I beg to move amendment No. 848, in

schedule 18, page 233, line 19, at end insert—

'The offence under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (c.83) (idle and disorderly persons) of causing or procuring or encouraging any child or children to wander abroad, or place himself or herself in any public place, street, highway, court, or passage, to beg or gather alms.'

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 731, in

schedule 18, page 233, line 20, leave out paragraph 1.

Government amendments Nos. 849 to 851.

Amendment No. 732, in

schedule 18, page 234, line 9, leave out paragraph 8.

Government amendment No. 852.

Amendment No. 733, in

schedule 18, page 234, line 27, leave out paragraph 14.

Government amendments Nos. 853 to 864.

Amendment No. 734, in

schedule 19, page 242, line 9, leave out paragraph 4.

Government amendments Nos. 865 to 874, 839 to 844, 875 to 890 and 845 to 847.

Government new schedule 3—Enabling powers: alteration of maximum penalties etc.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 848 to 862, 875 to 887, 889 and 890 is to make the necessary changes to lower the maximum penalties for certain summary only offences, so that they may be compatible with the new sentencing framework. Once the new sentences are introduced, a full sentence of custody plus, which will replace all short custodial sentences currently available with a maximum of 51 weeks, will be the shortest maximum custodial sentence. Therefore, all summary only offences that carry a maximum penalty of, for example, one month or three months, will have to have their maximum penalty either raised to 51 weeks, so that a sentence of custody plus may be passed, or lowered so as to lose the custodial penalty.

In essence, the amendments make the necessary changes to remove the option of a custodial penalty for certain summary offences. That will mean that the new maximum penalty for those offences will be either a fine or the new generic community sentence, or a combination of both. All the offences to which the amendments apply are minor. Many are regulatory in nature. None of the offences involves cruelty to animals, the welfare of children, serious public health or safety issues or violent or sexual conduct. Maximum penalties for offences concerning such behaviour have been raised to retain a custodial penalty.

Amendments Nos. 863 to 874 are intended to make the necessary changes to the maximum penalties for certain summary only offences, again so that they can be compatible with the new sentencing framework.

Amendments Nos. 839 to 847 and new schedule 3 make the necessary drafting changes for a new schedule. There is provision for offences created under certain enabling powers to be made compatible with the new sentencing framework. Those are listed under clause 247. We thought that it was better to list the powers in the schedule. The amendments will add to the schedule relevant enabling powers that have been identified since the Bill was drafted.

None of my amendments will be pressed to a vote. We are dealing with summary offences no longer punishable with imprisonment, and I am mildly sorry that some offences will no longer qualify even for short prison sentences.

The amendments draw attention to three topics. The offence under section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 of causing or allowing persons under 16 to be used for begging is a very nasty offence. The Minister said that none of the offences involve the welfare of children. I gently suggest that that is exactly what that offence does. It is often committed in London and it is a nasty business where a nasty grownup persuades a youngster—very young—to do the begging. If we want to clear that from the streets, it is pointless to impose a £50 fine because the person will not pay it. It is pointless imposing a community penalty, because they probably have no address anyway. The result will be useless.

What sanction is possible in the real world against someone who commits a nasty offence like getting a young child to beg? How can it be driven from the streets? Imposing a fine of £25 will just mean an unpaid fine. There is no appropriate sentence for persistent offending of this kind but a short custodial sentence. The same goes for begging under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in paragraph 1.

Some might say that the offence under section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 of ''making a disturbance'' in churches, chapels and churchyards was not too serious. However, at one stage in our history it was extremely serious. Indeed, some might say that it should still be treated as being serious. The Act states:

''Any person who shall be guilty of riotous, violent, or indecent behaviour''—

indecent in this case does not bear its modern meaning—

''in England or Ireland in any cathedral church, parish or district church or chapel of the Church of England and Ireland''—

I venture to suggest that it should apply to any place of worship—

''or in any chapel of any religious denomination, or in England in any place of religious worship duly certified under the provisions of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, whether during the celebration of divine service or at any other time, or in any churchyard or burial ground, or''—

this critical point is not mentioned in the schedule—

''who shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by a any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorized to preach therein''

would be liable to imprisonment for up to two months.

Labour Members will be most interested to see that that Act was last used in 1968 on a matter of some importance. Notes from the 1968 case tell us that

'' 'Indecent' has no sexual connotation and accordingly 'Oh you hypocrites, how can you use the word of God to justify your policies?' shouted after the Foreign Secretary had read a passage from Micah 4 at a service specially arranged and televised for a Labour party conference in a Methodist church, with other protests against the Government's foreign policy, preventing the Prime Minister from reading Matthew 7, 17–29, was an offence despite expert evidence by the Reverend Lord Soper that the spirit of Methodism comprehended contentious disputation in church and a robust reaction to a politically provocative service''.

This is such good stuff that I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would read another three pages of it. I think that I am right to say that John Knox was involved in the case previous to that, but another case was when my first by-election opponent was charged with disrupting a sermon given by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I seem to remember that he may not have been convicted, or that he was given an absolute discharge.

That was most helpful. I shall not stray any further. Hon. Members have been patient. Custody many not be needed for that offence today, but it used to be a serious offence. I can foresee certain circumstances in which it might be used, unless they are covered by the Public Order Act 1986. However, I remain of the view that using children to beg can be nasty, and I cannot think of a better way of dealing with it than a short custodial sentence.

Well.

Were you at the service?

I do not think that I was. I would be interested to find out who were Foreign Secretary and Labour Prime Minister at the time. I do not know whether the Chamber of the House would constitute a place of worship and whether that offence would extend to MPs.

The provisions referred to by the hon. Member for Woking might allow hon. Members to preach in the Chamber and be listened to.

My hon. Friend suggests that if it did extend to MPs when they were preaching, they should be listened to. We shall certainly reflect on the point, and we are grateful for the genuinely interesting history lesson.

In relation to using children for begging, other legislation is in place for some of the offences for which we would allow the penalty. It might be possible to use provisions such as obtaining property by deception or burglary to deal with vagrancy offences—it would depend in the nature of the vagrancy. Returning to child begging, if the child is suffering ill-treatment or neglect the parents could be prosecuted under the various Children Acts. Alternatively, if the child was not being ill-treated, a community sentence with directive rehabilitation support could be a better way of dealing with the offence while keeping the family together. It depends entirely on the circumstances. I understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made his argument, and I hope that although I cannot match his knowledge of history, I have been able to satisfy him.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 849, in

schedule 18, page 233, line 20, leave out

'the Vagrancy Act 1824 (c.83)'

and insert 'that Act'.

No. 850, in

schedule 18, page 233, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

'Railway Regulation Act 1842

An offence under section 17 of the Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c.55) (punishment of railway employees guilty of misconduct).'.

No. 851, in

schedule 18, page 234, line 2, leave out from 'nuisances)' to end of line 3.

No. 852, in

schedule 18, page 234, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—

'North Sea Fisheries Act 1893

An offence under section 2 of the North Sea Fisheries Act 1893 (c.17) (penalty for supplying, exchanging, or otherwise selling spirits).

An offence under section 3 of that Act (penalty for purchasing spirits by exchange or otherwise).'.

No. 853, in

schedule 18, page 234, line 32, at end insert—

'Public Health Act 1936

An offence under section 287 of the Public Health Act 1936 (c.49) (power to enter premises).

Essential Commodities Reserves Act 1938

An offence under section 4(2) of the Essential Commodities Reserves Act 1938 (c.51) (enforcement).

London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939

An offence under section 142 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c.xcvii) (power of Council and others to enter buildings etc).

Cancer Act 1939

An offence under section 4 of the Cancer Act 1939 (c.13) (prohibition of certain advertisements).

Civil Defence Act 1939

An offence under section 77 of the Civil Defence Act 1939 (c.31) (penalty for false statements).'.

No. 854, in

schedule 18, page 235, line 9, at end insert—

'Civil Defence Act 1948

An offence under section 4 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 (c.5) (powers as to land).'.

No. 855, in

schedule 18, page 235, line 19, at end insert—

'Coast Protection Act 1949

An offence under section 25(9) of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (c.74) (powers of entry and inspection).'.

No. 856, in

schedule 18, page 236, line 37, at end insert—

'Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961

An offence under section 12(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961 (c.50) (restriction of disclosure of information).'

No. 857, in

schedule 18, page 237, line 24, at end insert—

'Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965

An offence under section 16 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (c.12) (cancellation of registration of society).

An offence under section 48 of that Act (production of documents and provision of information for certain purposes).'.

No. 858, in

schedule 18, page 238, line 5, at end insert—

'An offence under section 69 of that Act (false statements to obtain grants etc).'.

No. 859, in

schedule 18, page 239, line 8, leave out paragraph 65.

No. 860, in

schedule 18, page 239, line 10, leave out 'that Act' and insert

'the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c.16)'.

No. 861, in

schedule 18, page 239, line 32, at end insert—

'Town and Country Planning Act 1990

An offence under paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 15 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) (wrongful disclosure of information).'

No. 862, in

schedule 18, page 240, line 14, leave out paragraph 78 and insert—

'An offence under section 105 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5) (failure of person to maintain himself or another).'.—[Hilary Benn.]

Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.