[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That—

(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.

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.

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.

The answer to that comment—

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Of course I understand that. The pattern of legislative scrutiny that has supposedly

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.

That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend sought to make, and he expressed himself perfectly clearly. Too often, new clauses are introduced at a late stage and do not receive adequate scrutiny. That usually results in the creation of bad law, and we should avoid that. The crucial word is flexibility. We have had welcome assurances from the Programming Sub-Committee that the Government are prepared to reconsider the timetable if necessary. I hope that the Minister will hold to that during our proceedings.

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, more than 300 Government amendments and some 20 new clauses were debated after Second Reading. Does he agree that that should not happen in this case?

I entirely agree. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered that Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did that while I debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which was also rewritten by the Government as they went along—and then they completely reconstructed it in the House of Lords and it was a much better Bill as a result. I do not want to delay the hon. Member for Nottingham, North who is waiting to speak. I hope that we shall have constructive discussions and that the Minister will, as he has said that he will, listen carefully to our points, because we seek to improve the Bill, not to destroy it.

I welcome the assurances of the Home Secretary and of my hon. Friend the Minister that the debate will be conducted openly, so that proper amendments can be tabled. If people operate along those lines, we shall enhance the Bill. The quid pro quo is that hon. Members should be disciplined in addressing specific issues and not waste time. I say that because the programme motion is trying to squeeze not a quart but several gallons into a pint pot. Because the Bill is so large and we have little time, the Committee might have to be prepared to have Wednesday and late-night sittings in order to discuss it properly.

The provisions of the Bill will be with us for 20-odd years, so I should have hoped that a few more weeks of discussion could have been squeezed in to ensure thorough scrutiny; that is Parliament's job. The Bill is 150 pages long. If we are to have 30 sittings, that is five pages per sitting, or 10 pages a day. If we consider 10 pages today, we shall reach the end of the provisions relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We shall have to work very quickly to get there.

I do not criticise anybody on the Committee or connected with the Bill. There is an institutional weight in Whitehall that forces us to deal inadequately with Bills, regardless of party, of the Opposition view or of anybody's opinions on particular issues. Parliament is forced, unwillingly, to examine statutes. It gives a new meaning to the term ''statutory rape''—that is what happens continually, because of the way in which we are forced to deal with Bills. Governments—not just the current one—have become repeat offenders: they have a lot of previous to take into account. I hope that we can assist in their rehabilitation, and look to the Minister to help us to proceed productively and constructively.

The programme allows no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. That means that, other than through the brave and brief effort of the Home Affairs Committee, we shall not benefit from the experience of front-line police officers, probation officers, victims and witnesses who could bring a great deal to our proceedings. My constituents are concerned about the nuts and bolts issues in the Bill, which deals with major issues of civil liberty.

My local police inspector, a person I know who has been intimidated and who will not therefore give evidence, the Home Secretary and several other people who could have given evidence in an impartial, open forum, pre-legislatively, would have aided our work. I am not giving away any secrets when I say that already we are thinking about slight changes as a result of the experience that certain hon. Members have brought to bear, even before consideration of the Bill has got under way.

The Bill is not politically as adept as it might have been. It is an important Bill for the Government, and we could have drawn in far more people and gained their understanding of what we want to achieve. We have missed that chance.

Now that we have been pushed by the machine into this sausage-making process, this ritual, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure the Committee that this is the last time that a Bill of such significance will be dealt with in this way. Given that we now have carry-over and pre-legislative scrutiny, such a measure should in future be given a significant amount of time for scrutiny before coming to Standing Committee. He knows well that Bills are now being prepared in the Home Office for presentation after the next Queen's Speech. I hope that those responsible will, with the Leader of the House, timetable proceedings so that this time next year hon. Members, perhaps on this Committee, will participate in a pre-legislative process, enabling Bills to be dealt with properly. I hope that he will take that to heart and comment on it.

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are very supportive of his approach on these matters. Is he aware that in some European Union countries it is completely normal for any proposed Government Bill to be presented first in draft form to

Parliament? The measure is always then sent to the equivalent of a Special Standing Committee, for the taking of evidence, after which it is dealt with procedurally in the House, and goes through its normal stages.

I hope that that will be our process by this time next year. As I have said, I hope that no one thinks that I am casting aspersions on the Committee or any of its members. We are the victims of the current process, which has only just been changed, and clearly we could not have dealt with the Bill as I should have liked. However, next year we shall not have that excuse.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, inadequate though it may have been, there has been some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Home Affairs Committee?

I have paid tribute to the work of the Home Affairs Committee, and some of my amendments reflect work that it did. However, five or six sittings on a Bill of 150 pages cannot be adequate.

Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed a report that also amounted to an element of pre-legislative scrutiny. That should be available later in the week.

That is excellent. I welcome that news and hope that the report will enter into our work on the Bill. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will raise the relevant points that will arise.

As a layman, not a lawyer, attempting to get to grips with the Bill on behalf of my constituents, I must, like other hon. Members, wade through parliamentary drafting and legalese, which make things extremely difficult. However, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the matter of cross-referencing in the Bill. One needs four pairs of hands just to hold all the Bills that are necessary for reading across and back to see what provisions are being amended. That results in a much more difficult process for parliamentarians trying to do an honest, conscientious job of improving the Bill.

That is at the front end of the task. At the back end, we want police officers, probation officers and magistrates courts staff, as well as people who are the subject of the law, to understand what on earth we are doing, and the laws that we are passing. It is impossible for them—even the most articulate and capable people—to comprehend what we will ultimately produce. We need to start producing readable legislation. Perhaps you could take that point back to the Chairmen's Panel, Mr. Illsley. The issue concerns individuals: victims, witnesses and so on. They cannot access the Bill as it is now written, particularly because of the problem of obscure cross-referencing.

On clarity, the Bill says somewhere that the courts shall explain to the accused in ordinary language. Maybe we should start to explain matters to parliamentarians and others in ordinary language, so that those of us who take our job seriously can

understand what is going through the Government's mind and what is being deliberated on in Committee.

The White Paper was a model of its kind: superbly crafted, well put together and eminently readable, as a Bill should be. If all such documents could be like that, it would be an achievement. It mentioned the need for clarity and accountability. Again, however, we have missed the chance to do some of the basics. On courts, for example, people are absolutely mystified by the difference between the High Court and a Crown court. Why, for example, do we not refer to the regional criminal court rather than the Crown court? Why do we refer to a magistrates bench rather than a local court? Why do we not try to let people understand their own justice system?

I believe that the Bill is excellent, and that the programme motion does the best that it can in the circumstances, but I think that it will be extremely difficult to get through without additional time. However, I commend the Government for having put the Bill together. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use the process as a way of explaining the criminal justice system, not only to hon. Members but above all to members of the public, who depend on us to get things right.

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

The Minister said that we might be pushed for time. That is the reality of the situation. Over the years, time for deliberation in Committee has become shorter and shorter and shorter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was extremely active in debates on the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That Bill had 121 clauses, and we had some 55 hours in Committee. The current Bill has 273 clauses and 26 schedules. If we were even to have the same amount of time proportionately, we would need 130 hours in Committee to do it justice. We will get only about 65, which is probably half what we need. Conservative Members will not be filibustering, but there are big issues that need to be looked at in detail.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was right to say that everything in the House is so rushed nowadays. I am sure that every Government and Opposition Member feels the same. We hurry from A to B, and are never able to spend more than a minute or two on topics that require much more time. A Bill is published. No sooner does one have a chance to look at it than it has a Second Reading. As soon as the Second Reading has taken place, the Committee is set up almost instantly. There then follows an extraordinary rush in which one tries to draft amendments right up to the last moment. The non-governmental organisations are under huge pressure. One often drafts amendments late at night in order to submit them just in time, perhaps having received the relevant paperwork only an hour before. That is no way to proceed.

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

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.

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.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(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;{**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.

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