Standing Committee B
Tuesday 17 December 2002
(Morning)
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I beg to move,
(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 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;
(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.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I can think of no better qualification for chairing our deliberations than being a graduate of Leeds university. I note that you list as one of your recreations going to the gymnasium. I fear that the burdens of the Bill might impinge on how much time you can spend there, but I hope that we will compensate by providing lively and productive debates.
Column Number: 4
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we are ready to listen to those who can contribute to improving the Bill. We are grateful for the contribution already made by the Home Affairs Committee. We will reflect on the Committee's arguments, and we will listen to points raised by all hon. Members. Looking around the Room, I am conscious of the experience and expertise of Committee members, which will I am sure will make for useful and instructive deliberations. However, I wish to make clear our strong commitment to reforming the criminal justice system, which is the reason for the Bill. It is important that we always keep in mind the reasons for that reform, which we explored in some depth in what was agreed to be an extremely good Second Reading debate—a point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
It is a long and complex Bill. The programme motion is challenging, and we may find ourselves pushed for time, but I hope that we will be able to conduct our business efficiently and effectively, exposing and bringing to light the key issues. I will happy to discuss issues relating to the Bill outside the Committee if it is helpful. The Government have already tabled a number of technical amendments. If we intend tabling amendments of substance, it will be my practice to write to all members of the Committee to explain our reasoning. I should be happy to meet Opposition spokesmen to discuss those amendments if they would find it helpful.
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): The Minister's offer is welcome and will be accepted. I hope he agrees that, unless Government amendments have the agreement of Opposition parties, the Government should not table lots of amendments; we will not be able to stick to the programme if they do. The Government have already tabled some amendments. They have had ages to get the Bill right, and I hope that they do not feel that they have to keep on amending it, but they should always give us injury time if they do.
Hilary Benn: The answer to that comment—
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): Before my hon. Friend gets too far into his answer, I hope that he will consider it carefully. If there are difficulties with the Bill, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to table further amendments. Indeed, that was the undertaking given by the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House. The last thing we want is for the Bill to leave Committee if it is not in good order.
Hilary Benn: That was a typically helpful intervention. My hon. Friend took the words right out of my mouth. The straight truth is that we shall have to see how we go; but I hear what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) says.
I commend the motion to the Committee.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I echo the Minister's comments and hope that the Committee will be productive. The Opposition certainly intend to do all they can to ensure that it is and that our discussions
Column Number: 5
are sufficient, without becoming long-winded, to do justice to this immensely important Bill. This is probably the most important Bill in this Session and may turn out to be one of the most important in this Parliament.
To pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that the Bill did not need not amending, but it may well do; indeed, I would hope and expect us to table amendments to improve it if we are to continue in the spirit in which we have embarked on this process.
Equally, I accept that the Government may need to table amendments—indeed, they already have. I have no problem with that, unless the timetable limits our ability to discuss amendments properly. As I told the Minister informally, and as I said in the Programming Sub-Committee, there is a willingness to make sensible progress and to consider the Bill carefully, but if it becomes clear that we need more time because of the number of amendments, more time will have to be allotted.
That is how debate on the Bill should proceed. We have a framework, which we shall try to observe, and we may sometimes move faster than it allows, although experience suggests that that will not happen often. However, if the Government start amending the Bill heavily—there are already premonitory signs that they will be free with the drafting—we will have to ensure that we have enough time to do justice to the provisions.
I shall not take up the Committee's time any further on preliminary matters. I note with interest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has tabled several amendments to the programme motion, and I am interested to hear his views and to understand what he seeks to do.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I also welcome your co-Chairman, who will join our proceedings in due course.
As everyone has said, the Bill is substantial and will require much careful scrutiny. As was said on Second Reading, the Committee will be able to reach consensus on much of the Bill, although that does not avoid the necessity for careful scrutiny. At other times, however, there will be anything but consensus. Instead, there will be vigorous debate, although I hope that it will be constructive.
Hon. Members have misconstrued the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He was at pains to say that he sought to avoid Government amendments that did not enjoy at least broad agreement among Opposition parties. In other words, we seek from the Minister an assurance that there will be no nasty surprises and that any new gimmick that the Home Office conceives of will not be added to the Bill without time to consider it with sufficient care.
Mr. Grieve: Of course I understand that. The pattern of legislative scrutiny that has supposedly
Column Number: 6
evolved envisages the early publication of Bills—that did not happen in this case, although we had a White Paper—and therefore a measure of predictability. I heartily endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that it would be most undesirable for the Bill to be completely rewritten halfway through our proceedings, and for a new format and new ideas to be introduced.
|
