---

Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the SI to the Grand Committee. I join with him in paying tribute to the late Lady Strange.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC71
 
She took part in many of our debates and gave much of her time and energy to defence issues; but, as the Minister said, it will be for her work for the war widows that she will be rightly remembered. I was very privileged to see some of this work at first hand. I will miss her.

I also join the Minister in paying tribute to our Armed Forces for their professionalism, courage and skill. It is imperative that the MoD should do everything to ensure that they receive the best possible pension and compensation arrangements.

The SI has been debated in the other place and the important issues were raised there. I have only one observation in passing. Where an appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, he or she may now lodge a further appeal to the pensions appeal commissioners. In most cases, the commissioners would not need an appellant to be present as an appeal can be decided on the written evidence for the PAT appeal, the record of proceedings, oral evidence given at the hearing and the point of law that has been stated by the appellant.

However, the appellant can request an oral hearing but no new evidence will be allowed. It is not a new hearing of the original appeal and only the point of law can be discussed. I very much hope that requests for an oral hearing will be sympathetically received by the commissioners.

Lord Redesdale: I echo the words of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, towards Lady Strange. It does not seem so long ago that we were dealing with war widows pensions the first time round, but that was 10 years ago. Lady Strange showed the same amount of vigour this time round even though she was quite ill at the time. Her energy and the effort she put in when appearing at the Committee sittings should be noted.

As we debated these issues not so very long ago, I have only two questions for the Minister. My first question is whether the Minister is satisfied that enough information has been given to partner organisations, such as the Royal British Legion and other organisations, about the body of the regulations. Their smooth working will depend on those appealing having some form of representation and, under the new Act, of course, this will fall more heavily on the Royal British Legion. It is to be hoped that some of the questions that have been raised in the past have been satisfied. I very much hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.

My second question concerns the issue of suspension of benefit. The Minister said that if benefit is suspended due to an appeal, the amount will be paid back once a decision has been made in favour of the claimant. In a case of suspension—or even in a case where a higher amount is sought—will interest be paid by the MoD for that period?
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC72
 

Many disabled pensioners could incur a great deal of costs for carers, which may not be met during the period. Although they may get the back payment, they could incur considerable costs without any incoming revenue.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked a question about a request for oral hearings before the appeal commissioners. The commissioners are independent and the final decision on such matters must of course be theirs to take. But we are confident that they will grant oral hearings where there are reasonable grounds for doing so, notably where the claimant has evidence which cannot otherwise be brought before them.

I thank both noble Lords for what they said about Lady Strange. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made a very good point: even though she was not at all well, she made sure that she came to the Second Reading debate, the Committee sittings, the Report and Third Reading debates, and she was there when, on a couple of occasions, the Act came back from the House of Commons.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked two questions. On the first, I am happy to give him the answer that I think he requires. Our understanding is that the important bodies he referred to, whose role remains extremely important under the new Act, are happy with the information they have been given about the regulations. I have taken advice on the noble Lord's second question and the answer is that no interest will be paid.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005

3.48 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005 [9th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: The order seeks to add two more offences to the penalty notice for disorder scheme. The scheme has been used to good effect by the police, particularly in dealing with low-level alcohol-related offending.

Penalty notice disposal provides the police with a quick and effective way of punishing such offending which minimises the paperwork and processing required from the police. Cases do not have to be taken to court, which also relieves the burden on the courts.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC73
 

The penalty notice for disorder scheme has been in place in all police forces across England and Wales since last year and more than 57,000 penalty notices were issued during that year.

Penalty notices are helping in the drive to crack down on under-age drinking. The scheme was extended last January to 16 and 17 year-olds and pilots of penalty notices for 10 to 15 year-olds are now under way in six police force areas.

The offence of purchase of alcohol by a person under 18 is being added to fill the gap in the current list of offences. The scheme already covers consumption of alcohol in licensed premises by an under-18 year-old, and the purchase offence will complement this. The scheme also includes the offence of selling alcohol to an under-18 year-old, so the addition of the purchase offence will add balance to this punishment, which is already being used to target staff caught selling alcohol to under-18s.

The second offence that we are seeking to add is that of selling alcohol to a drunken person. This offence will help the police to target premises which are contributing to disorder problems and are illegally continuing to serve alcohol to persons who have already had too much. The use of penalty notices for that offence will help to drive home the message that binge drinking will not be tolerated. Premises that contribute to the problem will be targeted and staff will receive an immediate punishment. I commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005 [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Viscount Bridgeman: We support this measure. It addresses the very serious problem with binge drinking. The two offences which have been added clearly made sense. We also note that the effect of the measure should be that both police and court time should be freed up for more serious and demanding work. We are satisfied that the pilot schemes have been adequately carried out and support the measure.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for the explanation that he has offered for this order. There is a temptation to talk about 24-hour opening of pubs, and all that, but that is nothing to do with the order. The order relates to the after-effect of people getting drunk or attempting to buy alcohol for those under 18.

I am delighted that the punishment itself means that the person does not enter the criminal justice system. That is very positive. However, the order concerns me in two regards: are the offences recorded, and can they be used as antecedents in any future action against an individual on any crime that he may commit in a court of law?

The second matter, which puzzles me very much, is the matter relating to selling alcohol to a drunken person. Do I take it that the policeman or whoever is responsible for supervising the process will have an
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC74
 
alcohol meter in his pocket to check whether someone is drunk? How do you determine whether a person is drunk or under the influence of drugs and that he is not suffering from epilepsy or some other problem? We are getting in a very detailed area in that regard.

My only concern is that the order should stop binge drinking and alcohol-related crimes in this country. If it does so, I am all for it. As it is, I do not object to it, but it would be very helpful to have the Minister's explanation on the two or three issues that I have raised.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for these additions to the penalty notice disposal. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, yes, a record of the disposal will exist, but it cannot be cited in any criminal proceedings. It will not be part of any criminal proceedings that might be brought at some later stage for a related offence. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord on that point.

---