|
Mr. Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is made even more difficult by the concurrence of so many Bills from the Home Office and the Lord
Column Number: 10
Chancellor's Department? Nine Bills in substantive or draft form are too many for people who need to give them adequate attention to be able to do so.
Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are important Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department Bills currently in the other place, which we do not have time even to look at. There is a wealth of experience on the Government side of the Committee, including distinguished members of the Home Affairs Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) have a distinguished legal background. I wonder whether they agree that there should have been more time to get to grips with the detail of the Bill and to think through the amendments.
The procedure of a Standing Committee hearing evidence is a good one, but yet again we are rushed. We will all be up against the clock, day after day, trying to get our amendments drafted in time. It has been suggested that we may have to sit for longer, and I would be thrilled to sit through the night whenever necessary. I hope that I do not regret saying that—I often say things like that—but I sense from the Minister's response that he will approach the matter carefully and sensibly and will involve us in the discussions.
As I said earlier, we do not want to have to deal with more than 300 Government amendments. We would like the Minister to give plenty of advance notice of anything that he is going to do to change the Bill.
I had better withdraw my comment about sitting late into the night in case it haunts me, but I make my point about our inability to get to grips with matters. I hope that in the course of the next few weeks we will not feel so pressurised by outside constraints that we cannot get across the sensible and constructive additions, alterations and amendments that we want to make to the Bill.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 6.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Allen, Mr. Graham
Baird, Vera
Benn, Hilary
Clark, Paul
Harman, Ms Harriet
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Kidney, Mr. David
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
NOES
Clappison, Mr. James
Francois, Mr. Mark
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Hermon, Lady
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
(1) during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 17th December at half-past Ten o'clock, do meet on that day at half-past Four o'clock, on Thursday 19th December at ten minutes past Nine o'clock, on Tuesday 7th January at half-past Four o'clock and thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at ten minutes past Nine
Column Number: 11
o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 18th February or Thursday 20th February;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 34, Clauses 36 to 48, Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6, Clauses 120 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10, Clauses 200 to 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23, Clauses 262 to 264, Clause 35, Schedule 3, Clauses 49 to 61, Clauses 265 and 266, Schedule 25, Clause 267, Schedule 26, Clause 268, Schedule 24, Clauses 269 to 273, new Clauses, new Schedules;{**w43**}
(3) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2 and Clauses 24 to 34 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 9th January 2003;
(4) the proceedings on Clauses 36 to 48 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 14th January 2003;
(5) the proceedings on Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6 and Clauses 120 to 125 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 28th January 2003;
(6) the proceedings on Clauses 126 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10 and Clauses 200 to 203 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Tuesday 4th February 2003;
(7) the proceedings on Clause 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23 and Clauses 262 to 264 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 13th February 2003;
(8) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Thursday 27th February 2003.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that as a general rule adequate notice should be given of amendments. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. Clause 1
Extension of powers to stop and search
Mr. Allen: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in
7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) In section 1(7) of the 1984 Act (prohibited articles) at the end of sub-paragraph (b)(ii) there is inserted ''; and
(iii) an article used in the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property).''.'.
The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 27, in
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
'but only insofar as the article was intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'.
Column Number: 12
No. 1, in
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end add—
'(f) an offence under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 (going equipped for stealing etc.)
(g) an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (robbery).'.
Mr. Allen: I am sure that the Minister did not intend any discourtesy in not replying to several points that I made and I therefore voted in favour of the programme motion. I am sure that he will take the chance to put on record the answers to some of my points.
I am very much in favour of the clause. The inference that my constituents and others can draw is that the Government are serious about helping those who suffer criminal damage to themselves or their property. Criminal damage is often used to prevent people from giving evidence in the courts, supporting their neighbours and assisting their communities. We suffer from that all too much in my constituency.
11 am
This is yet another example of cross-referencing, although one needs only two hands to figure out what the clause means. Reference is made to other Acts. Difficult as it is for us to come to terms with that, it will be hard for people outside to interpret the sensible and sound meaning that the Government are trying to bring into the law here. Again, rather than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I hope that the Government will look again at trying to make this process and its wording more accurate and clearer so that those we are trying to help can understand that we are trying to help them and how we are doing it.
The clause extends the powers to stop and search. It is important that the Government explain why. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that. This is a probing amendment to ensure that we are clear about why stop and search is extended from an actual offence of criminal damage to a prospective offence. My constituents think of spray cans and other items that are used to vandalise properties and to deter witnesses from attending court, so we are pleased that the police will have the ability to take action against some of those offenders and help law-abiding citizens in my constituency.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue. I fully understand why the Government have attempted to tackle that issue by amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As I understand it, the intention behind the Government's proposals is to include objects that might be used to destroy or damage property as a legitimate ground for search and seizure. The amendment would widen the scope of prohibited articles. The problem is that PACE splits the articles that may be seized into two categories.
Section 1(6) states:
''If in the course of such a search a constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a stolen or prohibited article or an article to which subsection (8A) below applies, he may seize it.''
Column Number: 13
Subsection (7) continues:
''An article is prohibited . . . if it is-
(a) an offensive weapon; or
(i) made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence to which this sub-paragraph applies, or
(ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''
The offences to which paragraph (b)(i) applies are burglary, theft, motor vehicle taking or obtaining property by deception.
I should like to remind myself for a moment of past practice in the Crown court, when I appeared there prosecuting or defending. My understanding of the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although it is not always easy to follow, is that, first, it categorised certain items as offence weapons, and I do not think that anyone has a problem with that because the categories are well defined. Secondly, it includes articles made or adapted for use in the course of particular offences, such as jemmies for burglary and various articles that we know from experience are likely to be used, in the course of theft, for taking vehicles, such as car keys and other devices that can be used to unlock disabling mechanisms.
The problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that almost any item can be used to do criminal damage, including, I suppose, this volume of ''Archbold''. If someone with a greenhouse wants me to demonstrate how it could be used for such a purpose, I would not have too much difficulty. We must be careful about what we are trying to achieve.
|
