforms and how to use other legislative vehicles to do so.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am afraid that we have just seen a most extraordinary approach to the amendments by the Minister, who seeks to reject everything that Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments with the official Opposition in the other place. It simply is not good enough for a Minister in the Lords to table amendments jointly with the Opposition and then for this Minister to say that the Government do not really agree with them. The House will also have noted the attitude of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who said a moment ago that the Minister could do anything. That has been the approach of the Government for the past four years and it is why they will be turfed out of office on 7 June. They have demonstrated contempt for the principles of democracy and the Minister cannot get away with saying that the Government are accepting the amendments only under force majeure in the other place--

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, because the Minister is trying to resile from what Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments and accepting the Government's defeat on amendment No. 35. I have made the point repeatedly that we have had inadequate time to debate the Government's concessions and, with only two minutes left this afternoon, it is indisputable that the Government have had to abandon the whole of part 2 as a result of these jointly tabled amendments.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, I will not give way because time is short. The reason why that is happening is that Lord Bassam said as recently as yesterday in the other place:

"we have jointly tabled the amendment seeking to remove Part 2 of the Bill."

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No. I have told the Minister that I will not give way because the Government have given us so little time. Lord Bassam continued--

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask the hon. Gentleman to quote the whole statement made by my noble Friend in the other place?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister was premature in his intervention, because I proposed to continue the quotation. Lord Bassam said:

"This will provide a period of time in which, no doubt, we can improve the quality of the legislation, if that is what is required, and perhaps undertake further consultations."-- Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2001; Vol. 624, c. 2173.]

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That is not the whole sentence.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is the whole sentence. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that the amendments were tabled jointly--

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to [Special Entry].

Madam Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 43 agreed to.