Plant Health Act 1967

1 (1) Section 3 of the Plant Health Act 1967 (c.8) (control of spread of pests in Great Britain) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4A), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.

(3) After that subsection there is inserted—

''(4B) In subsection (4A) above, ''the prescribed term'' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, 51 weeks,

(b) in relation to Scotland, three months.''

Agriculture Act 1967

2 (1) Section 9 of the Agriculture Act 1967 (c.22) (powers to meet future developments in livestock and livestock products industries) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (10), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.

(3) After that subsection there is inserted—

''(10A) In subsection (10), ''the prescribed term'' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, 51 weeks,

(b) in relation to Scotland, three months.''

European Communities Act 1972

3 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) (provisions as to powers conferred by section 2(2)) is amended as follows.

(2) In subparagraph (1)(d), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.

(3) After subparagraph (2) there is inserted—

''(3) In subparagraph (1)(d), ''the prescribed term'' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is a summary offence, 51 weeks,

(b) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is triable either way—

(i) for offences committed before the commencement of an order under section 139(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (power to increase general limit on magistrates' power to impose imprisonment), 12 months, and

(ii) for offences committed after that commencement, 18 months or, if less, the maximum term of imprisonment to which the offender would be liable on conviction on indictment of the offence,

(c) in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, three months.''

Slaughterhouses Act 1974

4 In section 38(5) of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 (c.3) (maximum penalties to be prescribed by regulations), the words ''or imprisonment for a term of three months or both'' are omitted.

Anatomy Act 1984

5 (1) Section 11 of the Anatomy Act 1984 (c.14) (offences) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (7), for ''3 months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.

(3) After that subsection there is inserted—

''(7A) In subsection (7), ''the prescribed term'' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, 51 weeks,

(b) in relation to Scotland, 3 months.''

Environmental Protection Act 1990

6 (1) Section 141 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43) (power to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of waste) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (g) of subsection (5), for ''six months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.

(3) After that subsection there is inserted—

''(5A) In subsection (5)(g), ''the prescribed term'' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is a summary offence, 51 weeks,

(b) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is triable either way—

(i) for offences committed before the commencement of an order under section 139(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (power to increase general limit on magistrates' power to impose imprisonment), 12 months, and

(ii) for offences committed after that commencement, 18 months or, if less, the maximum term of imprisonment to which the offender would be liable on conviction on indictment of the offence,

(c) in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, six months.''

Regulatory Reform Act 2001

7 (1) Section 3 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c.6) (limitations on order-making power) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (3), for ''six months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.

(3) After that subsection there is inserted—

''(3A) In subsection (3)(b), ''the prescribed term'' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is a summary offence, 51 weeks,

(b) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is triable either way—

(i) for offences committed before the commencement of an order under section 139(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (power to increase general limit on magistrates' power to impose imprisonment), 12 months, and

(ii) for offences committed after that commencement, 18 months or, if less, the maximum term of imprisonment to which the offender would be liable on conviction on indictment of the offence,

jf13Ý(c) in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, six months''.'.—[Hilary Benn.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do now report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

I would like briefly to say a few words of thanks; first, to you, Mr. Illsley, and to your co-Chairman Mr. Cran, for what has been without exception the helpful and efficient way in which you have enabled the Committee to conduct its business. I use my words with care and feeling, because you have enabled us to give proper consideration to all the matters that needed to be debated and have done so with a style that has helped the Committee to do its work. All members of the Committee will be grateful to you.

I thank the Whips, the Clerk and the Hansard reporters for respectively organising, charting and chronicling our progress. I thank the police and the Doorkeepers for dealing with the Divisions. I have done my best to keep the number to a minimum and have had some success. I thank all the officials from both the Home Office and the other Departments for the outstanding support that they have given me—and indeed the Committee—through their regular flow of correspondence. When Committee members have felt that they have been missing the warm pleasures of the Committee, there has always been a letter in the post from me to keep everyone on their toes. I would particularly like to thank Lorraine Rogerson, the Bill manager, and her team for the superb job that they have done.

I also thank the parliamentary draftsmen and women, who have already had a plug during our proceedings; we have certainly kept a lot of them occupied. Finally, I thank the members of the Committee. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that I have never been on a Committee like it in my life, for a variety of reasons. I can safely say that the Bill emerges a better Bill, even with the things that we have yet to do, because of the contribution made by all members of the Committee.

A particular feature of the Committee has been the extent to which the Government Members have contributed in an active way our consideration of the Bill. That could not have been otherwise, because on the first morning I walked into the Committee I was conscious of the expertise and experience with which I was surrounded, and we have had the benefit of that over the past two and a bit months.

I believe that, as a result of those contributions, the Bill is a better Bill, and I am grateful to colleagues for their contribution. The Bill will make important changes to the criminal justice system, which I hope will help it to work more effectively. As it succeeds in doing that, it will also help to develop greater

confidence in the system, the importance of which has been a feature of many of the contributions made by Committee members during our deliberations.

I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister. I thank all the officials who have helped: the Clerks, the Hansard writers, you, Mr. Illsley, Mr. Cran, and also Mr. Pike, who chaired two of our Committee meetings because of the length of the proceedings.

It has been a most enjoyable Committee. Personally, I should thank, or rather apologise to, the parliamentary draftsmen and women who worked on the Bill. I am conscious that at times I have exercised them—sometimes in a bad way. Nevertheless, it is the lot of the Opposition constantly to raise points of which 99 per cent. turn out to be bad, but as long as there is one good one we shall continue to do that.

I also thank my Opposition colleagues, and in particular my Conservative colleagues, who have supported me. Without my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I could not have done the job of scrutinising the legislation.

There is no doubt that the Bill has been, with one or two exceptions, well scrutinised. The exceptions are unfortunate, and I hope that lessons can be learned from that for the future. I say that while at the same time almost lavishing praise on the Government Whip, who seems to me to have done a superb job. The exceptions to scrutiny are not his fault but to some extent the fault of the system.

I tend to the view that that is because, a bit like the Northern Ireland peace process, there still remains an element of historical mistrust about whether agreements will be observed. However, I believe that the Minister will have gauged, from the way in which the Committee has been conducted—following on from my own experience during consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Bill—that I am willing to see programming work properly. I believe that if it does work properly, it can be a powerful tool for good scrutiny, while at the same time ensuring that business passes through the Committee in a reasonable period.

It is, however, unfortunate that there are some areas that we have not been able to consider, and that we will have to rely on Report, which is inadequate, or on the other place to do that. I suspect that in the other place the scrutiny will be very detailed. My message for the Government, therefore, is that, although we have scrutinised the Bill carefully, the alterations that we have made to it so far have not been considerable. However, the Government have further opportunities to take account of what we have said. Certainly they will have to argue hard in another place about some of their proposals.

If consensus could be achieved on a Bill that the Home Secretary has said he wants to see as a model that will not be tampered with for some years to come, and if the Government were to consider pragmatically some of the anxieties that have been expressed, they could go a long way towards dealing with them while leaving the main thrust of the Bill intact, and in my view enhanced. That is my plea to them.

4.45 pm

I hope that it is not improper to say this, but it should be acknowledged that the Minister and his colleagues have been models of courtesy. One day, the Minister's father sat at the back of the Room. Mindful of the short overlap when his father and he were present in the House, one was left with the sensation that it was not so much a chip off the old block as the old block itself. As was said of the younger and elder Pitt, the Minister has brought all the courtesy, charm and consideration that we associated with his father to the Committee's work. He has also brought a willingness to engage in proper debate by looking at the details without disappearing, as there is a tendency to do in the House, into mere rhetoric when he could not think of a further argument.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and we look forward to Report, when we can further improve the Bill. I hope that it is what the Home Secretary and we want it to be: a Bill that will stand the test of time.

I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is not present. He is giving the Shaftesbury memorial lecture at Harrow school.

Are there any tickets?

Such an august establishment deserves my hon. Friend's wisdom.

The end of a long, complicated Bill is like the BAFTA awards, because everybody has to thank everybody else ad nauseam. I do not want to break with that tradition. I thank you, Mr. Illsley, your co-Chairman and the cast of supporting actors that have made this Committee so effective in its considerations. I want also to thank other members of the Committee for the way in which they have approached the Bill.

As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said, the Committee has been excellent. The Government Back Benchers have been the most well-qualified and intimidating whom I have experienced. One could feel the invisible forces of legal scrutiny attacking one's every word. That is good, and I thank those Government Members for their engagement.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has veered from rampant populism to sound common sense with alarming regularity. His contribution to the Committee has been important.

I do not know the appropriate adjective for the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), but the Bassetlegal approach to drugs legislation has been important. I embarrassingly found myself in agreement with the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking. I do not know what that suggests for the future of home affairs legislation, and I find it a difficult concept to agree on home affairs issues with Conservative Front Benchers—but they have moved, not us.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made some important observations. As has been said, the Minister and his colleagues have constantly engaged with the debate, which is all that Opposition Members can ask. We know that his flexibility of

movement is limited, but he has been constantly engaged with our arguments and has been prepared to reflect on them. He has made a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee, for which I thank him, even where we disagree—and we do disagree on fundamental issues that affect various parts of the Bill. We will have to argue those out on the Floor of the House and in another place—they have been clearly mapped out. Nevertheless, the Committee has done its work assiduously and well. That is the most that one can expect from a Standing Committee.

May I make a brief contribution in the manner of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey? I shall try to squeeze it into two hours. I know that you know, Mr. Illsley, that I started this Committee the same height as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, with not a grey hair on my head—at times it has been quite an ordeal. I thank you for your experience and wisdom; the Clerk, who has given me excellent advice all the way through; and all the supporting cast.

I recognise that we have the country's future Law Lords sitting along the back row. That can be intimidating. I had wondered what heinous sin I had committed in some past life to be surrounded by so many lawyers, then I realised that my hon. and learned Friends have been helpful throughout and have made a valuable contribution. Most of my trouble came from my not-so-learned Friends. I remember thinking, when we celebrated my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North becoming Back Bencher of the year, that he was making a bid to be Back Bencher of the decade the way he was going. He has been helpful in touching on things that we needed to debate.

I want to put right one thing that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. The pagers are supplied by the Whips Office. I do not want anybody to be under any illusion that they ever go wrong. I was worried when he told me that there was something wrong with his pager this morning. People without pagers tend to go wandering through the Lobbies with any Tom, Dick or Harry, so I thought that I should check on it. I put it on record that the Whip's pager is in complete working order, and I have some advice for my hon. Friend. When one sets the alarm, it is best to set it for March—it seldom works when it is set for February. Really, all the Back Benchers, on both sides, have played a valuable role in the Committee, and I thank them. I know that I am sometimes quite ratty, especially with my own side.

I want to thank the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who played a very good supporting role for the Minister—everybody recognises that he has shouldered the major burden. In many respects, the fact that this has been a good Committee has been due to him. His style, his courtesy and the way in which he has dealt with Committee members has rubbed off on the rest of the Committee. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking treated the Committee with equal courtesy, and it has been excellent.

I save my final remarks for my opposite numbers in the Tory and Liberal Democrat Whips Offices. I was able to gain a number of concessions for Third Reading and extra time because I was able to argue that both of them had been reasonable and had co-operated in the running of the Committee. If things were good, it was because it was a joint effort. There is a story being peddled around that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is liable to be the Chief Whip in the next Conservative Government and that I am trying to ensure that I get my knighthood by pandering to him. That is completely untrue—I am not prepared to wait 35 years for a knighthood.

Before we rise, I want, on behalf of Mr. Cran, Mr. Pike and myself, to thank all hon. Members for their kind comments. It has been a pleasure to chair the Committee. I also thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for arranging three days for Report stage. That gives me three days off the Whip, and I give them my special thanks for wringing that concession from the powers that be.

I thank all hon. Members for their conduct throughout. The debate has been of excellent quality, and it was undertaken with good humour—as has been apparent up to the last. On behalf of my two colleagues, I thank you for that.

I echo hon. Members' thanks to the Doorkeepers, the police, the Hansard writers, the Clerks and everyone else involved. In particular, I thank the Clerk, Liam Laurence Smyth. On the first day on which the Committee sat, he received notification of a promotion, but for some reason—the balance of his mind was probably impaired—he decided to stay. You have provided excellent advice to me and to the Committee, and I thank you, Liam.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at four minutes to Five o'clock.