| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The normal process for Public Bill Committees involves gathering evidence in advance, to aid debate and discussion in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and he will know that that mirrors the Select Committee approach. That will not happen in this case, however, because this measure is simply being tacked on. For example, there have been some rumours-albeit Ministers have said that this is not the case-that significant issues such as universal jurisdiction might be added to the Bill at some point. Ministers are saying no at the moment, but it is not inconceivable that something might suddenly pop up that relates to the provisions, so we might have another order put before the House and another interesting debate on procedure, leading to further amendments being tabled in this way.
Tom Brake: As has been said, other Members might like to use such a procedure as an opportunity to promote matters of interest to them. For example, my party might have liked to have tabled an amendment to get rid of Government plans for ID cards-but that, of course, would not have been allowed, whereas this proposal, which is completely outwith the Bill, is being included in it.
James Brokenshire: This afternoon's debate has been helpful in highlighting procedural issues about the operation of the House. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the shadow Leader of the House is in his place alongside me, as I am sure he is taking note of some of the procedural issues relating to how certain matters can be added at a very late stage of a Bill and any attendant impact on consideration in Committee and the House's approach to scrutinising legislation.
Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend puts his finger on what is disturbing about this instruction motion today: the Government are seeking to widen the scope of the Bill. Does he have any information about whether the Government are to instruct the Committee of Selection to look at the membership of the Committee and perhaps broaden it to take into account its new responsibility should we agree to the motion?
James Brokenshire: I am certainly not aware of any such discussions, through the usual channels or otherwise, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have heard my right hon. Friend's point, to which he could respond in his summing-up speech.
Agreeing to the motion facilitates further discussion of important issues-about the fact that young people are drinking twice as much as they did in 1990, for example. As I believe the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) highlighted, there were 973,000 violent attacks last year in which the offender was under the influence of alcohol. We welcome what appears to be the Government's late conversion to our thinking in bringing forward this motion to allow debate on these issues, as by doing so they appear to recognise the failure of the measures that they introduced in the first place.
Mr. Sutcliffe: Just for the record, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he supports the Government's proposals?
James Brokenshire: That relates to substance, so I would be outwith the terms of the motion if I engaged with that. I was welcoming the opportunity to debate these issues and the fact that the Government, having seemingly defended their 24-hour licensing by saying that it was not a problem, now recognise that there is a problem. I am welcoming the Government's conversion to our way of thinking in recognising through the motion that there is an issue about licensing.
Keith Vaz: I am glad to hear that the Minister wants to engage on the issue of substance; one way for him to do so would be to join the Committee.
James Brokenshire: I am sure that the Minister will jump at the opportunity, given that he clearly wishes to take part in the substantive debate. It would be a shame if a lot of the issues were considered in detail in Committee and he was not there. I believe he was offering his services on Report. That highlights the problem of bringing in provisions at the last moment: the proper debate and discussion that we should have in Committee and in accordance with the process that involves the Committee of Selection is not necessarily facilitated, because the most appropriate Minister-on the basis of his responsibilities-may not be there to deal with certain aspects of the Bill.
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): Given that we have talked about the possibility of altering the membership of the Committee, can my hon. Friend enlighten us as to whether provision can be made to have extra time so that the Committee can consider the new proposal that has been put forward?
James Brokenshire: I can confirm that we have been given an extra day in Committee, although that happened before we realised that the new provisions were being added. Ostensibly, the purpose was to address certain issues relating to, for example, compensation for victims of overseas terrorism. We understand that provisions relating to stop-and-search powers in control orders have also been added, and that some changes have been to the car clamping provisions. As I have said, there has been a fair amount of movement since the Bill's First Reading.
Mr. Vara: May I establish, just for the sake of clarity, whether it was specifically stated when the Government allowed the extra day that this measure could be debated during that time?
James Brokenshire: I am not aware that it was, but obviously extra time will be available for debate on such measures, and obviously, if the motion is passed, the Committee will have an opportunity to debate Government amendments relating to the power that they propose to give local authorities to prevent licensees from opening their premises between 3 am and 6 am.
Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend has referred to the granting of one extra day for debate on new clauses previously introduced by the Government. Does he agree that a further day is necessary in the light of the major proposals that the Government are now presenting?
James Brokenshire: That is certainly worth reflecting on. I am sure that discussions will take place between the appropriate channels, and I would not wish to intercede, or intervene, in any such discussions. To be fair, I think we have been making good progress and dealing with the Bill at the right pace. Nevertheless, the introduction of measures at such a late stage is not helpful to proper consideration and ensuring that we use the time as appropriately and effectively as possible. I know from experience that the Government have form in this regard. For instance, the Policing and Crime Bill-enacted in 2009-contained provisions on significant and sensitive matters such as gang injunctions and DNA retention, which had been added to the Bill at the last minute and which were problematic in terms of the time that might be allowed for the Committee to debate them.
The motion will allow us to test some of the Government's thinking on the restriction of the sale and supply of alcohol between 3 am and 6 am. It will enable us to scrutinise the proposal to establish whether, for example, it misses the point by not taking account of the fact that some of the problems may arise before 3 am. Given that the Government have identified the period between 3 am and 6 am as when problems occur, the Committee should be able to debate-if the motion is passed-whether, if the problems exist, they might have been caused much earlier in the evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate on the substance of the proposal will take place in Committee. I am sure that he will not dwell on that particular aspect for much longer.
James Brokenshire: I was merely seeking to establish why the motion may have been considered appropriate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sense that some Members are somewhat sceptical about whether it should have been permitted.
While I would not wish to be seen as helping the Government, I think it useful to outline some of the considerations that might be necessary in Committee in order to find reasons to justify the tabling of the motion. If it is passed, the measure will need to be scrutinised. Indeed, it will be necessary to test whether it will work at all. I know what the Government have said about late-night licensing and 24-hour opening. If councils must prove that such measures will reduce crime, problems may arise if the Government set out reasons why that is not the case. We need to explore some of the inconsistencies. I hope that the motion will allow us to ask the Minister, for example, how he expects councils to meet the tests that they intend to introduce, how many councils he expects to use the proposed powers, and how many licences will be affected. I appreciate that those are matters of substance for the Committee to debate, but I think that they need to be considered in the context of whether the motion is permissible.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con):
I am still not convinced that the House should not divide and vote against the motion, because the Executive are, in effect, adding measures at the last minute and thus restricting debate in Committee on other issues; that must be the case, because the Government are not providing additional time. I am not really interested in
the substance of the Bill; what I am interested in is whether this is an abuse of Parliament, and whether we should divide. I would be very interested to hear my hon. Friend's advice on this matter.
James Brokenshire: Well, I am interested in the issues of substance. I think that my hon. Friend made those comments in the context of this procedural motion, because I know how keenly he fights for the interests of his constituents in respect of antisocial behaviour and crime. I believe that there is a need to debate in Committee the issues raised. So far, we have been making good progress through the Bill, and therefore there is sufficient time to consider these aspects, although I must say that it is not helpful for new issues to be highlighted at the last minute. Therefore, although it could have been problematic, as we have been proceeding in a fairly efficient manner, seeking to deal succinctly where possible with certain provisions in the Bill, there is some latitude, so I would not wish my hon. Friend to call a Division on that point of justification. It is, of course, open to him to call a Division, and I respect the points he makes about the need for the role of Parliament and its scrutiny to be applied properly in relation to the actions of the Executive.
Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend says he is prepared to set aside for a moment the general arguments about these issues, but does he not agree that there is a point to be made about the use of this procedure? Although it is clearly not out of order, it is nevertheless a procedure that should be deplored. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government should have put these provisions in the Bill at the outset, if that is what they wanted to do?
James Brokenshire: I do agree. The Government should have introduced these provisions at the outset for the reasons I have given-such as those to do with scrutiny, the taking of evidence and witnesses being able to appear-in order to allow the changes in the structure of Bill proceedings that this House has approved to operate effectively and appropriately. I am sure such procedural issues will be reflected upon, as will the question of whether it might be an abuse of the House if such procedure-adding measures into Bills at the last minute-were used on a regular basis.
I feel that this is simply the latest pre-election directive from the Downing street bunker. It betrays just how out of touch it has become, because these measures fail to give local authorities any real control over closing time, and they fail to give effective powers or to deal with fundamental presumptions.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows he is straying wide of the motion now.
James Brokenshire: I shall draw my comments to a conclusion, but I have to say that I get the sense that, in bringing forward this motion this afternoon, the Government have accepted that their attempt to create a continental-style café culture, as promised with the Licensing Act 2003, has simply exacerbated Britain's binge-boozing problems. As I have said, a debate needs to take place highlighting the fact that hospital admissions have gone up, violent crime has gone up, death rates have gone up, and-
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that that debate is for the Committee.
James Brokenshire: And I very much look forward to the debate, because this sort of thing simply cannot go on, when we consider the link between alcohol and violent crime. I believe it is time for the British people to call time on this Government and their measures, which have caused so much damage to communities throughout the country.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in our proceedings, during questions to the Secretary of State for Wales and in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), the Minister from the Wales Office used the expression "two-faced Tories." It might well be that with all the noise that was going on, Mr. Speaker did not hear that exchange, but may I ask you or Mr. Speaker to reflect on whether that was parliamentary language and, if it was not, whether, at an appropriate time when all the parties are here, the Minister might be invited to withdraw that remark?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly study the record of what was said at Question Time, refer it to Mr. Speaker and advise him of the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker will come back with a statement on that.
5.25 pm
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Members who have listened to this afternoon's debate will have noticed that there is no real underlying theme to the Crime and Security Bill. There is no clear statement of the Government's intention on crime. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) has quite rightly described it as a Christmas tree of a Bill. We have had the baubles, the tinsel, the wooden figurines, the Christmas lights and an angel on top and now we are adding some decorations made out of straw and pipe cleaners, too.
Members who have followed the Bill closely in Committee will know that we have had clauses on stop and search and tackling bureaucracy, which we welcome. We have had clauses on DNA, responding grudgingly to a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, that we do not welcome. We have provisions on wheel clamping-a good populist issue-that all Members from all parties support although of course the AA says that they will not work. We have what we have dubbed "gangbos", or gang injunctions, which we do not particularly welcome. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch has said, we have also had added in clauses relating to victims of overseas terrorism and to stop-and-search control orders. Finally, we have licensing added to all that.
As I highlighted in my intervention, one thing that concerns me about the Bill is the facility-or ease-with which the Government have been able to add in a whole new group of law and order issues, whereas if Members from other parties had sought to introduce amendments to the Bill that were as far removed from it as the proposals today, that option would not have been available.
We have before us powers for licensing authorities to stop businesses selling alcohol between 3 am and 6 am. While I was carrying out some research into that, I was
given a copy of the Library note entitled "Licensing Act 2003: objecting to a licence". Members and the Minister will be aware that on 29 January a new proposal came into effect whereby a licensing authority can now object to a licence application or initiate a licensing review. I must say-
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. Under this motion, we are discussing whether members of the Public Bill Committee can go into the issues that he is raising, rather than doing what he is now attempting to do.
Tom Brake: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I noticed that other Members have been allowed to stray a little wider-indeed, the Minister has done so on a number of occasions. I can assure you that I do not intend to detain the House for more than a couple of minutes.
I agree that it would have been appropriate to assess the new legislation that took effect just a couple of days ago and to see whether it addresses some of the issues that the Minister wants to address.
I have one other important point to make, which goes to the heart of what the Minister wants us to address and of whether it is appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in Committee. The issue was raised by the Minister. He highlighted the problem of the increase in crime between 3 am and 6 am, but the chart given to us by the Library highlights that that increase has taken place between 12 am and 6 am. I ask the Minister why he has chosen the 3 am to 6 am slot rather than the 12-
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman again and remind him that those matters will be discussed by the members of the Committee if and when the time comes.
Tom Brake: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my brief remarks to a conclusion.
Given that the Government want to pursue this line of inquiry, I certainly do not think that we need to debate the matter. Whether it would be appropriate for us to debate it in the proceedings of the Bill Committee, in which we have made significant progress, received evidence from a series of witnesses and consulted a number of parties to seek their views, is a matter that we could debate at length now, although you would not allow us to do so.
I did not think that the Minister's statement explaining why the Government seek to introduce the debate into the Bill's proceedings was terribly helpful. There are many questions that we will clearly have to discuss, or that we will need to raise with the relevant Minister in Committee, which we do not have time to debate further today. As the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Retail Consortium and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association have highlighted in their briefing on this subject, there are concerns that the amendment is being proposed at a time when existing legislation, which was introduced just a couple of days ago, could potentially achieve exactly what the Government want to do, but has not been given time to take effect.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |