| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Orders of the Day
Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 180. If the House agrees the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 2
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, after first ("local") insert ("probation")
5.13 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 5 to 10, 12, 16 to 24, 26 to 28, 30, 40, 83 to 86, 96, 97, 119, 120, 126 to 129, 131 to 134, 136 and 139 to 151.
Mr. Boateng: The amendments are modest and inoffensive. They change the names of "local boards" to "local probation boards". In so far as it clarifies the functions and purposes of the boards, the change is welcome.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): In my characteristically generous and eager spirit, I congratulate the Minister on what appears to be the latest in a series of U-turns. The right hon. Gentleman has developed a habit of inveighing violently against views that are critical of Government policy. When such views are expressed to him, he indicates that he has no intention whatever of changing his mind; but then he returns to the inner recesses of his ministerial office at Queen Anne's Gate and thereafter trogs back to the House to confirm that he has taken on board the sensible representations made to him and that he intends to alter Government policy accordingly.
The right hon. Gentleman should not, however, be criticised for that; such a sign of flexibility is welcome. He will be aware--as, shortly, will the House--that the issue of the title of local probation boards was aired by my noble Friend Baroness Seccombe during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place on 2 October. That was precisely three weeks before this House returned to business.
My noble Friend was quizzical about the Government's decision to refer to local probation boards simply as "local boards". She has been well known to me since 1985; she is of good Birmingham stock and is a most sensible individual. She found it extraordinary that the Government did not seem to want to designate the boards with a title that accurately described what their purpose and functions were to be. She thought it curious that the word "probation" was not included in the title, and suggested that something should be done about it.
- that phrase should be amended to read "probation board". The use of the phrase "local board" is not only confusing and meaningless, but could cause problems when contracting with other boards. In house--
- it may be understood, but to those outside, it would be ambiguous.
Mr. Bercow: It is important that the House is aware of the purport of the arguments. I thought that Liberal Democrats were in favour of the proper exchange of views. I have already generously and in terms congratulated the Minister--for whose ability, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have the highest regard--but that does not, in any sense, disqualify me from speaking about the merits of the amendments. Indeed, I have not merely an entitlement but an obligation to say something about this matter--not least because it represents a climbdown. I shall not be so unkind--although others might be--as to suggest that it is a humiliating climbdown, but it is a climbdown none the less. I find it disappointing that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is a notably independent-minded specimen in the House, should nevertheless choose to gang up with the Government in that way--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I am a stickler, but I think that "specimen" is not a very attractive word to use.
Mr. Bercow: I readily withdraw, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My affection for the hon. Member for Lewes is boundless, so I readily concede. I shall not be guilty of that sin again.
My noble Friend Baroness Seccombe concluded her remarks about local boards by saying:
- Many local boards exist, such as those of companies, banks and even the gas board.
- To refer simply to "local boards" without adding a qualifying adjective provides a recipe for confusion.
- totally unmemorable, forgettable and neutral.
- even a little "Kafkaesque". The present name "local board" suggests nothing more and nothing less.
- unnecessary for a simple reason: calling the boards "local" boards emphasises their close relationship with the communities that they will cover.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1149-51.]
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right to want to get on to discuss important matters. However, I want to emphasise that the Government made the mistake in the other place of focusing exclusively on the importance of the word "local", to the detriment of consideration of the appropriateness of the inclusion in the title of the word "probation".
Mr. McWalter indicated dissent.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman implies that there is no need for further debate on the matter. Conservative Members do not understand why the Government thought it so important to retain the word "local"--a proposition from which we do not dissent--but could not see the argument for the inclusion of the word "probation". After all, it is with probation that the bodies are concerned. That is why we were so insistent. We were told by the Government that each local board would include the word "probation" in its title and the geographical area that it was deputed to cover, but Lord Bassam did not think that it was necessary to include the word "probation" on the face of the Bill.
We argued to the contrary and I think that the Minister now recognises that we were justified. I have already graciously welcomed his about-turn and, at the risk of embarrassing him further, I do so again. However, I emphasise to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) the merit of arguing the points in this House and the other place. When we did that--this is the conclusive rejoinder to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this issue merits no discussion--we were told that the change to the title was not necessary. The change is necessary; it is practicable; it has been accepted; and I applaud that state of affairs.
Jackie Ballard (Taunton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on, I think, his first outing on the Opposition Front Bench. I know from when he and I first crossed swords in a television studio in 1992--when we both failed to get elected to this place--that criticism only encourages him. Therefore, I shall not comment on his speech.
I do not recall much debate on this issue in Committee in this place, which shows that there are occasions when the revising role of the other House is worth while. No one in this House picked up this point. I very much welcome the flexibility that the Minister has shown and I promise him that, if he continues to be flexible, I shall continue to make short speeches.
Mr. Boateng: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his well-deserved promotion to his current responsibilities. He characterised himself as being eager, but he also has a tendency to over-egg the pudding. That is the hon. Gentleman, and we would not have him any other way.
I am glad that the House has found the amendments acceptable. I do not think that there is much more to be said.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 10, at end insert--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |