Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2002.

Standing Committee A

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I remind members of the Committee that mobile phones and pagers should either function silently or not at all. Our proceedings must not be interrupted by bleeps, rings or whirrs.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Order of the Committee of 23rd May, 2002 be amended as follows—

(a) in sub-paragraph (6) (proceedings to be brought to a conclusion by 1.00pm on Tuesday, 25 June 2002), for the words '', Clauses 38 to 42 and New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 4'' there shall be substituted the words ''and Clauses 38 to 42''; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (7) (proceedings to be concluded by 7.00pm on that day), after the words ''proceedings on'' there shall be inserted the words ''New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 4,''.

(2) the Standing Committee recommends that 1 1/2 days be allotted for consideration and Third reading of the Police Reform Bill [Lords].

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 - Powers exercisable by police civilians

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 66 in page 134, line 19, at end insert

'whom he reasonably suspects to be in possession of an object that is likely to cause harm or injury'.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 67 in page 135, line 3, at end insert

'whom he reasonably suspects to be in possession of an object that is likely to cause harm or injury'.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Amendment No. 66 refers to the power of an escort officer to take an arrested person to a police station and amendment No. 67 is concerned with the escort of persons in police detention. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I want to insert into the Bill a protective clause. At present, an escort officer has the power to search a person in his lawful custody and retain any items found. My hon. Friend has frequently asked at which point we draw the line because he believes that the provision is a step too far. We are concerned about liberty and direct infringements, and we do not want to go the whole way down such a road.

The amendment recognises those situations in which a search must be conducted in order to prevent an incident, which might cause harm to the officer or

the person in custody. It is logical and it is necessary for the protection of people. The escort officer must reasonably suspect that a person is in possession of an object that is likely to cause harm or injury before being able to carry out such a search. Then—and only then—could a non-intimate search take place. The amendment would add basic criteria to the Bill, which should be in place before a search can be made. It would result in the best of both worlds. It would safeguard the rights of the citizen, but would allow for a search to be made to protect the escort officer.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Unfortunately, I was absent from the first sitting that you chaired, Miss Widdecombe, so I should now like to say how pleased I am to see you in the Chair rather than where the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is sitting in Committee.

The amendments would restrict the powers of escort officers to conduct a search because they will confine the grounds to situations in which escort officers reasonably suspect a person to be in a possession of an object that is likely to cause harm or injury. The Government will resist them because they would hamper the ability of escort officers to carry out their duties. Consequently, there would be little point in designating non-police officers as escort officers in the first place and that would undermine our aim of freeing-up police officers for other duties. There is a good reason why escort officers who have detainees in their lawful custody should have the same powers as constables to search those persons under subsection (6A) of section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to seize anything found on such a search under subsection (6B) of section 54 of the Act. After all, escort officers are under a duty to prevent people whom they are escorting from escaping and are responsible for the safety of those in their custody.

It is important that an escort officer is able to conduct a search to ascertain whether the person in his custody has on him anything that he could use to cause physical injury to himself or another person, damage property, interfere with evidence or assist escape. The ability should not be restricted by a reasonable suspicion of possession test.

As an example, an escort officer might escort a detained person from one police station to another who might have on them a seemingly harmless item such as a mobile phone, which might be used to assist in organising an escape. Under the amendment, the escort officer would be unable to seize the item, because they would be unable to conduct a search, and because of the nature of the item itself.

An even more serious situation would be when the person being escorted has a concealed knife. The officer might not have reasonable grounds to suspect that a knife is being carried until it has been pulled on him or another person, by which time it is too late.

Given that police officers do not routinely search every person they escort, that raises the question of on what grounds and on what basis police officers who exercise the power carry out a search. In practice, I am told, police officers tend to exercise their PACE powers by carrying out a risk assessment. They would not

search every person, but there would be some in whose case they thought that the risk was higher and a search would be carried out. That seems a reasonable approach. That does not necessarily pass a strict legal test of reasonable suspicion. They would consider the nature of the individual whom they were escorting.

To apply a test, whether to police officers or escort officers, of reasonable suspicion, would unnecessarily constrain their powers. It is far better for those escorting detained persons to have the scope to search whenever they are worried that certain articles might be concealed and about whether articles could be used for any of the purposes set out in section 54(4)(a). That is the position for police officers. There is no evidence that that power is misused or wrongly applied, and I see no basis for a more restrictive approach for civilian escort officers. On that basis, I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On this occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I and other Conservative Members agree more with the Minister than with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). On many occasions, we have shared the views of Liberal Democrat Members in trying to amend the Bill, but, for the purely practical reasons that the Minister set out, the amendment would unduly hamper the work that such officers will be asked to do.

Those of us who, like me, have spent time working as a barrister, visiting cells and seeing the work of those carrying out detention and escort duties, believe that it is essential that people designated for such work have the opportunity to do searches properly, without being unduly hampered, both for their own protection and, as the Minister explained, for the preservation of law and order more generally. Although we understand entirely the genuine motivation of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole in tabling the amendment, on this occasion, we cannot support her because we agree with the Minister.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I listened carefully to the Minister, and on the basis that he came up with an argument that was not only persuasive but right, in as far as our amendment had not covered circumstances in which someone was carrying something that would aid escape, I cannot, being a reasonable person, say other than that seems perfectly reasonable.I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, because I accept the reasonableness of the argument, but I still believe that we are going down a road that I am not convinced that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I want to go down.

I ask the Minister to consider the guidance that should be given to civilians. He ably described how a police constable would carry out a risk assessment, but for someone with far more limited training, an adequate risk assessment is difficult to carry out on the spur of the moment. We have spoken quite a lot about training and that would be of particular importance in this matter. On the subject of guidance, there should be

more instances when the search could take place, but I am not happy with a carte blanche. I put it to the Minister that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but not in the place suggested under the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 206, in page 134, line 33, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

: I beg to move amendment No. 207, in page 134, line 37, after second 'that' insert 'or any other police'.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 208 to 211.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that we are going down a road that she is not happy with. The amendments address the question of how long that road is. As hon. Members will realise, the Bill as drafted allows escort officers to carry out their duties within only one police force area. Quite reasonably, the police put it to us that there is no reason why, if someone was arrested in Northumbria but was wanted for questioning in Surrey, a civilian escort officer should not escort him. The amendments to schedule 4 paragraph 31 would allow designated escort officers to escort detainees between police force areas. The amendments are purely practical, and I commend them to the Committee.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Welcome back to the chairmanship of our proceedings, Miss Widdecombe.

The amendments are entirely sensibly. The police made similar representations to us. The amendments are a necessary improvement to the Bill, and we are pleased that the Government tabled them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 208, in page 134, line 38, leave out

'a place in that area that is'

and insert 'any other place'.

No. 209, in page 134, line 40, after 'area' insert

'or in another police area'.

No. 210, in page 134, line 40, at end insert—

'(1A) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, that person may be authorised by the custody officer for any designated police station outside the relevant police area to escort a person in police detention—

(a) from that police station to a designated police station in that area; or

(b) from that police station to any place in that area specified by the custody officer and either back to that police station or on to another police station (whether in that area or elsewhere).'.

No. 211, in page 134, line 42, after '(1)' insert 'or (1A)'.

No. 212, in page 135, line 25, after '35' insert

'or (Police powers for contracted-out staff)'.

No. 213, in page 135, line 29, at end insert—

'(1A) In this Schedule ''a designation'' means a designation under section 35.

(1B) In Parts 3 and 4 of this Schedule ''a designation'' also includes a designation under section (Police powers for contracted-out staff).'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 - Community safety accreditation schemes

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 35, line 37, leave out 'consult with' and insert 'obtain the approval of'.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this we may discuss the following: Government amendment No. 214.

Amendment No. 145, in page 35, line 38, after 'and', insert

'before giving such approval, the police authority in question must consult'.

Amendment No. 146, in page 36, line 23, at end insert—

'(6A) It shall be the responsibility of any police authority which has approved a scheme under this section to undertake a full review of the workings of the scheme 12 months after its establishment and in particular to—

(a) seek the views of the principal local authority for the area; and

(b) monitor the impact of the scheme on public confidence in the force maintained by that authority.'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I apologise for being marginally late this morning. I was accompanying a school in my constituency on a walking bus, which arrived on time. Unfortunately, the train from Lewes to London did not, hence my slight delay.

It would help the Committee if I were to set out briefly our vision for policing in so far as it affects accredited officers, who are the subject of the clause and the amendment. My colleagues and I have said on several occasions that we would like a system that is as simple and accountable as possible. One of our concerns is that the arrangements that the Government would like to put in place would lead to myriad bodies with unclear responsibilities and differing powers. The public would not know where they stood.

We are keen to have a two-tier system. One tier would consist of properly trained full-time—and part-time, if necessary—police officers and specials. The second would consist of everyone else, and would include CSOs, accredited community safety officers and traffic wardens, all of whom would have the same powers. That would have the benefit of simplicity and accountability. However, that is not what is proposed in the Bill. Through the amendment, we are trying to make the best of a bad job. I hope that the Minister does not think that it is unduly impolite to put it in those terms, but that is how we think of it.

Amendment No. 144 seeks to increase accountability. I will not speak for long on the subject because we discussed it when we considered the accountability of CSOs. In some respects, accredited officers are one stage further removed in the accountability process than CSOs proper. It seems from the Bill that virtually anyone can accredit officers to do virtually anything in any area. Although that is

a slight exaggeration, there is considerably more flexibility in this scheme than is afforded to the arrangements for CSOs in previous clauses.

The Government propose that accredited officers will be employable by the private sector and will operate in the interests of the private sector in many ways. We see that in more detail in Amendment No. 12, in the next group, which increases the need for accountability and approval by the democratically accountable police authority. That is why amendment 144 seeks to require the chief of police to obtain approval from the police authority rather than simply consulting it. Otherwise, the following scenario is possible. A group of people, a private company that may be controversial in some respects, may wish to have accredited officers. The chief of police may agree and even though the police authority may be wholly opposed, it could not do very much about it.

As the Minister said last week—and I agree—any chief officer would be foolish to go down that road against the clear wishes of the police authority. Nevertheless, the Bill as drafted would allow that to happen. It is better to prevent errors and problems than trying to correct them subsequently—perhaps by getting rid of chief officers using the wide powers that the Minister is giving himself. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to that argument.

I welcome Government Amendment No. 214, which increases consultation. It seems to go further than our amendment No. 145, so I have no problem with it. Amendment No. 146 seeks a review period after 12 months. The Government propose to embark on a new form of policing that is a radical departure. It involves the private sector far more than previously and involves a new tier of officers or wardens, or whatever the public comes to call them. It also involves a range of different and new powers for people who did not have them before. Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to have a requirement to stop and take stock after 12 months, and see whether the scheme is working.

We should see whether the scheme has delivered a safer environment. Do people feel better on the streets? Has it dealt with the problems of vandalism and disturbance that we all want to see tackled? Or, has it led to a withdrawal of police in favour of second tier officers, or whatever the official term will turn out to be? Has it led to problems for those people in their interface with the public? Has it led to the police being called to deal with more argy-bargy between accredited officers and members of the public? In other words, has it exacerbated the situation that it is meant to deal with?

The latter is a pessimistic scenario, and the optimistic one may turn out to be true—doubtless that is what the Minister will argue. Either way, I am sure that he will accept that the scheme is a radical departure. Under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask for a review after 12 months, which I hope would involve not only the police authority but the community at large. Indeed, if the Minister is right and the officers will be welcome in the

community, he should welcome a review, because it would help cement the relationship, ensure that the foundations that have been built are secure, and that the roots go deeper into the ground.

It is not unreasonable to ask for a review. In many ways, to refuse it would be a sign of weakness and a lack of confidence that the system will work. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept the logic of a review. At various junctures in their contributions to the Bill, the Conservatives have suggested pilot schemes. In a sense, our amendment would make this a pilot scheme to be reviewed after 12 months. We should proceed carefully, slowly and with proper monitoring procedures rather than go hell for leather and regret mistakes afterwards.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My party has more sympathy with some of what the hon. Member for Lewes has said on this matter than with several of his other proposals. At the end of his remarks, he rightly stressed that Conservative Committee members have repeatedly said that this entire new system should be properly piloted. If we were to persuade the Government to go down the route that we have consistently suggested of having a few pilot schemes that are sufficient to assess the system, it would be desirable to have a review of those schemes. Therefore, we have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about reviews.

However, we are concerned that many of those who have been looking at the way that community safety schemes have been operating, and the way that the Government's existing system of links between police authorities and local authorities are working, feel that there is a danger that the whole thing could be consulted to death. One can have too much of a good thing, and there is a lot of feeling—particularly among Conservatives in the local authority world—that so much consulting is going on that not much action can be taken. Therefore, we have less sympathy with the suggestion that everything must be consulted on, and approved of, before there is any action.

However, we appreciate that the hon. Members for Lewes and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole have genuine motives for proposing the amendments, and we will listen with interest to what the Minister says about them. The Bill talks about police authorities being consulted, and that might not make much difference in practice. The Liberal Democrats propose that the Bill should specify that there must be prior approval: if there were a big difference between having a consultation and having to obtain prior approval, that might indicate that there is something seriously wrong with the relationship between the chief officer and his police authority, because if a chief officer is going to be consulting anyway, he might not be willing to go ahead if the result of that is unfavourable.

I accept that it makes things much more explicit if the Bill refers specifically to prior approval. However, we have worries about issues such as consultation to death and consultation with everybody. Many of us have come across situations in which the views of the majority party in a local authority about the best way

to move forward are not in accordance with those of the chief constable, or many members of the police authority. We would not want the requirement for still further consultation between the police authority and the local authority to strangle the whole thing at birth, and to lead to a log-jam. Perhaps the Minister will refer to some of those points?

We have much sympathy with what the Liberal Democrats have to say on reviewing, but we also want the Government to move much further in our direction by agreeing that the new system should be properly piloted first.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

The three amendments strengthen the whole concept by tying the police authority into the tripartite system—or the whole picture.

Although amendment No. 144 is crucial, I shall specifically talk about amendment No. 145. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that one can consult too much, and there is some truth in that. However, the scheme's objective is to establish neighbourhood policing, which is about involving all of the relevant authorities. It is about everybody working together to look at the whole picture, so that the reasons behind, for example, antisocial behaviour can be understood. It is isolationist to have individual wardens chasing litter without any communication about how that problem can be solved; the requirement to consult strengthens local crime and disorder partnerships. The key to success is to change behaviour, as well as to stop it. That is why consultation is helpful.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I do not think that anyone would have a problem with consultation because that is how to get the best policies. However, the Liberal Democrats propose a veto on the actions of the chief constable. Is it not a radical departure from the tripartite arrangements that we have previously discussed if the police authority and other parties may veto the operational independence of the chief constable? Is the new Liberal Democrat line to tie the hands of chief constables?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

My background as a teacher makes me want to come out with a comment, but I shall try to bite it back. I made it clear that I was addressing amendment No. 145. That is about consultation, but not holding anything up or seeking approval. I addressed that in such detail that I cannot see any problems.

I reinforce the point that amendment No. 145 would strengthen a local crime and disorder partnership. We should examine the issue holistically rather than go around saying, ''Stop, stop, stop.'' We should change behaviour as well.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The issues are fairly straightforward. Let me deal first with consultation. There is no question but that the chief officer should consult with the police authority and, indeed, local authorities. Government amendments will tidy up the definition of the principal local authority. Undoubtedly, consultation will occur among crime and disorder reduction partnerships, local authorities and the police

authority when an accreditation scheme is proposed. However, that is not the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) pointed out, the issue is whether a police authority should have a veto on an operational decision by a chief constable. We rehearsed the arguments on that last week when we discussed community support officers. Consultation should take place, but a police authority should not have a veto, and we resist the amendment on that basis.

I come to the question of review. The process of drawing up the annual policing plan, which involves consultation among the local community, the chief officer and the police authority, provides an appropriate vehicle to review the success and progress of an accreditation scheme after not only the first 12 months, but every year. I am reluctant to write a requirement for a separate process to do the same thing into the Bill because police officers and others would be diverted to that activity. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes that it would be helpful to examine how the accreditation scheme worked in practice and to find out whether there were any problems and whether the scheme was delivering its intended results. It is appropriate to do that through the annual policing plan. We should avoid having a bureaucratic responsibility to do something different.

A couple of things should be clarified, and we might be able to debate them at greater length when we consider other amendments. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for setting out his vision. We shall resist the idea that accredited officers who work for non-police employers should simply be merged with community support officers who work with the police. There is a good reason for having a differential between the powers and responsibilities of those officers because their accountability is clearly different.

The hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that it appears that almost anybody may accredit a scheme. He continued to say that that was a slight exaggeration—I think that the expression that he was looking for was ''a total travesty''. The only person who may accredit a scheme is the chief officer. The chief officer is constrained by the requirements themselves and by whether the employer of the relevant group of employees wants to participate in an accredited scheme. The chief officer's power is by no means untrammelled. Nobody except the chief officer may agree that an accreditation scheme should exist in an area.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Does the Minister envisage that most of the neighbourhood warden schemes that currently exist will become accredited schemes over a period of time? Alternatively, does he expect a two-tier system of schemes in which some are accredited and some are not?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

If I can rely on the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase ''over a period of time'', I anticipate that the majority of neighbourhood warden schemes and street warden schemes will come within accreditation. It is too early to be sure how many such schemes will take advantage of additional powers,

such as issuing fixed penalty notices or dealing with alcohol, and at what stage that will happen. For example, I suspect that the power to remove abandoned vehicles will be taken up widely at a fairly early stage. When considering other CSO powers that we discussed last week, people will look at those who first try using the powers to see whether they work, and they will make a judgment on whether the powers are appropriate for their area.

The advantages to an area of having a kite mark standard through which people who carry out the role have a common badge and accreditation system and a statutory framework to link people to radio communications and information systems lead me to believe that the take up of accreditation will be widespread over a period of time, which was the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used. The public will welcome that.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Will the Minister clarify further that no pressure will be put on local authorities and other organisations to push them into accreditation even over a period of time? Many schemes do not currently want accreditation or to be nationalised as part of a great national accreditation scheme.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

There will not be pressure other than that which comes from the spread of good practice and knowledge of what works throughout the country. There will not be a national accreditation scheme because the schemes will operate at force level, chief officer level or even within part of a force. My impression—this is not from a scientific study—after talking to representatives of schemes throughout the country is that the concept of becoming accredited and having a formal legitimacy as part of the extended police family is widely welcomed.

We have always acknowledged that the greater debate is about the extent to which additional powers should be taken up as part of the accreditation system. It is possible to have an accreditation scheme that examines issues such as common training, common insignia and shared communications without adopting the full range of formal powers in the Bill.

I should make a final point. We are actively considering tabling a further amendment on Report relating to consultation on accreditation schemes. It would relate to a consultation right for the Mayor of London because of his role in several London issues. Obviously, I shall write to hon. Members if that is likely, but I thought that it would be helpful to flag up our current thinking.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am sure that the Minister's last point is a sensible idea. We look forward to his amendment on Report, although I am not sure whether fixed penalty notices should be given for falling off balconies. We shall examine the details of the amendment closely.

I turn to the Minister's response to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I tabled. I did not utter a travesty, to use his words. I used poetic licence—poetic

exaggeration—to make a point and underline my worry about the direction in which the process is going.

It is insufficient to say that everything in the Bill is hunky-dory and that we need have no worries. The Minister conceded that there is a case for a review but that he does not want to build in a formal 12-month period. The danger with his informal approach is that areas in which the system works well—if such areas will exist—will be keen to have a review to pat themselves on the back and demonstrate that everything functions brilliantly and the decision to implement the system was right. An area in which the system does not work well might be tempted not to have a review in case it throws up problems, and the area might hope that if it carries on, the problems will go away and a review could be held when it would give the right results. I do not think that the Minister's informal approach will necessarily work. However, as the issues have been exhaustively discussed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 214, in page 35, line 38, leave out 'and the principal local authority for that area' and insert '; and

(b) every local authority any part of whose area lies within the police area.

(3A) In subsection (3)(b) ''local authority'' means—

(a) in relation to England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 36, line 11, leave out from 'with' to end of line 14 and insert,

'any local authority falling within the police authority area'.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in page 36, line 15, leave out 'employers' and insert 'local authorities'.

No. 14, in page 36, line 19, leave out 'employers' and insert 'local authorities'.

No. 15, in page 36, line 23, at end add—

'(7) In this section ''local authority'' means the relevant local authority, that is to say—

(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, a metropolitan council, a unitary council or the Common Council of the City of London; and

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.'.

No. 16, in clause 37, page 36, line 27, leave out 'any employer' and insert 'a local authority'.

No. 17, in page 36, line 28, after 'employees', insert 'or sub-contractors'.

No. 18, in page 36, line 28, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 19, in page 36, line 30, leave out 'person' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 21, in page 36, line 31, after 'employee', insert 'or sub-contractor'.

No. 22, in page 36, line 31, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 23, in page 36, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 24, in page 37, line 8, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 25, in page 37, line 17, leave out second 'person' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 26, in page 37, line 18, leave out 'whom' and insert 'which'.

No. 27, in page 37, line 20, at end add—

'(9) In this section ''local authority'' means the relevant local authority, that is to say—

(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, a Metropolitan borough council, a unitary council or the Common Council of the City of London; and

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.'.

No. 36, in clause 38, page 37, line 37, after 'time', insert,

'(and in case of accreditation under section 37, after consultation with the local authority)'.

No. 37, in page 37, line 43, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 38, in page 38, line 2, after 'employees', insert 'or sub-contractors'.

No. 39, in page 38, line 2, leave out 'person' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 40, in page 38, line 8, leave out first 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 41, in page 38, line 8, leave out 'or employer'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We are addressing many amendments, but most of them are consequential to amendment No. 12, so I shall focus on the principle of accountability.

During the Parliament that ended in 1997, I imagine that this sort of amendment would have been eagerly tabled by Labour hon. Members. They would have been frothing at the bit to object to the Conservative Government's introduction of powers to extend policing to the private sector without accountability. They would have leapt up and down about such a proposal. However, I suspect that they will all vote against my proposal to put controls on how far the private sector can be involved in policing in a way that I regard as unaccountable—Labour Members have not yet convinced me that that is not the case.

Committee members from all parties have frequently said that accountability is a key issue. The central question is whether it is right or in the public interest to extend policing powers—albeit relatively minor ones—to those who are not directly accountable to the police, or to an elected body such as a local authority, or even to housing associations, or other bodies that have pseudo-respectability.

The Minister envisages that a private company can, for its own reasons, deploy members of staff, who are answerable to it and acting in its interests, to undertake what is effectively public policing. There may be an argument for the accreditation of individuals, where they are solely on private property—for example, in supermarkets—although whether they should have police powers is another matter.

We are all in favour of bringing up the standards of those who act as security guards, or in similar capacities. However, we are talking about a different matter when, first, they are given police powers and, secondly, they may be operating in public areas.

Newhaven town centre, in my constituency, is privately owned, apart from the high street that runs through the middle of it. It is not covered; it looks like any other highway. However, I presume that the owners of Newhaven town centre will be able to apply for—and would receive—authorisation from the chief constable for an accredited scheme to be operative there. If that were to happen, if someone was cycling in the town centre in an area that they regarded to be public land, an individual who was employed by a private company—and who was, predominantly, looking after its interests, rather than the public's—would be able to stop them and give them a fixed penalty ticket for riding on a footway, or for consuming alcohol, or for any of the other categories of powers that are set out in schedule 5.

They include the power to require the name and address of a person who is acting in an antisocial manner. The Minister has, under pressure, withdrawn the right of accredited persons to detain people, and I welcome that, but that does not go far enough. His current line is inconsistent, because he now proposes to allow these people to require a name and address, but not to give them any powers to enforce that. It would be better if they did not have that power because, at present, there is no sanction if someone says, ''Get lost.''

There could be a situation in which a private company has interests divergent from those of the public, and rather than acting in the public interest such people would act in the interests of the company concerned. The type of restrictions that they wish to put in place and the sort of behaviour that they wish to engender within the area of the scheme in which they are operating, may not be ones that the public at large would wish to see. However, having got past the hurdle of the chief constable, the private organisation would be able to have the powers.

The chief constable is the only publicly accountable safeguard within the scheme because the Minister has rejected our view that the local police authority should be able to determine whether the scheme should be set up. We are relying on one person—the chief constable—to ensure that private individuals who have police powers and act in a private company's interests are also acting in the public interest. To some degree, that is policing for profit.

I draw the Minister's attention to the view of the Police Federation of England and Wales. He may choose to paint it as one of self-interest, but they are police officers on the ground and know the realities of policing better than either the Minister or myself—they fill a space at it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The federation says that it is totally opposed to the powers conferred in the Bill on accredited safety officers. It believes that the public will be even more confused about the role and powers of ACSOs, and

that the involvement of the private sector opens up a series of nightmare scenarios, including infiltration by those minded to further criminal activities.

We have discussed the view that arrangements for handling complaints against ACSOs lack transparency and accountability, which the federation also believes. It is concerned that chief officers could also end up facing civil action arising out of ACSO schemes.

The federation raises serious concerns. Why does the Minister not envisage a system of policing in which police powers are enforced by people directly accountable to the police or to a local authority? When we discussed CSOs in an earlier debate, the Minister was keen to say that their powers were comparable to local authority powers. We did not necessarily buy that argument, but he raised, by way of defence, the powers of environmental health officers, trading standards officers or planning officers going on to sites to look at planning applications. The difference between those three and the scheme proposed is that they are all accountable to the local authority. At the end of the day, there is a proper complaints system that is publicly accountable. There are elected councillors who will lose their seats if anything goes wrong. There is a local government ombudsman and a system in place that people respect. That will not happen under this arrangement.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am somewhat lost by the argument pursued by the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, the schemes would have to be approved by the chief constable and their effectiveness monitored. The amendment seems to imply that the safeguard of democracy is somehow to have them under the control of the local authority. The conclusion of the argument would be that the police authority should come directly under the same control, or that we should have directly elected police authorities. As he knows, the police authority is not solely made up of councillors, and the only way to have the accountability that he seeks would be to have them under control or directly elected.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is a red herring, although I do not know whether it is a deliberate or well-meaning one. The Government recognise that there is a major role for local authorities in policing. They introduced crime and disorder partnerships. I give credit to the Government for that good idea, which seems to be working well. It combines the benefit of police experience and professionalism with the opportunity for locally elected councillors who know their patches well to have an input into what happens on the streets. It works well and I give the Government credit.

However, both those elements are accountable and the hon. Gentleman misses the point that what is proposed comes outside the crime and disorder partnership—it is at one stage removed. There may well be arguments about how the police authority is constructed—whether it should be partly elected, and what the democratic accountability should be—but that is a separate issue to that proposed today. We are discussing the accountability of privately employed people having police powers.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Such people come under the control of the chief constable. Let us imagine that the chief constable was accountable to the local authority. Surely that will create confusion. The hon. Gentleman is proposing that the policing in an area should be politicised.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The concept of policing that I set out at greater length on Second Reading would have been more simple and accountable than what is proposed in the Bill. People who exercised low-level police powers would be subject to local authority control, but they would have to go through a police-approved scheme. The chief constable would have a big say in such matters through the crime and disorder partnership. Such a concept is my preferred vision. Because it is absent, I am trying to make the best of Bill as it is drafted.

The Minister will have to deal with the fact that the only gatekeeper who will ensure that the process of private company individuals having police powers will work is the chief constable. I am sure that chief constables will look carefully at whatever scheme is proposed and that they and the police authority will do their best to monitor the situation. They are being dealt a weak hand under the Bill, as a result of which public accountability will suffer.

All political parties in the House can sign up to the majority of the Bill. It will lead to an improvement in policing.However, if the Minister introduces an element that does not command public support—lack of accountability is one possibility—that may undermine confidence in the rest of the Bill. I do not want that to happen nor I am sure does the Minister. We are concerned about a matter of principle, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider those provisions that I consider are dangerous and ill-founded.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Miss Widdecombe. It will not come as a surprise either to the hon. Member for Lewes or to other members of the Committee that we do not wholly agree that the accredited schemes should operate only for local authority employees. We are not favourably inclined to such amendments. However, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to issues that are of concern to us, particularly that of accountability.

We are worried about how such schemes will be accountable and how they will be managed, controlled and monitored. The hon. Member for North Durham referred to monitoring, and one of the issues that I want to ask the chief constable—I mean, the Minister—[Interruption.] Everything comes to he who waits. Bearing in mind that the Government are planning to take over the powers of the chief constable, my remark was probably not as Freudian as it appeared.

How does the Minister envisage the chief constable knowing what is going on? There are to be codes of practice under clause 40. Will the hon. Gentleman share with us the contents of those codes? Our root

worry is who will control the people in a day-to-day fashion. Who will deploy them and decide where they will operate? How will their operations be monitored? Will the local authority be responsible for private sector operations or if such activities were sub-contracted? Will the police be responsible if the local authority were not involved in the sub-contract arrangement? If such officers use the police powers that are given to them under schedule 5, will the use of those powers automatically have to be reported back to the chief constable, along the lines of, ''Here is a civilian who has used the power of a police officer,'' a statement from which events may flow?

Those are important and worrying questions to which we do not yet fully know the answers. We have discussed the complaints procedure and the role—or, in this case, lack of role—of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in previous sittings. I hope that the Minister will expand on the few sketchy words in subsection (6) that deal with how the complaints procedure will operate, and will say what element of independence will be involved when a complaint against one of those officers is considered.

I am conscious that I am straying slightly from the amendments and into matters that would normally come under a stand part debate. I hope that you will indulge me and allow me to do so, Miss Widdecombe, as the subject fits together with the issue of accountability, which the hon. Member for Lewes made the centrepiece of the amendments under discussion. The issue of training does not even appear in the clause. We are talking about people who will have considerable police powers. Will the Minister tell us about the training given to people before they are allowed to use those powers?

When we discussed the previous group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made a point about the link between accredited community safety schemes and the myriad successful schemes across the country to which hon. Members of all parties have referred both in Committee and on Second Reading. Neighbourhood warden, street warden, ambassador and other terms are used to describe those involved in such schemes. I was pleased to hear the Minister tell my hon. Friend that there will be no compulsion on local authorities or others to incorporate such people into accredited community safety schemes. However, I hope that he will further explain what guidance will be issued to local authorities.

Many of those involved in neighbourhood warden type schemes have gained some experience but have very little training. According to the evidence that I have picked up, we are talking about a few days of training. There is no way, even adding the experience that some of them have gained, that they have enough to move straight into accredited community safety schemes, and to have police powers. There would need to be a lot more training involved.

I was interested to learn that new recruits to the Parks police in Kensington and Chelsea who have not come from the Metropolitan police have to undergo 10 weeks of training. I know that that is not a direct

analogy; a Parks policeman has more power than an ACSO will. Nevertheless, 10 weeks is a benchmark against which we can measure the amount of training that ACSOs have before they get interventionist powers, including those for the confiscation of tobacco and so on.

Those are important points, and I hope that the Minister will answer them. We have no philosophical objection to local authorities using private sector sub-contractors, as some already do for street policing. I have seen that done in Camden. Nor do we object to the police directly accrediting an external organisation and making it part of the police family. However, I am concerned about accountability, the level of management control, how ACSOs use police powers and whether the chief constable is aware of how they are using them.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough) rose—

Norman Baker rose—

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I give way first to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe).

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. Most of his questions will be answered by the arrangements into which the chief officer enters.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right; we certainly hope that that will be the case. However, we are here as legislators. Before we allow a Bill giving the chief constable such powers to be enacted, the least that we can do is challenge the Government about their precise intentions, not least because it is important to know what we are legislating for.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right, but as legislators we must also provide legislation that gives the chief constable sufficient powers to enter into appropriate arrangements. The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the breadth of those powers.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman's argument does not follow through, because a substantial part of the Bill relates to making decisions for chief constables. Part 1 of the Bill is all about telling chief constables how to run their force. The theme that the hon. Gentleman espouses does not run through the Bill.

One of the issues involved is complaints. There is total inconsistency between the vague statement in subsection (6) and the complaints procedure that we discussed for police officers and community support officers—civilians employed by the police. There will be one arrangement for a civilian employed by the police who confiscates alcohol and a completely different complaints procedure for the accredited safety officer who does so. That is not right. Although the Minister refused to accept our amendments to add to the remit of the independent commission, he owes us a duty to explain more fully the complaints procedure that he envisages, including independent scrutiny.

I apologise for having taken a long time to give way to the hon. Member for Lewes. I was responding to the previous intervention.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand.

Reliance on chief constables will weaken accountability further, as we shall not know what decisions chief constables are making when the Bill is passed. There may be wide variation in what chief constables do, and inevitably there will be good and bad practice. In the worst areas—by definition, there are bound to be worst areas—there will be unsatisfactory arrangements that have not been approved by Parliament.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There will certainly be huge variation, which, certainly in the early years, will in itself be a strength, inasmuch as we shall be able to find out a little more about how things work and iron out the wrinkles. Like the Minister, I hope that best practice will spread quickly under the arrangements that will ultimately be in the legislation.

I understand the view expressed by the Local Government Association, although I appreciate that the Minister may say, ''They would say that, wouldn't they?'' It is worried about the funding implications of introducing the accreditation scheme. The costs associated in training staff, monitoring performance and establishing vetting procedures cannot be met from existing budgets.

All those points relate to accountability, and some comments from the Minister about that would be helpful. Perhaps on this occasion he will rule out what he flatly refused to rule out, and effectively ruled in, when we discussed CSOs—the idea of a ring-fenced budget, to encourage the development of CSOs. I hope that he will assure us that there will not be a similar ring-fenced budget to encourage accredited community safety schemes.

Thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to stray beyond the amendments, Miss Widdecombe. All those issues are directly related to the clause and to the powers and development of accredited schemes, and I hope that the Minister will respond.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Before I call further Members, I should say that, having listened to the scope of the debate, I am now not minded to allow a debate on clause stand part. Members may want to take that into account in deciding whether to contribute to the debate on the amendments.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, which I shall not repeat. I agree with every word that he said.

I shall examine another aspect that is relevant to the amendments. I have spoken to representatives of housing associations, which also require careful consideration. We worry about the private sector, but what about housing associations, especially when there has been large-scale stock transfer? I know that some housing associations feel that local authorities have left them on their own to deal with all the issues on the streets. In that sense, they want community safety wardens, and I appreciate that.

I return to a point that I made earlier, although I suspect that it is more relevant now. All the local bodies should be pulled together. If housing associations are given a power that is not tied into the local authority, they are being given policing powers without other strengths to tackle behaviour on the estates. Clearly, there is currently isolation. We should use the Bill to try to tie things together.

I am cheating a little because I have a few quotes from a report that monitored antisocial behaviour orders. We could translate them across to this issue; I am not trying to be devious, but to underline my point. The report refers to registered social landlords and, in the context of ASBOs, says:

''The 2000 guidance recommends that they are included in drawing up the local crime and disorder strategy''.

However, it also says that registered social landlords are often left out of the equation, and that one solution proposed by more by one person was to compel partners—

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Does the hon. Lady accept that we shall deal with the part of the Bill that addresses registered social landlords and ASBOs during a later sitting? Registered social landlords might have been left out of the equation at the time of the review of ABSOs, but they are certainly not today.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I just need to clarify that I am referring to accredited safety officers. I suggest that the points made in the review translate over to that context if we are considering a holistic approach to policing on estates. I am aware that we shall pick up on those points and that they shall be relevant. I am being honest by saying that the quotes are out of context.

A local authority representative said:

''I think that something else needs to be put in place to facilitate a requirement on the crime and disorder partnerships...There needs to be something that actually directs the crime and disorder partnerships to include RSLs''.

If a problem of working together exists in that context, it is even more important to tie in all relevant bodies when we consider the broader agenda of community safety officers. Will the Minister address that—if he has followed my argument across contexts? Undoubtedly, we need community safety wardens on our large estates that are managed by housing associations. My personal preference would be to accept the amendments that would tie in local authorities firmly and ensure that everybody works together.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, after working with you closely over recent years. May I take advantage of the licence that you kindly gave us to explore more broadly the accredited community safety schemes?

I begin by joining the hon. Member for Lewes in noting the irony of the Labour party giving private companies policing powers. I can imagine the song and dance that you, Miss Widdecombe, would have heard

from Labour Members in Committee—perhaps including several in the Room today—had you proposed such a scheme when you were a Home Office Minister. There we go; the world has moved on.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who is not present, teased the hon. Member for Lewes about elected police authorities. Of course, elected police authorities formed part of the Labour party's policy for almost two decades, but the world has moved on from that as well.

I share some of the worries raised by the hon. Member for Lewes and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I would like the Minister to explain the types of employers to whom the clauses refer more specifically than as outlined in the Bill. If the provisions address social landlords, I am happy that they have the option of using such schemes. For example, the schemes in place at the Longridge and Coleshaw Farm housing estates in my constituency work extremely well. Social landlords should certainly have powers to apply for accreditation. How far does that go? Who does the Minister have in mind? Is he talking about store detectives in supermarkets and shopping centres? Does he mean private security firms that may patrol private or industrial property? It would be interesting to know whether nightclub bouncers fall within the definition?

I realise that I am straying slightly into clause 37, but will the Minister say whether the onus is on the chief constable to accredit someone unless he is not happy that that person is fit and proper in line with various parts of the clause? Alternatively, will the chief constable be given complete freedom to say that he does not want private security companies in his area to have accredited schemes? Could a private security firm take a chief constable to court and say, ''We have met all the criteria under the Bill, but you are not accrediting us''? Will the Minister clear up my worries?

The Bill is taking many good neighbourhood warden schemes—a Burkean myriad of little platoons—and, in effect, nationalising them by forcing them under the umbrella of local police accreditation schemes. I have mentioned the Stockport town warden scheme before, but it was a pioneering schemes. It is close to my constituency and two people involved in it have expressed worries about the provisions. Dave Curtis, the manager of the scheme, said:

''The police have a different recruitment and training system. We are taking unemployed people and we receive applications from a different type of person to the police force.''

He said that he was worried about such people having police powers.

Stephen O'Hagan, the head of estate management at Stockport borough council, agreed with that and said:

''In the limited consultation we've done, we've found that people are wary of the powers of enforcement. There's a feeling it might create a barrier between the community and the wardens.''

That is an important point. One reason why the warden schemes have worked well in my constituency and elsewhere is that local people do not see the wardens as police officers. As a result, the wardens have built up a different bond of trust with local

people. When most of the schemes are accredited, there is a danger that that bond of trust will be weakened because such officers will become part of the policing family and, in the process, will lose some of their informal relationship with the local community.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I share the pleasure of my hon. Friends at serving under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe. The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that the clause is widely drawn in allowing community safety schemes to be set up. Under the clause, any business can be given a community safety scheme. Let us suppose that a struggling magazine, albeit with a steeply rising circulation, came under attack from a powerful and determined Government in the form of a director of communications and strategy who was determined to assail the magazine. The editor of the magazine felt it necessary to recruit a community safety officer. He went to the chief officer and said, ''I have a man called Bruce Anderson. He is a fit and proper person. I undertake to give him the requisite training. He will command awe and respect from all who survey him.'' The chief officer would agree to that.

To return to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, this part of the Bill is so widely framed that it will be susceptible to much confusion. That is the main problem.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Is it not right that, in any application for accreditation, we will vest in the chief constable the discretion to decide whether to approve? Therefore, is it not right that we should presume that that discretion, vested in appropriately appointed chief officers, will be sensibly and reasonably exercised?

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

That is the point. I am sure that it would be sensibly and reasonably exercised, and I have no doubt that a chief officer would want to give this hypothetical magazine the protection that it deserved—and that, therefore, the scheme would be allowed to go ahead.

However, there would be several points of ambiguity that would be left entirely up to the employer. What nomenclature will be given to this warden? Will he be called a community safety officer—which is not a very catchy name—or will he be called a Denham? That will be left entirely to the discretion of those who are responsible for the schemes.

What uniform will he wear? [Hon. Members: ''Denim.''] Denim has been suggested; that is brilliant, and it is a joke with which the Minister may well be familiar.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Order. I hesitate to interrupt this entertainment, but the hon. Gentleman is addressing issues that will more properly be dealt with when we discuss clause 38. Therefore, I ask him to bring his interesting speech back within the scope of the present topic.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

Thank you, Miss Widdecombe. My intention is to point up the danger of confusion. The Minister has said that best practice will gradually roll

out across the country, as one scheme learns from another. That is an interesting Darwinian view of how this might work. However, I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has cogently said, there will be confusion between different schemes, and that very good existing warden schemes will be replaced—and that they will be crowded out by a nationalised variety of warden.

The most important thing is that CSOs—or whatever we are going to call them—should have respect, and that people should know what they are doing. Much as I approve of private involvement at all levels, I fear that the legislation is too widely drawn, and that it will lead to a dangerous incoherence in the public's image of CSOs.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I welcome you, Miss Widdecombe, and I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship.

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) frequently gets carried away by his own rhetoric, which is amusing for us all. He seems to be suggesting that there is something mandatory about all these powers. The legislation merely empowers a chief constable to look at his own operational area, and to decide whether accrediting any schemes would be useful to him. If he shares the hon. Gentleman's reservations about some particular schemes, he simply will not accredit them.

As far as I can see, there is no prospect of a judicial review leading to anybody being compelled to accredit a scheme, because that is entirely within the chief constable's operational discretion. The chief constable is the person with the best view; I would have thought that the courts would readily accept that.

I wish to raise another concern by, once again, sheltering under the licence given by the Chair. It is inappropriate that these schemes should be limited to local authorities, for the many reasons that have been set out. However, although I do not advocate that limit, there would be an advantage to imposing it; local authorities are at least public authorities, within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, whereas many other people who can be accredited with the powers to have officers will not, on the face of it, be public authorities within the meaning of that Act. It is inappropriate to say that the answer is to confine those people to local authorities.

It is hugely important that crime and disorder partnerships, neighbourhood renewal, housing associations and registered social landlords—even in my constituency, the single regeneration budget group—should be able to have enhanced power to take responsibility for their own communities. Surely, the issue is one of devolving the power to produce a scheme that fits into the local community at its most local level, and is best assessed by those concerned.

In my view, it is out of the question and of no use to the people who are suffering crime and disorder on the ground to limit the scheme to local authorities. However, the Human Rights Act protects individuals' human rights only against public authorities.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am extremely interested in her point. Is it not true that, once an organisation is accredited—even a private sector one—through exercise of the statutory powers to exercise certain public functions in law enforcement areas, it then falls within the remit of the Human Rights Act as a public authority?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. He is also a lawyer and aware that the definition of a public authority includes any person who carries out functions of a public nature. I was going to come to that point later.

Human rights are not enforceable against anyone who is not a public authority. It is clear that, above all other types of agencies of the state, people with police powers should be subject to the Human Rights Act. If there was any real point in introducing that measure—and there were many—that was one of the most important. The fact that the officers will not have detention powers takes the worst bite out of any risk that they are not covered by the Act. None the less, they will have powers to demand names and addresses and seize alcohol. Also, the schedule allows the Home Secretary to increase or alter their powers. In a sense, we are legislating in the dark as to how future Home Secretaries may decide to empower such officers.

It is hugely important that officers fall within the ambit of the Human Rights Act. Not surprisingly, the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the issue in its 15th report. I am a member of that Committee, as is the hon. Member for Lewes. We wanted reassurance from the Government about whether, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough suggested, private employees could be public authorities. It is hard in any ordinary sense to countenance somebody running a shopping centre as being a public authority. The shopping centre near me in Middlesbrough is owned and run by Legal and General, which does not readily fall into the category of public authority, so we sought reassurance. The Government's provisional answer was that,

''The decision on which bodies are public authorities for the purpose of the 1998 Act is a matter for the courts.''

The trouble is that the state of current decisions is pretty chaotic—a clear finding at Court of Appeal level found that the Leonard Cheshire Foundation is not a public authority but that that the Poplar Housing Association is.

By extrapolating the notion that a Leonard Cheshire home could be a sheltered accommodation of a fair size, one might imagine that a warden scheme would be desirable. However, at present, such wardens would not be employed by a public authority, so would not be subject to the Human Rights Act, whereas a housing association would be. That is pretty chaotic. It is not satisfactory to legislate and then say, ''Even if the courts don't know what it means, we can leave it to them to decide in due course.'' The report states that

''in the Government's view, those private employees who enter into arrangements with the chief officer of police to accredit employees and accredited persons themselves''

—the employee and the accreditor—

''would also be held to be 'public authorities' within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act''.

I deduce from that response that it is the Government's intention that anyone subject to an accredited scheme should be a public authority according to that definition. The only way that that will happen is if the Government say so, preferably in the Bill. If they are not willing to say that all accredited schemes must be public authorities, will the Minister make it clear that any ambiguity in their status could be cleared up? That way, if a legal case were to follow on from the issue and the powers, the now well-known authority of Pepper v. Hart would allow the parties to bring up his remarks in support of the assertion that the schemes are public authorities. I urge him to help with that clarification.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am grateful for your tolerance in accepting wide-ranging debate, Miss Widdecombe. It has been helpful, as several important issues have been raised.

It might be useful if I set out the slightly wider context to the debate. I shall draw on the example given by the hon. Member for Henley, who would like to ensure that his hypothetical magazine does not employ anyone with a dubious background, or anyone who might have been responsible in the past for telling tall tales and spreading malicious rumours or gossip about third parties—the sorts of things that a respectable magazine would wish to protect itself against. However, he should not be looking to the accreditation scheme to protect himself—

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

He's got Black Rod.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

An important part of the wider background to our discussion on the private sector is the establishment of the Security Industry Authority. From next April, it will progressively bring the private guarding industry into a system of national regulation and will apply some basic minimum standards to that occupation. We anticipate that any private sector company covered by accreditation will be registered with and regulated by the SIA. However, chief constables will wish to build upon the basic minimum standard that the SIA would bring into play. I mention that because issues were raised about accreditation and tasks such as checking employees' histories. Such things certainly need to be done, but might already be fulfilled by the registration requirements of the SIA. They might mean additional local responsibilities.

The first big point of interest is whether accreditation schemes should extend to non-local authority schemes. As far as housing association and other schemes are concerned, it is worth recognising that 35 per cent. of the neighbourhood warden or street warden schemes that we have identified are not local authority schemes; they are run by other organisations, typically housing associations and registered social landlords. To exclude those schemes—and I suspect that they will exist in greater

numbers in future—from accreditation does not make sense, as they already involve some liaison and co-operation with the police. Bringing them into a formal accreditation scheme will strengthen rather than weaken their role.

Private sector schemes were mentioned. In places like Bluewater shopping centre or Trafford Park industrial estate, which was mentioned in the police reform White Paper, there is already a working relationship between police and the private sector in order to develop the best use of the extended police family. It is in the public interest that there should be a framework that formally acknowledges that co-operation locally and ensures that there are uniform minimum standards across the police force before someone takes part in an accreditation system.

Removing the private sector from accreditation schemes will not stop co-operation between the private guarding industry and the police; it will just remove the possibility of bringing that relationship within a consistent legal framework if the chief constable chooses to do so. I do not believe that it is to anyone's advantage to exclude the private sector. I shall deal with issues relating to accountability and complaints, but I do not believe that an issue of principle is involved that private-sector organisations or non-local authority organisations should be excluded from accreditation schemes.

Several issues have been raised that follow on from that. First, would an organisation or private security company apply to the chief constable for accreditation? The hon. Member for Lewes said that people would apply to the chief constable and no doubt be approved. It is not a system that provides a right to apply for accreditation. The chief constable has total discretion over that.

Secondly, there will be only one accreditation scheme for an area. The Bill does not set out a series of bilateral relationships between the chief constable and local organisations. To have coherence, the accreditation scheme will be a scheme for the area in which the organisations that the chief constable approves under the Bill can formally participate. That may help the Committee understand the Bill.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked who will control or deploy those covered by the accreditation scheme. Clearly, we would expect the exact working relationship between the police and members of the extended police family to be covered by the local accreditation scheme. However, the day-to-day responsibility for deploying neighbourhood wardens, for example, will lie with the local authority—the employer. Nevertheless, one might expect an accreditation scheme to set out the arrangements and availability of neighbourhood wardens, for example, to have briefing meetings with the police. Hon. Members who have spoken to local neighbourhood wardens will know that it is usually part of the system to have, on a weekly or fortnightly basis, an hour or so briefing meeting involving police and neighbourhood wardens. Such matters might be covered by an accreditation scheme.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Will my right hon. Friend clarify a matter that is troubling me? It relates to the legal nature of the arrangements that he envisages will be entered into under subsection (5). Who will, ordinarily, be the parties to those arrangements? If they were breached, would any legal sanction be available?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The arrangement would be between the police and the employers. The Bill provides for the chief constable to remove accreditation at any point if he is not satisfied that standards are being met. I shall take the opportunity to find out whether any further advice arrives, but the emphasis in drafting the Bill was that the chief officer would be able to end the scheme at any point at which he felt that the standards were not being met, and, similarly, would have the discretion to remove from accreditation schemes people who do not meet the standard.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, it would be impossible under judicial review to compel an exercise of discretion, but it may be possible to quash an exercise of discretion. If the chief constable ceased the arrangements, might the matter come before the courts?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

As always, in the case of every matter that we discuss in every Bill these days, with the growth of administrative law, public servants such as chief constables have a general duty to act reasonably. We believe that a chief constable's responsibilities in the Bill in relation to satisfying himself about complaints about training and other matters should be sufficient for him not to be—I suspect that this is my hon. Friend's fear—backed into a corner where he is deeply unhappy with how a scheme is operating but feels unable to do anything about it.

In drafting the Bill, we tried to make the chief constable's responsibilities clear and ensure that each of the points on which he needed to be satisfied were points on which he could say, ''I am no longer satisfied'', so that that scheme, employee or employer would no longer be part of the operation. Although I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, I hope that we have structured the provision—

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Order. I know that it is difficult from the Front Bench, but if the Minister turns his back entirely to the Chair, that confuses not only the Chair but the Hansard reporters.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I apologise, Miss Widdecombe. I hope that we have avoided the situation about which my hon. Friend was concerned.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I want to pick up the Minister on his point about there being only one scheme. Most of us had recognised that there would be only one scheme in a whole force area, so in London, there would be only one scheme for the whole Met.

I challenge the Minister on his point that there will be no bilateral arrangements. Clause 37 makes it clear that a chief police officer will make direct arrangements with employers and with every individual accredited community safety officer. Each ACSO will be approved. Therefore, there will be many bilateral arrangements among separate employers under the scheme's umbrella. That point also relates to powers. I am not sure whether each officer within the scheme automatically has the same powers or whether, as clause 37 suggests, separate arrangements will exist to determine which powers are allocated to each officer.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Gentleman has picked me up on a perfectly fair point. Although I was right to say that there will not be separate individual accreditation schemes between different employers and the police, the Bill clearly provides for arrangements with employers in the way that he described. Indeed, that is important when considering the private sector and, perhaps, warden and guard schemes that relate to registered social landlords. The Bill will enable accredited individuals' powers to be restricted to not only their working duties, but their place of work. For example, an accredited person employed as a guard in a major shopping centre might be able to exercise his powers only when at work and in the centre. All accredited individuals under a London scheme, for example, would not be able to exercise their powers everywhere in London. That is important because it would make no sense if the Bill allowed a security company's employees who guarded a specific shopping centre to have a range of police powers in circumstances in which they were not accountable to their employer or not at work. The hon. Gentleman was right, which allowed me to clarify my earlier statement about bilateral powers.

I turn to the complaints procedure, which is covered by subsection (6). As schemes develop and guidance is issued, the model for the complaints procedure might vary within a scheme from employer to employer. For example, if a local authority had a well-established complaints system that covered their employees, the chief officer might choose to build on that system for people employed by a local authority. The chief officer would need to be satisfied that adequate complaints procedures were available to people working for a registered social landlord or a private sector employer.

I think that the subsection is a part of the Bill about which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that it is reasonable for law makers to ask whether we have sufficient detail at this stage. The Bill contains sufficient responsibilities because it is clear that the chief officer has responsibility for ensuring that there is an adequate complaints procedure. The Bill provides sufficient levers to ensure good practice, notably through a later clause that will allow us to issue codes of practice. We should be able to ensure that a good complaints procedure is in place for each case. It would be a mistake, however, to expect that a single national

complaints procedure should be prescribed from the centre to cover the entire range of organisations that could come within a local accreditation scheme.

Training is covered by clause 37(4)(d). Again, it will need to be appropriate to the powers that are being exercised. We expect Centrex—the central police training and development authority—to establish training packages. It will build on the work that has been undertaken successfully over the past year and examine the responsibilities of police officers and others, and the type of training that is necessary to deliver those competencies and responsibilities. We shall set down in the training packages for accredited staff—as for CSOs—what skills they are expected to exercise and show how they have been trained to carry out such skills in line with training procedures. It is much more important to concentrate on the content of training in that logical way rather than on whether it was undertaken for three, five or seven weeks. It is critical to identify the powers and responsibilities that will be exercised to make sure that the training is appropriate. As experience develops, we shall be able to use the powers under later clauses to impose a binding code of practice.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

How will the success or otherwise of the training be assessed? If it is found to be unsuccessful and the ACSOs fail their exams, will they be made to take them again?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

At present, there is constant feedback between the police service and training bodies about the quality of training. When deficiencies are identified, they are addressed within that process. I expect it to be similar under the Bill. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about the exercise of police powers. The Bill does not require each exercise of police powers to be reported to the chief constable any more than each parking ticket given by a local authority traffic warden is reported to the chief constable, even though such activity was carried out by a police employee a few years ago. As part of their self-assurance about the operation of the schemes, we expect chief constables to have in place adequate monitoring to show how the accredited community safety officers were working, the effectiveness or otherwise of their powers and the overall impact on levels of crime, antisocial behaviour and public reassurance. I do not believe that it would be sensible or necessary for the Government to prescribe those mechanisms in the setting up of the schemes.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The reason why I asked that question is that a detention officer in Newark said that, while his job was useful, worthwhile and relieved a regular police officer, his training lacked in depth and quality. He acknowledged that he was part of a new scheme and that, as it developed, it would improve. I wanted to bring that officer's remarks to the attention of the Minister.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is still the case today that several police officers in specialist roles have not received the level of

specialist training that we would have liked them to receive. The police skills standards organisation is developing a competence-based framework for appraising and assessing the development of police officers. That framework gives us confidence that the new police powers can be identified and that appropriate training is being given. Over the past few years, a much more systematic approach has been developed to tackle the sort of problems identified by the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that I have covered many of the issues that have been raised, and I now turn to the point about compliance with the European convention on human rights, which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar—although she has also anticipated much of the response that I am about to give to that, as I would expect from a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

With regard to potential liability under the Human Rights Act 1998, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledged, many of the potential employers of accredited persons—such as local authorities—will be obvious public authorities within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. It is for the courts to decide which bodies and persons are public authorities for the purposes of the 1998 Act. However, in the Government's view, those private employers who enter into arrangements with the chief officer of police to accredit employees and accredited persons themselves would also be held to be public authorities within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act, which refers to

''any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature''.

They will be held to be public authorities when they exercise powers and duties that are conferred on them under the provisions of the Bill.

The Government would be reluctant to make express provision that employers under community safety accreditation schemes are to be regarded as public authorities within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act. That is because the approach taken by the Human Rights Act to the definition of public authorities was a matter of deliberate policy; and although it may be true that some aspects of the case law on this topic remain to be clarified, it is likely that employers of community safety accreditation schemes would be regarded as public authorities when performing functions in connection with those schemes.

I do not wish to rehearse further the debates that were held during the passage of the Act, and subsequently, on the pros and cons of listing public authorities in the legislation. I would prefer to rest the Government's case, but I hope that I have given at least some of the clarification that my hon. Friend was seeking.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Does the Government intend that these people should be public authorities, regardless of any speculation about what the decision of the court might ultimately be? Is it the Government's intention that they should be public authorities?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Today, my intention is not to go any further than what I have said, and to repeat the position that we gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, I hope that I have been helpful by giving the clearest view that I can on what we think these employers' position will be in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Are the Government seeking to continue to legislate in the current terms because it is their view that these employers will be subject to that Act?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We are continuing to legislate in a manner that leaves us confident that we are not extending police powers in a way that lays us vulnerable to the charge of ignoring or stepping around human rights legislation. However, for reasons that have been rehearsed elsewhere, the Government have chosen not to attempt the task of naming every single organisation that could be a public authority in relation to specific bits of the legislation.

If I have overlooked any of the issues that have been raised, I hope to be able to respond to them in a moment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The last few minutes of the Minister's speech were very interesting, and I will turn to the matters that he addressed shortly.

The Minister has not really discussed the philosophical issue as to whether it is right for private sector bodies whose interests are, necessarily, their own, to be exercising police powers in the public interest. He has also failed to address the point that members of the public who might accept being given a ticket for littering by a police officer—or even by a CSO—might not accept being given one by an employee of an organisation such as Tesco. I think that he is in danger of undermining respect for the law through the exercise of the powers that he wishes to hand over to private sector employees. He also failed to pick up on the point that there may be a conflict of interest between the private company and what the public wish to see in, for example, the complaints procedure. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire touched on that.

The Bill establishes the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That has been widely welcomed by everyone in the country as going some way towards dealing with a problem that everyone recognises: the fact that the police are judge and jury in their own courts. It was for that reason that the Government brought forward the proposals, but having introduced the concept into the Bill, they are now undermining it by excluding a range of officers from the provision. In some ways, excluding private sector employees is worse than excluding public sector employees.

What will be the reaction of a private sector company if it receives a complaint about one of its employees and their activities? Will it say, ''Yes, that employee was wrong; we have a major failure in our company. We are happy to take the knocks in the local

paper, and see our reputation diminished. It is absolutely right; there was a problem here''? Or will the reaction be ''We got that wrong. Let's try to cover it up''? I suggest that in many cases, the latter will be the reaction. The Minister is simply wrong not to include those people under the umbrella of the IPCC.

The Minister is also wrong not to recognise the potential conflict of interest in smaller matters. Let us suppose that a shopping centre had a street cafe that was licensed to sell alcohol. That street cafe might be happy to pay more rent if there was to be no other alcohol consumed in that area. It would be in the interests of the persons running the shopping centre, who might be agents of the accreditation scheme, to be hard on anyone consuming alcohol in that area. That may not be necessary for public safety reasons or to prevent public disorder, but may simply be convenient in order to please someone paying rent to that company. All sorts of conflicts could arise, and the Minister has not dealt with them.

The Minister mentioned existing schemes, and seemed to use them as justification for saying that everything will be all right on the night with them, but the hon. Member for Tatton correctly said that those involved in existing schemes do not have police powers. Such schemes operate voluntarily with the consent of the public precisely because they do not have police powers. The Minister is proposing a marked difference in the way that those schemes operate, but assumes that there will be no difference in the public response to that.

The Minister also talked about the necessity for co-operation with the private sector, as if any hon. Member suggested that that should not occur. Of course it should; it does and it must. However, that is different to giving private employees police powers, and that is the issue that I hope I addressed when I spoke to the amendment. The Minister has given some colour to the idea of what an accreditation scheme might be, but it is still not clear to me—I do not know about other hon. Members—exactly how it will operate.

There is to be one scheme per area, but it is not clear how big an area is. Will it be a police authority area, or a town centre, or something else? Nor is it clear how many employers from private sector organisations could be involved in a scheme. He has not effectively addressed the issue of the conditions for ending the scheme. The hon. Member for Wellingborough intervened on the Minister on the subject of the difficulties that a chief constable could face if an organisation running a scheme did not want to be removed. It might say that it had lost respectability, or that its share price tumbled at a particular instant. It may think it necessary to protect its public reputation by taking action; that seems to me to be quite a likely scenario. We do not know what the exit strategy is. It is not clear from clause 36 or 37. We are going into the scheme in the dark.

We are also going into the dark and hoping for the best with our fingers crossed in regard to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar about the relationship of accredited schemes to the Human Rights Act. We will have a topsy-turvy upside down world in which private employees will be classed as public authorities, according to the Minister, although that is not definite. We are assuming that the court may take the view that the Minister's interpretation is right. However, that may fall apart and we may find that they are not public authorities at all. Although I am not a lawyer, deciding that private organisations and employees are actually public authorities takes some stretching of the imagination.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that there are no circumstances in which private employees would be regarded as public authorities? Does he think that it sets a precedent?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It is precedent setting in the sense that some real issues have been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar about the relationship between the powers proposed under the Human Rights Act. A whole new body of people will have police powers for the first time, so there is no precedent. We are moving into unknown territory, and the Minister is taking unnecessary risks.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a specific provision in the Bill that allows for a private body to be dealt with as if it were a public authority. It is not as if one must impossibly transpose Lloyd's bank or whoever owns the shopping centre in my constituency into a public authority. If such organisations carry out public duties they will be deemed to be public authorities, and it was the vagueness surrounding that point that required clarification.

I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has put his finger on the point: if the Government introducing the legislation express their expectation that the courts will find that what have been created are public authorities, it means that they intend them to be that, and they will have difficulty escaping that later on. Frankly, I do not think that they will want to escape it. It would be surprising if the Government who introduced the Human Rights Act wanted to exclude vast chunks of people from its remit.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I very much hope that that is the case. I regularly give credit to the Government for introducing the Act, which is a major step forward for civil liberties. However, the hon. and learned Lady asked whether all the accredited schemes would involve public authorities, and the Minister replied that he did not wish to go further than the comments supplied to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He said, ''It is likely.'' We have heard the intentions—the Minister nodded during the intervention, which I put on record, but we have little more than that.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Perhaps he was nodding off.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Perhaps.

The Home Secretary may subsequently alter the powers. The Minister relied on the Security Industry Authority, and I respect its work. Is he saying that no organisation will be allowed to be part of an accredited scheme unless it is a member of the Security Industry Authority? It would be helpful if he did say that, but I am not sure that he did. The organisation is an umbrella body in a sense, paid for by companies that are subject to its oversight. Therefore, it is not entirely independent and could be compared with the Press Complaints Commission, which is not without criticism for the way in which it operates.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

On the point about the SIA, in the information that I gave the Committee, I said that it existed and that I believed that chief constables would be likely to build upon it. It is right that there is no requirement in the Bill for the scheme to depend on the SIA. However, given the existence of a regulatory body, there is a reasonable expectation that chief constables would think twice before putting into accreditation a scheme that was eligible to register and had been rejected by the SIA.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Again, we have been told by the Minister that it would be likely that schemes would be subject to the SIA and that it is unlikely that a chief constable would go ahead without SIA approval or membership of a body of the SIA's code of practice, or whatever. We do not know that it will definitely happen. If the Minister believes that membership of the SIA is the appropriate way of dealing with the various bodies, why does he not make it a requirement? He seems to be leaving open the option that a chief constable may decide that the SIA is a jolly good body, but someone who wants to exercise powers does not have to be subject to its requirements. I do not understand why he leaves the loophole open.

I have told the Committee about some grave reservations that my colleagues and I have about the powers being handed over to the private sector in the way proposed by the Bill. I accept the well-made point of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that the term ''local authority'' could be slightly narrow and it might be more appropriate to use ''public authority''. Nevertheless, the objections that my colleagues and I have to the proposals are so deep that I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

That ragbag of assaults on the Bill should not go unchallenged. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Lewes talks about devolution of the police forces when it suits him. However, although it is clearly reasonable to rest on the judgment and explicit legal responsibilities of chief constables set out in the Bill, he portrays a world in which chief constables are never to be trusted and cannot be expected to comply with their legal duties or carry through their responsibilities. That is ridiculous.

The hon. Gentleman conjured up a situation in which a private security company was bribed by a shop to enforce the law in a certain manner. Under the Bill, the chief constable will be able to terminate such an

arrangement immediately. It is clearly an offence to act outside the responsibilities in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman's claims have no credence.

It would be wrong to prescribe every element of the procedure. The Bill sets out that the chief constable will be responsible for the complaints procedure. That lays a requirement on the chief constable to assure him or herself that the complaints procedure is established and maintained. Therefore, the chief constable must monitor how the procedure is working to comply with the responsibilities in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's idea that that part of the Bill does not exist and that a letter from a company saying, ''We've got a complaints procedure. Leave it all to us and don't worry about how we do things,'' would satisfy the Bill's requirements is wrong. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has done himself no credit by conjuring up a series of situations that do not have credibility.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Member for Lewes appears intent on dividing the Committee, I want confirmation that the amendments on which we shall vote would mean that a significant number of existing warden schemes would be ineligible for accreditation. Will the Minister put on record whether that is the case because if it is, I am afraid that we shall not be able to support the hon. Member for Lewes?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Our best estimate—there is no central register of schemes—is that the amendments would put 35 per cent. of existing schemes outside accreditation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 18.

Clause 37 - Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 36, line 38, at end insert—

'(aa) that there has not been a bankruptcy order made against the person's employer, or the employer's estate has not been sequestrated, or the employer has not made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, its creditors;'.

This is a less controversial amendment. In fact, I see no reason why the Minister would not feel comfortable with it and be willing to support it, and I await his comments with interest. It concerns who should be eligible to be party to accreditation under the community safety accreditation schemes. I am worried that some definitions under the clause are a little vague. ''A fit and proper person'' may be used in other legislation, but it would benefit from amplification by the Minister. For example, it is not clear whether someone with a criminal record or spent conviction would be deemed a fit and proper person. I should like to know the exact meaning of the phrase when applied under the clause.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that it would be inappropriate for a person or organisation to be given powers if there had been

''a bankruptcy order made against the person's employer, or the employer's estate has not been sequestrated, or the employer had not made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, its creditors''.

I seek to impose a low threshold. The hon. Gentleman may recognise the words. I remind the Committee that they are taken directly from paragraph 11(1)(b) of schedule 2 on page 50 of the Police Act 1996. It relates to members of the police authority, but it applies the same principle. The concept is straightforward. The amendment is uncontroversial. Its wording has been used by Home Office draftsmen or draftswomen in the past. I look forward to the Minister giving it a fair wind.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Lewes has taken the wording of his amendment from the excellent Conservative Administration's Police Act 1996. Although my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I have not added our names in support of the amendment, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would do no harm to adopt the same safeguard that was adopted in another context under the 1996 Act. Even if the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that he may reflect on it with those who advise him and, who knows, a similar amendment may be tabled by the Government on Report. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill. It would be an extra safeguard and we shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

It is interesting to hear reference made to the Conservative Government when considering the amendment. Let us cast our minds back to the disastrous Conservative recession in the early 1990s when millions of people lost their homes. I recall that

a million or so small business went bankrupt. If someone had the misfortune to be bankrupted by the Tory Government in the early 1990s and has, over 10 years, built up a business in the guarding industry, for example, would we want that person to be excluded from participating in such activities because of one event in his life over which he had no control? We do not apply such a test to a wide range of organisations that provide sensitive services to the police service, such as fraud handling.

The point of principle has been referred to, and the test of a ''fit and proper person'' may include his financial history as well as criminal records, checks and so on. However, the amendment could draw into the pool a lot of people whom we would not sensibly want to exclude. I am not saying that such issues should not be looked into carefully, but the broader test of ''fit and proper'' is the responsibility of the chief officer who is running the accreditation scheme and one that should be applied.

I give the assurance that we expect companies that propose such schemes to carry out checks involving character references and criminal records, and that there should be checks of the organisation's financial standing, integrity and legitimacy. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will feel that we are meeting the spirit of his suggestion. The narrowness of the amendment might unfairly exclude some people, albeit possibly a small number.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall not delay the Committee unduly. I understand the Minister's point about a time scale. I would have been happier if he had said that the amendment is well founded and needed a provision relating to a time scale inserted into it in order to limit the effect to a recent bankruptcy, for example.

I still believe that the point about having the concept explained is valid, especially as we are discussing the exercise of police powers. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and find out whether an amended version that includes a time scale would be appropriate. However, in light of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Powers exercisable by accredited persons

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 136, line 16, at end insert—

'Power to require giving of name and address

1A (1) Where an accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, he may require that other person to give him his name and address

(2) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) In this paragraph ''relevant offence'', in relation to any accredited person, means any offence which is—

(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of any powers exercisable by the accredited person by virtue of paragraph 1; or

(b) an offence the commission of which appears to the accredited person to have caused—

(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or

(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property;

but the accreditation of an accredited person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation.'.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 28, in page 136, line 18, leave out paragraph 2.

Government amendment No. 216.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

This group of amendments relates to powers that are both appropriate for accredited persons and necessary to maximise their effectiveness. They deal with the power to require a name and address.

Government amendment No. 215 introduces a power to require a name and address for some offences, but it does not, as was mentioned earlier, reintroduce the power of detention that was deleted in another place. Opposition amendment No. 28 would delete the power to require the name and address of someone acting in an antisocial manner.

I shall explain the value of having the power to require a name and address, which we now propose without the power of detention. Denying accredited persons the power to require a name and address will hinder their effectiveness. Most obviously, the ability to require a name and address will enable the fixed penalty notice to be enforced. The ability to ask for a name and address in such circumstances may be enough to enable them to handle a low-level instance of disorder. In circumstances in which the power is ignored, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, there is no back-up legal power of detention. None the less, the power can help provide evidence for a future action, including an antisocial behaviour order, through the refusal to comply with the request to give a name and address.

The Bill contains significant safeguards to ensure that all the powers conferred on accredited persons are exercised appropriately. It is because we believe that the name and address provision is a key part of enforcement for accredited officers that we reintroduced it.

We listened to and took account of the mood in another place and discussions in Committee on powers of detention, and we have not introduced them. Without the back-up of the power of detention, in some circumstances the name and address will be refused. As I said, evidence of such refusal may help wardens and others to introduce further measures against offenders, including the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Amendment No. 216 is a consequential Government amendment.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Will the Minister explain why, given the Government's decision not to give powers of detention to accredited safety schemes, he believes that CSOs should have a power to detain, as we debated, but that these people should not? What is the Government's logic?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

In the Government's view, CSOs should have the power to detain with reasonable force. We believe that that power should be exercised only by someone who is directly employed by the police service—hence the full package for CSOs. For accredited community safety officers who are employed not by the police service but by local authorities or others, which we discussed earlier, a more limited range of powers was always appropriate, as they are not directly employed by the police service. That matter was discussed in another place. We have taken a realistic view of the situation, and we have secured by far the largest part of what we wanted, because there will be a legal right to require a name and address, and possible consequences if someone refuses to do supply that information. That is why we have introduced the amendments in this way.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's change of policy; they have deleted their proposal to give accredited officers the power of detention. Their previous position was wrong, and I give them credit for changing it.

However, there is an inconsistency in the present situation. We are giving the power to require someone to supply their name and address, but we are not giving any means to achieve that. Therefore, it is a power which cannot be enforced, which might lead to the system—and the officers concerned—being brought into disrepute. If someone were to say ''No'' to an officer and then walk away, that person could not be compelled to do anything. That would be an invidious position to put an accredited officers into.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I wish to ensure that there is no confusion. As I said earlier, there are two possible consequences. If someone who refuses to give their name and address is subsequently identified, they could be prosecuted for committing an offence under clause 45(2). Also, if someone is subsequently identified—which will frequently be the case—it will be possible for their refusal to give their name and address to be a part of the portfolio of evidence that is presented in seeking an antisocial behaviour order. Therefore, the idea that nothing can happen as a consequence is wrong.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I take on board the Minister's qualification of my point. However, there is no immediate consequence, and evidence will be required from a third person that the person who was required to give their name and address was present at the time and refused to supply that information. Otherwise, that person could simply deny that they were present when the incident occurred, and there would be no way around that—it would be a matter of one person's word against another's.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The use of CCTV cameras, which are extensively employed in Bridgend, might lead to such third-party evidence being provided.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is true. However, CCTV is not omnipresent—for which we should, perhaps, be thankful—and I do not think that the Government intend to make it so. Therefore, it will not cover all areas, but it might make an impact in certain circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said.

I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly, but I should refer the Minister to the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whom I am glad has been restored to ministerial office as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He made the point that to give powers without means of enforcement would neither work, nor be very sensible. He made an eloquent speech about that, and he convinced me of his argument. Therefore, notwithstanding the Minister's qualifications, it is inappropriate for accredited officers to be put in the position of requiring something that they cannot ensure will be delivered.

I also have objections about someone from a private company being able to require a name and address. Those are the reasons why I oppose the Government's amendment, and support my amendment, which is also supported by Conservative Committee members.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That amendment has been tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Lewes and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and I.

As the hon. Member for Lewes has pointed out, the amendment reflects that there is a straightforward conflict between the two sides of the Committee. While I like the hon. Gentleman, I am pleased that the Government have moved some way in our direction by not seeking to reimpose the power to detain for accredited persons. That was a worry to many police officers and the Police Federation. We give credit to the Minister for taking account of the strong views that were expressed in another place when the Bill was debated there. The Government have not gone far enough, however, so we oppose Government amendment No. 215, which wants to put back in part what their Lordships wisely removed. Moreover, paragraph 2 of the schedule should be removed.

The hon. Member for Lewes rightly expressed some worries. I debated the Private Security Industry Bill in the previous Parliament. You will have particular memories of the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I on that Bill, Miss Widdecombe, because we were part of your team at the time. I am much inclined to accept the worries that have been expressed by not only the hon. Member for Lewes today, but many of their Lordships and many Labour Members in those debates on the Private Security Industry Bill about giving extra powers to those who might turn out to be from the less reputable side of the private security industry.

It is a shame that the Government's business managers did not think it fit to make the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the acknowledged parliamentary expert after a lifetime in politics on the private security industry, a member of this Committee. Had he been here, he may have had considerable reservations about the Government's actions.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

That is exactly why.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As my hon. Friend said, that is why the right hon. Member for Walsall, South is not a member of the Committee. When the Bill is discussed on Report, it will be interesting to see whether that senior and distinguished right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, has an opportunity to speak on such issues. If he does, I suspect that he may not agree with what the Minister is putting forward.

If the Government have their way and we end up with accredited persons having the right to require people to give their name and address, I foresee more confrontations on the street. I have defended and prosecuted at the Bar for several years. I was involved in many cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court that arose from confrontations between private sector security guards in shopping centres with their limited powers to summon police officers and gangs of hooligans and shoplifters. Something that had started off as a legitimate attempt by a security guard to arrest teenage shoplifters could degenerate quickly into a serious affray, criminal damage and serious violence. Entirely innocent and law-abiding people could become drawn into such mob activities and be victims of violence and confrontation.

However careful the protection and safeguards, human nature being what it is, if mistakes are made, some people may be accredited who are not the best people to exert powers. If they insisted that they had the power to demand a person's name and address, that could be a recipe for serious confrontation. That is only one of the worries that organisations such as the Police Federation have expressed. I do not want to detain the Committee but, at this stage, I cannot think of any way of bridging the difference of principle between the two sides of the Committee. The Government are trying to take account of only part of what was said in another place. They are trying to reintroduce into the Bill something that the other place was wise to take out in its entirety. We think that the Government have still got the matter wrong, although we are pleased that they have listened to some extent.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We obviously have an indication of how the hon. Gentleman wishes the Opposition to vote on the amendment. I hope that they seriously reconsider the matter in the remaining stages of the Bill's passage. Having the power to ask for a name and address will be a significant advantage to street and neighbourhood wardens and others who are part of an accredited scheme in carrying out the general public order and nuisance duties that we want them to carry out.

The hon. Gentleman majored on the issue of the danger that the wrong people would have the use of the powers. It is essential to recognise that, through the responsibilities of the chief constable, there are powerful safeguards precisely to ensure that that does not happen. Equally, there are strong safeguards for dealing with an abuse of powers, just as there are for police officers. The issue should not become locked in by party political voting, as it is critical to the full exercise of those powers locally.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 6.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Carrying out of road checks

6A (1) An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall have the following powers in the relevant police area—

(a) the power to carry out any road check the carrying out of which by a police officer is authorised under section 4 of the 1984 Act (road checks); and

(b) for the purpose of exercising that power, the power conferred by section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (power of police to stop vehicles) on a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle.

(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 32, in page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Seizure of vehicles used to cause alarm etc.

6B (1) An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him—

(a) shall, within the relevant police area, have all the powers of a constable in uniform under section 53 of this Act which are set out in subsection (3) of that section; and

(b) references in that section to a constable, in relation to the exercise of any of those powers by that person, are references to that person.

(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

No. 33, in page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Cordoned areas

6C (1) An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall, in relation to any cordoned area in the relevant police area, have all the powers of a constable in uniform under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (enforcement of cordoned area) to give orders, make arrangements or impose prohibitions or restrictions.

(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Let us see whether the Minister will be more amenable to the amendments under discussion than he has been to some others this morning. He should be, as they increase the powers of accredited persons. He will notice that they have the support not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole but of Conservative Members.

I should have preferred to discuss the proposal having established that the officers were subject to a public or local authority, but that is not the case. Nevertheless, I am happy to move the amendment. It is right that, in cases of urgency, the police should use officers who, by the Minister's own account, will have been properly trained and will know the ins and outs of their areas of responsibility. We are talking about emergency powers: the carrying out of road checks, seizure of vehicles used to cause alarm, and cordoned areas.

If there is an incident in one of our towns—heaven forbid—surely we would want to call on all those who have responsibility to help in such limited circumstances. It would be odd if a range of people who were properly trained and accredited by the chief constable had to stand by while an emergency occurred. I would have thought that there was role for that group of people to help out.

The balance that I have tried to strike in the amendment is that the group should exercise their powers under the supervision of a constable, which is different from a CSO acting alone and using the powers that the Minister has persuaded his colleagues to give. That strikes the right balance between accountability and the ability to carry out effective tasks during an emergency. It would not mean that there would be one constable for each ACSO, but that a constable would be there or thereabouts in a specific area, such as a cordoned area, giving instructions with knowledge of what people were doing. That would provide an extra body of people to help in an emergency, while retaining the link of accountability that is necessary for individuals who would be employed by the private sector or a public authority.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments for the reasons that I have given. After all, we want to ensure that people who work for Tesco occasionally work in the public interest as well as the interest of that company.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Gentleman said, we have attached our names to the amendments. We want a small extension of the powers of accredited community safety schemes, although the Minister

probably thinks that that sits oddly with all our other remarks on the issue. I assure him that that is not the case because we have tried to look realistically at the role that ACSOs can play in the community. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, we are discussing what would be an urgent situation.

The three situations to which the amendments refer could arise suddenly, but they would almost invariably require several personnel. That is the key point. Our worry about the powers is whether ACSOs will have the necessary training and discretion to use police powers by themselves. It is difficult to conceive of police powers being used by anyone other than a group of officers when dealing with the three situations to which the amendments relate. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that a constable, who would ensure that the powers were properly used, could muster the support of others to carry out road checks, cordons or even seize a vehicle. The extension is limited but it is a sensible way to maximise the use of resources because rather than having to pull a load of regular officers off the streets to set up a road check, only one would be required, and he could be backed up with several ACSOs. That is sensible. The amendments would not provide that that must happen, but they would give the chief constable flexibility, which the Minister has constantly asked for throughout our debates.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I profess to being slightly confused because Opposition spokesmen in another place tried to remove those powers from CSOs who work for the police. The Opposition have said that police employees should not enjoy the powers, but they want to give them to ACSOs.

Let us examine the amendments on their merits. There is an issue about how far we extend the powers in the Bill to non-police employees. We have sought to limit the power of ACSOs to matters that are most closely related to low-level disorder in the community. The amendments would make the powers significantly wider, although I appreciate the argument about emergency circumstances. It is slightly bizarre to say that an ACSO should be able to seize a person's motor vehicle, but not ask for their name and address—to use the Opposition's position from two debates.

We intend—I hope hon. Members will bear this in mind when we discuss the new clause—to introduce a clause that allows new powers to be given to ACSOs and CSOs with appropriate safeguards, in the light of experience and subject to affirmative resolution. If we deal with the issue through only primary legislation, it is difficult to be absolutely certain about the right split of powers, and I hope that all hon. Members recognise that.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [23 May and 25 June 2002], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 - Supplementary provisions relating to designations and accreditations

Clause 42 - Interpretation of Chapter 1

Standing Committee A

New Clause 9 - Police powers for contracted-out staff

New Clause 10 - Railway safety accreditation scheme

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, and I look forward to serving under you this afternoon.

New clause 10 is intended to enable the British Transport police to benefit from the proposals in this Bill for community safety accreditation schemes. In this morning's discussion on that subject, it was felt that Home Office police forces should be able to set up such schemes. However, we have received representations from the BTP and the railway industry in support of extending the concept of accreditation to the BTP.

Therefore, the new clause will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the chief constable of the BTP to establish and maintain a railway safety accreditation scheme. The intention is that the regulations will be closely modelled on the Bill's proposal for community schemes. However, through making regulations, the Secretary of State will be able to take account of the BTP's differences from local police forces, which include its jurisdiction throughout England and Wales, rather than the police area concept that covers local police forces.

Before making such regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the BTP's chief constable, and its police committee. The Secretary of State will also be required to consult representatives of chief police officers, police authorities, local authorities and such other persons that he considers it to be appropriate to consult. It is also our intention that the regulations themselves will require the BTP's chief constable to consult those same organisations when proposing his railway scheme.

The regulations will be able to confer only those powers on persons accredited under the railway scheme as are available to persons under a community scheme. Thus, railway accredited persons will be able to receive only the powers detailed in schedule 5 for community safety accredited persons.

However, there is an exception to that. To meet the specific needs of the railway, we intend to make two additional railway specific powers available under the

railway scheme. These are the power to issue fixed penalty notices for the offences of trespassing on the railway and throwing stones at trains.

The BTP has campaigned to be included within these proposals, ever since they were published. It is a public police force that works alongside Home Office forces and deals with many of the same challenges. It faces the same problems of antisocial behaviour and minor offences that local police forces face, and it has the same police powers. The additional support of accredited persons in fighting crime and disorder is necessary for the BTP, as much as it is for any local police force.

However, the railways are also ideally suited for an accreditation scheme. These schemes allow non-police authority employees, once they have been suitably trained, to be given powers under the scheme. The railway companies are well placed to put forward their own staff under the railway scheme, and they have also voiced their support for this proposal.

Some railway companies are already working closely with the BTP in developing similar, voluntary schemes. South West Trains has committed £1.8 million, in an initiative to equip its own dedicated staff with the necessary skills and training from the BTP to become travel safe officers. Up to 40 such staff will undergo the same recruitment process as special constables, and then undergo a full two-week training programme. They will also be fully trained in track safety, railway byelaws and railway-specific legislation. They will be clearly identifiable by separate uniforms from other railway staff.

Railtrack has also been working closely with the BTP to improve the security arrangements at its 15 major stations. These stations account for 15 per cent. of all crime on the railways that is reported to the BTP, but the deployment of security guards was not delivering significant benefits, with the guards merely calling the BTP when faced with a possible crime. Railtrack approached the BTP regarding that problem, and the BTP now provides training for its guards concerning their powers under the railway byelaws, and advises Railtrack on how to deploy the guards to best reduce and deter crime.

In both cases, accreditation under a statutory railway scheme would greatly enhance the status of the arrangements. It would also provide those persons with clear statutory powers. The Association of Train Operating Companies has expressed great enthusiasm for promoting the proposals to the rest of the industry, based on the South West Trains model. The ability of the BTP to present a single, statutory accreditation scheme for the whole of the railways would be a significant benefit to the safety and security of passengers.

There are clear benefits to the BTP, the railways industry and the travelling public from these proposals. The scheme, like the others we have talked about, is not a way of replacing BTP officers on the railways. However, there are people who, under accreditation schemes, can undertake routine activities that would not be the best use of police resources. The scheme, like those discussed earlier, is

about making the most effective use of police resources by supporting police. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I have various questions to put to the Minister about the new clause, but I must say that there are advantages to the proposed extension to the railways. In particular, I should like to refer to what the Minister has called the railway-specific parts of the proposal.

Are there other ways of improving security on our transport system? How was an alternative model for improving the safety of the travelling public chosen in London? The transport commissioner for London, Mr. Kiley, has done a deal under which fully trained and qualified serving police officers will be seconded to travel on buses and tubes, and payments will be made to guarantee that those officers travel on the buses and trains.

That might be a better model to follow. It has been negotiated successfully between the Government, the Metropolitan police, the Mayor of London and the transport commissioner, with all his experience of the United States of America. I wonder why the Government are not following that model. There was quite a lot of news coverage on the television on a related issue as recently as last night involving the Minister for Transport, who appeared with various officers and talked about people being seconded as special constables. As there is so much publicity on the subject, I should be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that there is any overlap or contradiction between the two ways of approaching the issue.

As co-chairman of the all-party rail group with the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), I have an interest in what happens on the railways. I welcome the fact that the Government have chosen to go down that line with their proposals, and that there are the railway-specific offences in relation to trespassing on the railway and throwing stones or other things on to trains and railways. There can be few more serious types of attack, and many accidents, some fatal, have been caused or contributed to by vandalism on the railways.

As recently as a year ago, Nick Sutcliffe, who sits on Guildford borough council but represents a ward in my constituency as part of it is in Guildford borough, was travelling on a late evening train in the winter. The train lights were clearly visible to those outside and the train was stoned. It was clearly a deliberate attempt by a group of youths in my constituency to injure passengers in that part of the carriage. Councillor Sutcliffe told me that, when he tried to obtain action from the transport police to apprehend those responsible for throwing stones at him and other passengers on the train in the middle of a winter evening, it took him about two days to receive a response. Although profuse apologies were given in due course and promises were made that more attention would be paid by the transport police to the area in which it was known that some out-of-controls youths could get close to the track, it reinforced the

fact that more needs to be done in respect of rail security. I have spoken about the incident to parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House, and they said that they had never seen a transport policeman and asked what such officers look like.

If, as a result of the proposals, people will be much more aware of security provisions being in place from other than railway staff, it will be welcomed by the travelling public. I have had dealings at a fairly senior level with transport police officers and I know that they do a good job, even though they may not be numerous enough for the public. After a distinguished period as chief constable in my county, Mr. David Williams became chief constable of the British Transport police.

When looking at asylum seekers trying to jump on trains on the far side of the channel at the beginning of the Easter recess, I was accompanied by Superintendent David Hatcher, known to television viewers as one of the senior police officers who appeared regularly on the BBC ''Crimewatch'' programme. He was advising us on the problems at Sangatte and the surrounding area, which was helpful. The visit was organised by the noble Lord Berkeley. I hope that the Minister can deal with the matters that I have raised. I do not oppose the new clause, but we should like to hear a little more about how the proposals will fit in with other developments.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I welcome you to our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien. Undoubtedly, there is a need to improve security on our railways. I am sure that most of us receive letters on that theme from our constituents, but I wonder whether the new clause is the right way in which to approach the problem. There is a need for safer stations and for there to be more staff at stations, which is clearly way beyond the Bill's remit. Unstaffed stations are an invitation to vandalism, and there is a need for CCTV on trains and at stations, which was a point that was made this morning.

There is a need for an improved police presence, in general. I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I do not think that I have ever seen a transport police officer. I do not know how many there are, but they keep themselves very much to themselves, or perhaps they travel in plain clothes. The new clause suggests that there should be a low tier of personnel with the power to deal with low-level incidents, but probably not the matters that are of most concern to the travelling public, which is the fear that they—especially women—may be attacked on trains or at badly lit or unstaffed stations. The new clause would deal with less of an issue, such as someone who may be making too much noise on a train because they had been drinking too much alcohol. Is that the right way to deal with even that problem?

The Minister will know of our philosophical problems with the idea of giving private sector employees powers to give fixed penalty tickets to members of the public and to operate as a private police force within certain tightly defined boundaries. I have a problem with that, in particular in the case of the railway industry, where private-sector companies

have not exactly covered themselves with glory. The idea of Railtrack, or, even worse, Jarvis, handing out fixed penalty notices does not fill me with much enthusiasm. It may be the wrong kind of police on the line as far as the public are concerned.

Having said that, I have some sympathy with the Minister's suggestion that there should be a power to deal with nuisances, caused, I suppose, by young people, such as throwing stones or trespassing. If we could do something to stop that, I have some sympathy with his point. However, presumably the trespassing powers will be unable to deal with the many hunts that seem to roam across railway lines willy-nilly and do not seem to be controlled or stopped by anyone, let alone operatives under such a scheme.

I listened carefully to the Minister, and he may correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that his proposal is that people who are accredited under the railway safety scheme will have not only those two extra powers but powers that apply in a community safety scheme.

Mr. Denham indicated assent.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister nods. I fail to understand why it is necessary to give people who are accredited under the scheme powers that enable them to deal with cycling on the footway, dog fouling or abandoned vehicles. I hope that we do not have abandoned vehicles on railway lines too often. Several powers seem surplus to requirements, and I would have more sympathy with the proposal if it were limited specifically to railway-related issues, such as throwing stones at trains or trespassing on the railway.

Why will the wider powers in schedule 5, which seem to have little relevance to railways, be included in the powers available to such people? Why do they need powers to deal with cycling on footways or dog fouling, for example?

In addition, will the Minister clarify the definition of behaving in an antisocial manner? As he understands, that will apply to the railway. Will it apply to people busking at railway stations, for example? Some people might regard that as antisocial; I would not. Who will define antisocial in a railway context? Having expressed my reservations about the new clause, I hope that the Minister will respond to my questions.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked several questions around a central theme. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a wide-ranging but none the less curmudgeonly contribution to the debate, as we have become used to.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked how the proposals will fit alongside different initiatives being introduced at the moment. Some useful initiatives have been introduced, all of which combined are helpful. We would need to look to the local chief officer of the Home Office police force, together with the chief officer of the BTP, to ensure that local arrangements were satisfactory.

There have been proposals to encourage police officers to travel on several transport systems. I believe that one London commuter line already offers free travel to officers in its area. The Metropolitan police intends to dedicate some of its CSOs to transport routes. I am not sure what stage the discussions have reached, but there has also been talk of Transport for London possibly partially financing some of the officers who would be supplied by the Metropolitan police.

In the welcome initiative to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred earlier, Connex has made an arrangement to encourage members of staff to train and serve as special constables. It will not pay them for being specials but will reward them with an additional payment. I hope that that model of an employer supporting the recruitment of the special constabulary, which will be discussed in more detail when we debate a later new clause, will be adopted more generally. It is a good initiative.

There are big differences between the different types of scheme. Travel schemes may benefit from the presence of a police officer who is travelling to or from work, but who will not be there for the entire working day. Although a railway company will benefit in many ways by having somebody on its staff who is trained in the skills of a special, the duties of a special lie in the officer's own time, rather than in their working time. Arrangements such as the one where the Metropolitan police can supply CSOs on transport routes complement such initiatives, but only this one for the railways will look at railway staff who are properly trained and accredited to exercise the functions of the CSO, and that is the key issue. They will be members of staff whose full-time job is to deal with railway safety and antisocial issues.

In any case, all the signs are that this is the way that the railway industry is moving. Several train operating companies—such as Railtrack, which is responsible for stations—are already recruiting and developing staff to play such roles. We are seeking to provide a framework within which those different initiatives can be co-ordinated by the BTP across the entire railway system. That is better than having each train operating company coming up with a slightly different variation on the same theme of travel safety. A framework such as ours will help to provide national consistency, which is important on a rail network.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that although it is easy to list a diversity of approaches to this issue, they fit together and complement each other. Where there are issues of possible overlap of different initiatives—which is more likely to happen in London than anywhere else, because of the work that the Metropolitan police does with the BTP—we can rely on the chief officers of the two forces to sort out operational issues with the transport operators.

The hon. Gentleman also described the types of distressing incident on which we wish to crack down. I hope that by complementing the force of the BTP—which currently has 2,100 officers, I think—it will be possible for more effort to be devoted to following up incidents of that sort.

The hon. Member for Lewes asked several questions. One of them was about the range of powers. It makes sense that the full range of powers that would otherwise be available to ACSOs should be available to the BTP when it establishes its accreditation scheme. The BTP's jurisdiction covers railways and their vicinity, so it is possible that issues involving dog fouling, cycling—and, perhaps, buskers, where there is no authorised scheme for them—will be dealt with in the areas that the BTP covers, although offenders will have to fall foul of the particular offences that are set out in the legislation.

There is merit in allowing the force, when it sets up its accredited scheme, to look through the menu of powers and to say whether it thinks that each of them is appropriate. However, the evidence from my officials' discussions with the BTP about the possible establishment of its scheme suggests that it would like the full range of powers that are in the legislation, as well as the two additional powers that have been mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed the argument that he put this morning about private sector officers having these powers. Train operating companies are developing railway security schemes. It makes sense to bring those schemes into a national framework, and to allow the modest extension of minor powers to the relevant employees, if the chief officer of the BTP thinks that it would add to the security of passengers on the railway system. As I said this morning, I think that we can rely on the responsibilities that rest with the chief officer and his judgment of whether a decision is appropriate. We must accept the principle today.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Perhaps the Minister can address one point that I forgot to mention. Will employees who are part of the accreditation scheme be subject to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, given that the British Transport police will organise the scheme?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The position will be exactly the same as that of other non-police employees if the scheme is organised by the local chief constable. The chief officer of the BTP will need to satisfy himself that an appropriate complaints procedure has been established and is being maintained. He will have to monitor the way in which it operates. The legal responsibilities will be the same as those that we discussed during this morning's debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15 - Power to amend Chapter 1 of Part 4

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause reinstates, in an amended form, the order-making power that was removed in another place. As Lord Rooker said when the power was removed, we understand why there might be anxieties about how it might be used by a future Home Secretary to confer excessive and inappropriate powers on designated or accredited individuals. That is why it is important that I set out the significant number of safeguards to prevent misuse of the order-making power with which the new clause is packed.

How can the Committee provide reasonable flexibility in the future to determine the powers available for community support officers and accredited community safety officers without requiring the inevitably laborious process of returning

to primary legislation? In the real world, we know that opportunities to introduce primary legislation can be limited.

Before lunch, we had an interesting discussion about proposals supported by Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee to extend the powers of ACSOs. The reality is that the Government—this would be the same if Opposition parties were introducing the Bill—are embarking on a new development in British policing. The Committee and the Houses of Parliament are making their best judgment about the right sets of powers to confer on police employees and members of accredited schemes. None of us can be absolutely certain that the Bill neither gives too many powers, nor limits them unnecessarily. We have tried to give the Government and future Governments flexibility to adjust the arrangements in the light of experience. This morning's discussion demonstrated how useful such a provision might be.

For example, in future we might agree with the Opposition parties that it would be appropriate to give ACSOs powers with regard to vehicles that are used to cause annoyance. It would be a great shame if we had to use primary legislation to confer that power. Equally, let us suppose the Government got something completely wrong—one must always allow for that possibility, although I realise from the shocked expressions of Opposition Members that it is unlikely—and one of the powers caused problems whenever it was used. It could not simply be removed from the schedule of powers available, despite guidance and best practice advising the best use of a CSO or ACSO.

I shall go through the various safeguards that need to be in place. The extension of police powers to non-police officers is a controversial issue, so there need to be safeguards.

First, any change under the new clause would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. It is worth reminding the Committee that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report on the Bill, passed no comment on the order-making power in this clause, other than to confirm that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. It would need the positive assent of both Houses to bring about any change; a Home Secretary could not extend the range of powers available to CSOs and ACSOs on a whim.

Secondly, while the clause would enable the Secretary of State to allow chief officers to make a greater range of powers available to designated and accredited persons in the future, the level of seriousness of such powers would not change. The clause does not allow a Home Secretary to raise the stakes by enabling him to use the order-making power to bestow all sorts of more significant powers on individuals. Indeed, it explicitly prohibits the Secretary of State from using the clause to confer on civilians powers of arrest or detention that are additional to

those already provided for in schedule 4. He or she will not, by stealth, be able to create an army of CSOs with full constabulary powers, which was one of the issues of concern in another place, nor will he or she be able to confer additional powers to enter premises without the occupier's consent when unaccompanied by a constable.

Thirdly, the Secretary of State will not be able to create new powers that are not already given to a constable or other person, for example a local authority employee such as an environmental health officer. All those restrictions will apply to those employed directly by the police authority as much as to anybody else.

Finally—this is a new addition to the clause—before making use of the order- making power, the Secretary of State will need to consult police authorities, chief officers, local authorities and others with a legitimate interest. When doing so, he will need to be open about his motivations and address any concerns that are expressed.

It is always easy to oppose powers of this sort, on the grounds that they are going too far, we are better off without them and we should get the primary legislation right in the first place. However, I ask the Committee to give this serious consideration. Without such a clause, we could end up in a position in which chief officers who can identify a need for additional powers—say, to add to the list of offences for which a fixed penalty notice might be issued—have to wait for some years before an appropriate opportunity for primary legislation comes along. Similar problems might be experienced in removing powers that cause concern.

The safeguards that we have put into the Bill are appropriate to a clause of this sort and I commend it to the Committee.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I add my words of welcome to you, Mr. O'Brien.

The Minister has been very cunning in using this morning's Opposition amendments as a justification for the new clause. I do not criticise him for practising a ministerial ploy. However, it will not wash. Just because we proposed some other powers, that is not to say that we automatically support the concept that a Secretary of State should be able to add to those powers at the stroke of a pen—[Interruption.] I slightly exaggerate. The Minister putters from a sedentary position. I said ,''At the stroke of a pen''. I shall come back to precisely what is involved. The clause was removed in another place. Although he has referred to lots of added safeguards, the only additional provision that could be described as a safeguard relates to consultation.

The Minister did not explain why subsection (1) of the new clause is so different from subsections (1) and (2) of the original clause, which was deleted. There might be technical reasons, but there is a significant change in the wording. I do not believe that that constitutes a safeguard.

He is right that there is a safeguard, if one can call it such, in that the Secretary of State is not allowed to extend the powers of detention or arrest. That is about

it. The clause will allow, by affirmative resolution, the extension of any existing police power to all the civilian categories that we have mentioned. It also allows the creation of new categories of civilians employed within the police force. Although the Minister says that it does not allow the creation of new powers, his argument is slightly disingenuous given that that would be a new power for a police officer. That power should not be conferred by a statutory instrument; it is a major issue.

The Minister can claim that the affirmative resolution procedure gives a vestige of democracy to the proposal. However, he has been in the House for a long while. He well knows that statutory instruments are effectively rubber stamps. The only exception was, perhaps, last week's exercise in which his poor colleague, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), was trotted out to defend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) (Amendment) Order 2002. He spent two days defending it to the media, only for the Home Secretary to cut the ground from under him by saying that the Government had got it wrong. I sympathise—that is the price of being a junior Minister. That was the only occasion on which I can recall being anywhere near seeing an SI defeated, and even in that case we must wait to see what materialises.

The Minister knows that affirmative resolutions go to statutory instrument Committees and they are agreed. As he said, the issue of giving police powers to civilians is highly controversial, not just between political parties—important as that is—but in the country. We know that the Police Federation strongly opposes the idea; the police superintendents are less than enthusiastic and so, with a few notable exceptions, is the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Association of Police Authorities has been very concerned, as has virtually everybody else. It would be a highly controversial move. That is why the power to alter the Bill should remain in primary legislation; a statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution, should not be used in such a controversial way.

We do not know what powers a future Home Secretary might decide to add or remove. I agree with the Minister—we do not know whether we are right on either side of the Committee. The Government might have made an awful mistake, or several, but only time will tell. However, that is not an excuse for creating a mechanism by which democracy can be short-changed and something major, such as the extension of legions of police powers that are not in schedule 4 or 5 but which do not involve detention or arrest, can be added. It is not right for that to be done by secondary legislation.

There were many discussions in the other place before it was decided to throw out this Henry VIII clause giving huge powers to Ministers. It is worth mentioning that those views are shared not just by my noble Friends, but by others. My noble Friend, Lord Dixon-Smith read subsection (2) of the new clause, which only a highly paid lawyer can understand—

perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) can help us—and most laymen cannot. He described it as

''a glorious melange of facility to amend primary legislation by regulation.'' ——[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 515.]

Lord Dholakia stated on Report:

''The conferring of police powers, whether on the police or anyone else should be subject to the proper rigours of scrutiny and debate, which is given to Bills and should not simply be something which can be changed by order''.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 April 2002; Vol. 633, c. 876.]

During the final debate, when the Lords voted to remove the clause, Earl Russell said:

''If this House allows this clause to remain on the statute book, Parliament will have made itself redundant.''——[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 385.]

That might be a marginal exaggeration, but the gist of what he said is absolutely right. The part of the Bill that relates to police powers is highly controversial. It constitutes a potential major infringement of individual rights because it provides that powers may be exercised by community safety officers, investigating officers, ACSOs and others. Indeed, the Secretary of State could use the same mechanism to extend still further the number of categories of civilians employed by the police.

We should accept the fact that there will inevitably be some delay if it proves necessary to change the powers because they turn out to be inadequate or excessive, but I still believe that that should be done in primary legislation. The Minister said that chief constables might have to wait for years for things to be changed, but as the legislation introduces a huge step change, and as the police have existed for 150-odd years without such powers being given to civilians, I suggest that it is not much of a problem for them to have to wait another two years if it becomes necessary to change the provisions. If the matter becomes urgent, and if there is agreement between the parties, the Minister knows as well as I do that primary legislation can be passed extremely quickly. Given the tendency of the Home Office to introduce several pieces of legislation in every parliamentary Session, it would be possible to introduce the necessary clause or schedule to put the matter right within 12 months. It is unnecessary to give the Secretary of State the Henry VIII powers in the new clause, notwithstanding the safeguards to which the Minister referred. It is such a controversial issue that any change to the legislation should be introduced, according to the full democratic process, in primary legislation, so I oppose the new clause.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on his contribution, with which I entirely agree. When the Labour party was in opposition, as the Minister knows—in fact, he had the decency to concede as much himself—there was always stiff opposition to any attempt to introduce so-called Henry VIII clauses, which are essentially undemocratic in that they remove parliamentary scrutiny by the House. Statutory instruments are a substitute for that, whether they are subject to affirmative resolution or otherwise. That is

especially the case in relation to controversial measures. The Minister suggested that it would be laborious, although I do not think that he used that word, time-consuming and difficult to find a slot for the introduction of primary legislation, but that argument is insufficient to outweigh our serious concerns. As the hon. Gentleman said, if Ministers decide that powers must be added, there are numerous Home Office Bills to which such a measure could be tacked on. Equally, if certain powers are unnecessary or discredited, we could allow them to fall into disuse before repealing them when the appropriate moment arises, so there is no need to avoid the use of primary legislation.

The Minister put his case reasonably this afternoon. I am glad to see that he has regained his gentle urbane good humour after this morning. He mentioned the new direction that the Government want to pursue, quite rightly, but that suggests that the future is uncertain, which makes the case for introducing changes by primary legislation, rather than by affirmative resolution, even more important.

The Minister was good enough to say that it was his best guess that the powers to be introduced by the Bill would work. I am sure that he and others have wrestled with the various options before introducing the Bill. It just so happens that his best guess is not my best guess, but I accept that that is his honest belief. I would be slightly more amenable to the proposal if Ministers had shown some willingness to accept amendments from Opposition Members or from the House of Lords, but we have not seen that. Ministers have fallen over themselves to suggest that Home Office draftsmen are the fount of all knowledge, but they have not said that others' ideas might worth considering in relation to this new step forward, which represents a radical change.

We have seen the typical resistance that we see from all Government Departments to amendments tabled by the Opposition or from outside the Government's closed ranks. Indeed, the Government are trying to reverse the amendments that were passed in the House of Lords against their wishes. I find it difficult to believe that the legislation is perfect, but that is the conclusion that we are supposed to reach. The Bill will emerge from Committee intact, except for the Government amendments, which suggests that it is based on a narrow focus of opinion. That is one reason why I am reluctant to agree to such wide-ranging powers.

I am also reluctant to agree to those powers because we have not yet seen how the powers will work. I tried to suggest that there should be a 12-month review of a proposal that we discussed earlier. Although the Minister saw the merit in having a review, he did not want to be tied to a particular time scale. I am sure that the powers will be reviewed by Government, but is it not appropriate that when they are reviewed for the first time—because the key issue is how well they will work—they should be the subject of a full discussion

on the Floor of the House, followed by amendments to primary legislation where necessary? If the Minister turns out to be right and the legislation works well, I would have some sympathy with the idea that powers could be added to or deleted subsequently.

The Minister mentioned several safeguards that are included in the new clause. Affirmative resolution is worth while, so far as it goes, and better than negative resolution or nothing, but it is limited for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. One of the problems is that we cannot amend statutory instruments. I wish that the Government would allow Committees to amend them. When one or two amendments would improve a proposal, the Government often accept them, but they must take back a statutory instrument and reintroduce it, because they cannot allow it to be amended. That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but it limits the effectiveness of the affirmative resolution, which the Minister proposes in relation to this legislation.

The fact that the new clause excludes the power of arrest or detention is obviously welcome. That is a very important point, which I shall not dismiss or minimise in any way. It is also important that the powers to enter premises should be limited, but that still leaves a huge range of police powers that could be conferred by the Minister on CSOs or ACSOs. That could allow a huge range of road traffic matters to be dealt with. Speed traps, pursuit of vehicles to measure speeds and so on could be handled by CSOs in the future; they do not require a power of arrest or detention unless alcohol is involved. A speeding offence does not involve arrest; that could be dealt with by a CSO. Therefore, a range of powers could be handed over. The public should be involved in the debate; it should not be discussed in a Room on the Committee Corridor on an obscure afternoon.

The Minister referred to consultation. That is a welcome development; it is a step forward from where we were when this matter was debated in the House of Lords, and I am grateful for that. However, I would have more faith in consultation if I believed that any Minister or his Department or even any Government paid attention to it. After all, the consultation on the Bill revealed that most police authorities and police forces are opposed to CSOs, yet a proposal for CSOs is being railroaded through in the Bill. The consultation exercise might have been listened to, but it has not informed the contents of the Bill. Therefore, we cannot conclude that if the Minister consults on, say, an extension of powers for CSOs and receives comments that are largely or wholly negative, that will necessary influence whether he proceeds. He might well do so despite the consultations. Therefore, my first reason for opposing the new clause is the extensive nature of the Henry VIII clause, which I am unhappy with in principle.

Notwithstanding the Minister's elegantly put and entirely reasonable-sounding case, secondary legislation is a dangerous road to go down. Even if it means more time spent discussing the legislation in the

Commons and even if that slows things down a little, primary legislation is the proper way in which to proceed when considering measures of this magnitude.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Mr. O'Brien, I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has said and agree with the hon. Member for Lewes. The Minister has presented the clause in apparent innocence, saying that it is important to be able to amend the powers in the light of experience and so on. He even accepts that the extension of police powers to non-police personnel is controversial. However, he does not seem to accept that enabling a Home Secretary to give more powers to such people is even more controversial. That prompted a lengthy debate in the House of Lords.

We should remember that the powers have been debated at length in this Committee and in the House of Lords. The minutiae of the powers has been examined through the parliamentary process. We have not always persuaded the Government of the force of our argument, although they have made serious concessions, particularly in relation to the power to detain people under accredited community safety schemes. There is a process of scrutiny, and it has engaged the interest of the Committee and of the House of Lords. Under this clause the current or a future Home Secretary could simply bypass all that and introduce new powers and clauses that would be subjected—as my hon. Friend says, with much greater experience than I do of this place—to little scrutiny under the SI procedures, even if that is by affirmative resolution. We are dealing with powers, even if they are not powers of arrest and detention as defined in the clause, that directly affect the liberty of the individual. My hon. Friend has reminded us of what Earl Russell said in the House of Lords. He also said that they were dealing with powers that

''led to the revival of impeachment in the Parliament of 1621.'' —[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 385.]

That might have been a slight exaggeration on the part of the noble Lord, but as a history graduate who enjoyed his books, I know that he knows what he is talking about where history is concerned. These are serious powers. We tend to be very polite in this Committee, as the hon. Member for Lewes was, and stress that we are not talking about the present Home Secretary but a future one. After what we saw last week, I am worried about the current Home Secretary introducing powers that he has dreamed up, with little thought as to their implications, and changing his mind three days later.

There are no real safeguards in the clause to protect people from the schemes and gimmicks of this Home Secretary, let alone future ones. That is why I am cautious about giving the powers, and not happy with the clause. I hope that if we vote on it, we vote to defeat it.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. We are getting used to the Minister's approach to problems—his mailed fist clad

in a glove of velvet presented with enormous felicitation and brought down with a clang once our backs are half turned.

I am grateful to the Minister for his points about consultation. I take them entirely into account, as my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Lewes have done. I understand that there will be no extension of the powers of detention or arrest under the clause. However—the Minister knows what is coming—I am not going to quote from another place or from history books; I am going to quote from the floor of the police station, where I have spent a little time, not on it, but listening.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Handcuffed.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I shall explain what most worries people in forces that do not wholeheartedly embrace the idea of CSOs and ACSOs. I take the point of the hon. Member for Lewes that some forces are not keen on the idea. One of those forces is Nottinghamshire. I am surprised by the grasp that the average bobby and the average sergeant have of the exact extent to which CSOs would change their lives. That is not something that has just flashed across their consciousness. They have sat down and talked about it at length. The opinions that I have heard are essentially this: they understand that in semi-rural areas such as Newark and Retford there will be a need, perhaps more than in many other areas, for CSOs. They are, therefore, reasonably broad-minded about it. They understand that they can be relieved of many duties by CSOs. They pointed particularly to the detention officer who was in the nick with them that night, and said how much weight he had taken from their shoulders.

None the less, being essentially conservative, perhaps reactionary, they are worried about what the CSOs will do and what powers they will have. They are prepared to accept the imposition of CSOs so long as their chief constable has powers over them that they fully understand. The one thing that they do not agree with and cannot contemplate is the idea of those powers being inconsistent. Giving the idea to Joe Bobby that a Home Secretary could change the powers, apparently at the drop of a hat—I understand that that is deliberate hyperbole—and that what he sees as an up-gunned traffic warden could at short notice be turned into a constable of almost equal power to himself does not help the cause of CSOs.

Therefore, while I understand the need for powers and I think that police officers in rural constituencies understand the need for CSOs, any alteration to those powers should be a matter for primary legislation. The affirmative resolution procedure, followed by a statutory instrument, is all but rubber-stamping. It would—I think that I speak for the police officers in Newark—be a power too far and a clause too far. I hope that the Committee will have the sense to reject the clause.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want, briefly, to support what my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire, for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for

Newark (Patrick Mercer) have said. Specifically, I would say that officers in Surrey have expressed the same views as those reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark—they are not restricted to Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that officers in many forces have looked at the matter extremely carefully. It is not something that flashed across their consciousness. One of the reasons why it has been thought about so carefully is because of the enormously helpful analysis of all the Government's proposals in the Police Federation's Police magazine. That publication is always interesting because of the thoroughness with which the federation's correspondents analyse the issues. Naturally, they will often express views that are at odds not only with this Government, but with any Government who are proposing changes. It is right, however, to pay tribute to the fact that the debates in police canteens between officers during pauses in their duties are much informed by the Police magazine.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said—with the support of my other hon. Friends—Henry VIII clauses are dangerous. I am sure that the Minister and the present Home Secretary would not misuse their powers in the ways that some of us may be worried about, but such powers will be on the statute book and a future Home Secretary may be tempted to misuse them. In principle, the Conservative Opposition should always be unhappy when a Government are proposing a Henry VIII clause because it leaves the way open for a future Home Secretary to extend the powers dramatically at the drop of a hat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been advanced, but for the sake of fairness, it is important that the views put to me by officers in Surrey and elsewhere are on the record.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We have had a useful debate. I suppose at the heart of it was whether Parliament trusts Parliament to do the job that Parliament has been set up to do. Another place rejected two orders that were introduced under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 on mayoral elections. It is not the case that the affirmative resolution procedure is a purely rubber-stamping exercise. It is an important part of the new clause that the extension of powers is brought within the affirmative resolution procedure. I accept that the problem is whether a Home Secretary in the future brings forward proposals for change, but after consultation and given the limits set out under the new clause, we trust Parliament to do its job and say yea or nay to the extension of powers. Given the constraints and safeguards in the Bill, I believe that we should be willing to do that, but it may be something on which the Committee may wish to divide. No doubt, we shall return to it at a later stage.

As for the specific point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, the reason for the change in wording is that, on reflection, the first draft

was ambiguous about whether measures could be subtracted from the powers under schedules 4 and 5 by virtue of the new clause as well as be added to them. Clearly, for reasons that I set out earlier, it would to enable such activity to take place. That is why there has been a change in the drafting. Why it is so extensive, I do not know, but I am sure that that is the reason for the change. I shall not prolong the discussion. The arguments on all sides have been advanced clearly and fairly.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 7.

Clause 43 - Offences for which a person may be arrested without a warrant

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have a brief query that I hope that the Minister can clear up. In the clause, the Government are proposing to amend a reference to the Theft Act 1968, which, as the Minister knows, is one of the principal foundations of modern criminal law. Like all lawyers, I am very familiar with it. Is there any particular significance in replacing

''an offence under section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968''

with

''one which is a summary offence'',

as is proposed in subsection (4)? I want the Minister to shed some light on that, before we let it through on the nod.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

One hates to deal with such matters when one is up against an hon. Member who has long experience as a criminal lawyer, and who knows these aspects of the law inside out.

The specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that subsection (4) makes a small amendment to section 24(3)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make it clear that any

arrestable offence, which is triable summarily only, is excluded from the power to arrest for an attempt to commit such an offence.

I am unsure whether the Committee wishes me to speak at length on this clause, so I will not go into great detail. It addresses three measures that create difficulties for the police in sensibly enforcing the law; introducing the power of arrest will give them a significant advantage.

I should, perhaps, have known early on in my time as a Member of Parliament that assaulting a police officer is not, directly, an arrestable offence, but I learned that that is the case after I became a Home Office Minister, and I was surprised—as have been most other people with whom I have discussed this matter. We address a lacuna in the law by making this and other changes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has a lot of material that he might not want to detain the Committee with this afternoon but, in the light of what he has said, I would find it helpful—as, perhaps, would other Committee members, and in particular those who are also lawyers—if the Minister were to circulate in a letter to us the part of his brief that comes under the heading, ''If pressed'' because I wish to understand what is being done. The Bill does not make that clear.

I do not think that there is anything sinister here, but I would like some clarification. If the Minister is able to say that he will write to me and other Committee members setting out the matter in a little more detail, I am sure that that will suffice.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I would be happy to do that.

The key thing that we are trying to do is to enable the police to be in a position where they can arrest suspects after the event—after a suspect has left the crime scene. They are unable to do that at present.

I would be happy to help the hon. Gentleman by setting out that simple concept in as complicated legal language as possible, and to copy in other Committee members. The Committee knows the area where the police are currently unable to take action, and I am sure that it will support closing the gap, as is proposed here.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Persons acting in an anti-social manner

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We shall come to another issue to do with antisocial behaviour orders under clause 57. I am delighted that my amendments Nos. 271 and 272 and proposed new clause 20 have been selected for debate under that clause, and I do not want to anticipate those

arguments. However, we have been asked by the Police Federation to raise one particular matter under clause 45, which also deals with ASBOs, and I hope that the Minister can shed light on it.

Although the Police Federation supports what is said in the clause—and I can well understand why—it raises the issue that as yet there is no specific statutory definition of what is encompassed under the term ''antisocial behaviour.'' All of us will have some idea of what is meant, and the Minister might say that it would not be helpful to have a statutory definition. However, as the Police Federation specifically asked my hon. Friends and me to raise the issue, I thought it best to put the question on the record under the clause, and to give the Minister an opportunity to give his view as to whether the Government have it in mind, perhaps in later legislation if not in the Bill, to give an overarching definition of what constitutes antisocial behaviour.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Clause 45 centres on the ability to ask for a name and address from someone believed to be acting in an antisocial manner. It has some read-across to this morning's debate on accredited community safety officers and CSOs being able to do so. It would be strange if, through earlier legislation, CSOs and ACSOs had the power to ask for a name and address but a police officer did not. The clause therefore completes the picture.

There is wording that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gives the definition of antisocial behaviour as acting

''in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household''.

We will, under a later set of amendments, debate the phrase,

''not of the same household'',

but that definition is the basis that we are relying on in the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 46 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Extension of role of nurses

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 43, line 26, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 228 to 238, 245 and 246.

Government new clause 12—Persons authorised to take intimate samples from persons in police detention.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The Bill already makes provision for registered nurses to deal with the taking of blood specimens with consent in drink-driving cases and in cases under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The amendments under discussion extend that provision to registered health care professionals, who include registered nurses, although the term goes wider. The

particular group that the Government have in mind in introducing the amendment is registered paramedics, who are highly trained clinical practitioners.

Proposed new clause 12 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow registered health care professionals to take blood and other intimate samples from suspects at police stations in non-drink-driving cases. Such samples are used for a variety of evidential and investigatory purposes and currently must be taken by a registered medical practitioner.

Allowing registered health care professionals—we have in mind paramedics in particular—to take the entire range of intimate samples simply reflects their expanding role throughout many different medical environments. Enabling the use of the entire range of registered health care professionals and not only registered nurses is a practical measure in law to extend the benefits of the new provision as broadly as possible without compromising standards. However, the Secretary of State will have to introduce regulations on the matter.

The amendments and the new clause will increase the scope for a wider range of health care professionals to provide services in the custody environment. They will help to promote value for money, avoid delays and remove the need to call on the services of a police surgeon when the practical requirements can easily be dealt with by appropriately trained registered health care professionals. I commend them to the Committee.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We do not foresee any particular difficulties with the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has some important points to make about the next clause, but I shall not take up the Committee's time on this group, because we believe that what the Government are suggesting is perfectly sensible.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 228, in page 43, line 30, at end insert—

'(2A) In subsection (2) of section 11 of that Act (interpretation of sections 3A to 10 of that Act), after the definition of ''prescribed limit'' there shall be inserted—

'''registered health care professional' means a person (other than a medical practitioner) who is—

(a) a registered nurse; or

(b) a registered member of a health care profession which is designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(2B) After that subsection there shall be inserted—

''(2A) A health care profession is any profession mentioned in section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) other than the profession of practising medicine and the profession of nursing.

(2B) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'''.

No. 229, in page 43, line 31, leave out

'section 11 of that Act'

and insert 'that section'.

No. 230, in page 43, line 36, leave out 'nurse' and insert 'health care professional'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 44, line 23, at end insert—

'(iii) if the medical practitioner who for the time being has any responsibility for the clinical care of the person concerned objects to the request.'.

I should say first that we warmly welcome this part of the Bill. I do not want there to be any doubt about that. Many hon. Members will have been present in the Chamber on Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) spoke passionately about the issue. The Minister has been in long discussions with him. We entirely support the proposition in the clause that if people are incapable of consenting to having a sample taken, that should not necessarily prevent a sample from being taken. My right hon. Friend referred to a case, and I know of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has been involved, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), in cases in which people who self-evidently have a responsibility for causing an accident, for example, have been unconscious in hospital and blood samples cannot be taken. I do not want to say something that cannot be proven, but it might be argued that the guilty have gone unpunished because it has not been possible to collect the evidence.

We entirely support the clause. However, I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member to have received from the British Medical Association details of some concerns on the subject. I tabled the amendment simply to suggest that the medical practitioner in charge of the patient at any one time should have the right to object to the request for a sample to be taken on the basis that he or she believes that it would be deleterious to the patient's condition.

The amendment is not intended to undermine the purpose of the clause. It would simply allow the medical professionals to have a say in the matter.

The BMA said that it

''is concerned that the operation of the clause is dependent upon a police constable assessing that a person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons.''

It goes on to ask how a constable who is not medically trained could

''differentiate between an incapacity caused by concussion, or by shock, or by drink or drugs or a pre-existing medical condition''.

I understand that, under section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, provision is made to protect a person who is a patient at a hospital from having to provide a specimen of breath or blood for a laboratory test, unless the medical practitioner in charge of his case does not object. A medical practitioner might object if he considers that to provide a specimen would be prejudicial to the care and treatment of the patient.

That is a reasonable position to adopt. Our amendment would extend the protection to the care and treatment of a person from the moment that he or she comes under the care of any member of the health team, including the ambulance and paramedic services, and any health care professional who assists in either a voluntary or an official capacity.

Obviously, whatever has happened, the health of the individual is paramount. It seems sensible that the individual should be protected by the medical practitioner. The Minister may say that the term ''medical practitioner'' is wrong and that it should have been ''health care professional''. I am more than happy to accept that the amendment may be deficient technically, but we believe that a medical professional should be able to say, ''No, you cannot take that sample because it could prejudice the health interests of the patient''.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The amendment would protect a person who is unconscious after an accident by providing that a constable cannot ask for a blood specimen to be taken if the medical practitioner who has clinical care of the person objects. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that reflects the intention of the Bill. The amendment is not necessary. He had advantage over me by referring to a particular communication from the BMA, which I have not received.

I wish to make it clear, however, that the clause only empowers a medical practitioner to take a specimen. It does not require him to do so. It allows the individual practitioner at his discretion to refuse the police request, for example, if he thought that taking a specimen could be detrimental to the patient's health or if his ethical beliefs would not allow him to do so. It is worth saying, incidentally in relation to our earlier discussion, that the clause does not allow a nurse to take specimens in such cases. We have not extended the role to other registered health care professionals, which was a deliberate act in view of ethnical considerations and the likely medical condition of the patient. To reiterate, the amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 introduced under clause 50(1) make it lawful, but not compulsory, for a medical practitioner to take a specimen when requested, if he thinks fit.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I am not yet convinced of his argument. Clause 50(2)(a) states that a request

''shall not be made to a medical practitioner who for the time being has any responsibility (apart from the request) for the clinical care of the person concerned''.

Although the hon. Gentleman said that the practitioner to whom the request was made may decline to do so, it seems self-evident that that person will be a different individual from the medical practitioner who is in clinical charge of the patient. He or she cannot be asked to take a sample, but somebody else can. The other person may decline to do it, but my point is that the person in charge of the patient should take the ultimate decision.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Our intention is that if the practitioner who was responsible for the clinical care of the patient objected, it would not be fitting for another medical practitioner to say, none the less, ''I am overruling your judgment in this case.'' That could cause ethical problems. I do not believe that a sample would be taken under the Bill's provisions against the objections of the practitioner with clinical care. The intention behind the amendment has been addressed.

I do not have a copy of the specific BMA letter. I understood that the BMA was content with the Bill because we have held lengthy discussions with it about medical ethics. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall examine the matter again to decide whether it requires further clarification. I understand the distinction that he makes between a person with clinical care and a person to whom the request for a sample is addressed, but I am not sure that the problem that he raised exists. However, he has received representations that I have not, and in view of my understanding of the Bill, it might be better if I offer to examine the matter outside the Committee.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. I must admit that I had assumed that other hon. Members had received the letter. I shall provide the Minister with a copy and I am happy for him to read it. I did not intend to create an unnecessary dispute; I simply wanted reassurance.

While I am on my feet, I apologise to the Committee. I allowed my memory to serve me ill when I moved the amendment and referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. Of course, he raised a different issue that relates to the Bill.

I am happy to provide the Minister with the letter, and I look forward to his consideration of it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Use of specimens taken from persons incapable of consenting

Clause 52 - Equivalent provision for offences connected with transport systems

Clause 53 - Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I seek clarification from the Minister on the impact of the clause. I understand that if a constable identifies careless and inconsiderate driving that is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, under subsection (3) he will have the power to stop, seize and remove the motor vehicle. He must warn the driver—if that is possible—before he uses that power, and the vehicle's use must have continued after the

warning. So far, so good. The purpose of the clause is, therefore, to prevent a public nuisance at a particular time, which nobody could disagree with.

I want to clarify the impact of subsection (2). It states that a constable shall also have the power to seize and remove a vehicle

''where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

Is that provision designed to identify a case in which a constable had warned someone that his driving was inconsiderate and causing alarm, and had been unable to apprehend the vehicle because the person had driven off, but had seized it subsequently? Is that the purpose of the provision? If so, it is different from preventing a public nuisance from occurring. Presumably, the public nuisance had ended because the person had driven off yet, under the Bill, a sharp-eyed constable may notice the vehicle—which may have been used, in his view, some months previously to cause disturbance—and can seize and retain it. That seems different from dealing with the public nuisance when it happened. Will the Minister confirm whether I have understood the clause correctly?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with the search for clarification carried out by the hon. Member for Lewes. I also want to explore a further issue. For a long time, there has been a substantial problem in my constituency with youths using and misusing motor bikes in an area that is a site of special scientific interest. When I read the reference to the prohibition of off-road driving under clause 53(1), it occurred to me that that might provide the powers about which I have been in extensive correspondence with the Minister's predecessors for some years.

Since 1997, I must have exchanged a dozen letters about the problem with Ministers at the Home Office and at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as it then was. Is the provision intended specifically to be a response to such letters, because I know that other hon. Members have had problems of off-road driving in country areas? Equally, we must be aware that there are legitimate off-road drivers and some have permission to drive 4x4 vehicles on certain designated areas in my constituency, where they are not contravening the law. They are also anxious that their sport should not be prevented. Did the Home Office consult motoring and enthusiast organisations before the provisions were drafted?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Having spent some time before the jubilee holiday walking the ox drove between Salisbury and Shaftesbury where the ruts in the road were sometimes up to 4 ft deep because of four-wheel drive enthusiasts, I am temped to extend the legislation to cover the confiscation of those vehicles. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not happen, however, because the Bill is concerned about the use of vehicles without lawful authority. It would not extend to the

unmetalled highways on which people have the right to drive such vehicles, unless a road traffic offence was being committed.

Many members of the Committee will have received letters from their constituents about such issues. Westwood in my constituency converges on the eastern edge of Southampton. It is one of the last remaining woodlands on that side of the city. It has been plagued by motor cyclists for several years and many other MPs will have had problems either with the off-road use of vehicles and motor cycles or the persistent misuse of the highway in an antisocial manner. The intention of the clause is to deal with that.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised a useful point. It is necessary to be able to use the powers set out in subsection (3) after the event, provided that the individual had been warned previously. There are familiar circumstances, such as off-road motor cycle use, where it will not always be realistic for police officers to intervene to apprehend the individual or seize the vehicle, while the vehicle is being used. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a power to seize the vehicle later that day, or the next day, if it is identified in a nearby area of housing. Indeed, it would significantly weaken this measure if that power were not available.

The constable will still have to have previously warned the individual that if they do not discipline their behaviour their vehicle might be seized, and he will still have to believe that there had been a breach of the RTA, or that alarm, distress or annoyance had been caused.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

With respect to the Minister, I am unsure whether it is true that someone has to have been warned. Subsection (5) states that the requirement to give a warning does not apply if the circumstances make it impractical for the constable to give the warning. Therefore, a constable might identify a situation where someone is driving in a manner that causes alarm or contravenes the RTA and attempt to give a warning—or want to—but fail to do so. That constable might then decide to seize the motor vehicle but be unable to do so, but at a subsequent unspecified date—it could be as much as six months later—invokes subsection (2), which enables him to seize the vehicle retrospectively. Is that not possible?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Gentleman is right about the warning; I apologise for having misled the Committee on that point. Subsection (5) would allow for a vehicle to be seized under subsection (2), if it had been impractical for a constable to give a warning.

The hon. Gentleman conjures up the possibility of the seizure without warning of a vehicle many months after an event. As the clause is constructed, that is a theoretical possibility, although whether it is likely to happen is a matter for speculation. However, it is of paramount importance that the police should be able to act after the event, if the legislation is to be sensible. I do not think it would be helpful to introduce an arbitrary time limit for that, as the right course of action could depend on the circumstances.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I am slightly concerned that these measures against antisocial behaviour are very widely framed. I am unsure whether a reference to vehicles that cause alarm, distress or annoyance to the public is the right way for us to phrase this legislation. I was recently going around Hyde Park corner when I saw a bright yellow Rolls-Royce convertible in which A. A. Gill was riding, and I can well imagine that many members of the public would find that sight extremely distressing, and that others would find it annoying. Some people drive around in an annoying and ostentatious way; they squeal their brakes, and so forth.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. That is totally outside the confines of the debate.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. O'Brien. I have no wish to discuss the restaurant critic of The Sunday Times.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised a point on which he sought clarification. He has corrected me on my interpretation of the clause, so I hope that will be on the record. I understand the issue that he has raised but, in practical terms, the power in subsection (2) is necessary to make sense of the rest of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Anti-social behaviour orders

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 281, in page 51, line 32, after '1B', insert ', 1C'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 277, in clause 58, page 54, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

'(3) The court may only make an order under this section following consultation with the relevant authorities.'.

No. 278, in page 54, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I must extend a belated welcome to you, Mr. O'Brien, as this is the first time that I have spoken this afternoon. I am also seeking some tolerance from you, because I will address a series of amendments and it would help me if I could make a few general comments before speaking more briefly on each amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I tabled the amendments largely because the subject has not received any debate. Amendments on antisocial behaviour orders were tabled in the House of Lords, and it was generally felt that there was so much detail that there was no time to get into discussion on the subject. I genuinely have several questions to ask and issues to raise. There should be some debate in public on ASBOs. I accept that the wording of some of the amendments is not perfect, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit behind them. The point

is to achieve clarification, and possibly to ensure that some extra guidance goes into the guidance notes when they are finally published.

I agree with the principle that antisocial behaviour orders should be weapons of last resort to be used with lots of other measures. I find it quite difficult to consider them in isolation in the Bill. There is a presumption that we need more and more ASBOs. That is reflected in hon. Members' questions to the Minister. Indeed, in last week's Prime Minister's questions it was asked why 5,000 ASBOs had not yet been made. I guess that the Government might be responding in the Bill by saying, ''Well, we're making it much easier. There will eventually be 5,000.'' That is not the right approach.

The Minister himself has cited Wrexham, where only one ASBO has been made. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is not present, because there seems to be good practice in Wrexham. There has been real success there, with 1,500 incidents being resolved through partnership working. That is excellent. Islington is another famous example where acceptable behaviour contracts are used in preference to, or at least as part of the hierarchy before one gets to, ASBOs. To say that we must have more ASBOs and legislation to make that simpler is the wrong premise. The whole package is important.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Does the hon. Lady accept that through using ASBOs and developing practice, the Government are responding to issues that constituents raise regularly with Members of Parliament with a way of dealing with problems that would help in many of our neighbourhoods? The provisions deal with good practice, and are not something that we should be worried about.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I accept that we need to spread good practice on tackling antisocial behaviour, but I do not accept that we have only one weapon on which we must focus all the time. To pick up the hon. Lady's point, I was anxious to look at the monitoring of ASBOs because I thought that before changes were proposed it would be important to have a look at the evaluation. I have read that document now, and I should like to congratulate those involved with it, and should like an assurance from the Minister that some of the many points within it will be included in the guidance.

The evaluation comes up with several recommendations and an executive summary. The recommendations are crucial, but there is one that I will disagree with when I discuss the amendment. For the most part, there is much about partnership work, which I think is exactly what the hon. Lady was talking about. There is so much good practice but, at the other end of the scale, not everything is in place. I want to be sure that we have problem solving and multi-agency approaches, and that everything comes together. I agree that we must all pull together, and that there is a lot more to be done.

There is a bit of concern about the evaluation, as it admits that much of the information about the impact of ASBOs is anecdotal, and there are few partnerships formally monitoring the outcome of ASBOs. Everyone speaks positively about them, but that is not necessarily the whole picture, and it is therefore relevant to ask questions. I sought your indulgence, Mr. O'Brien, because I wanted to provide some background.

Amendment No. 281 would make the part of the Bill to which it applies compatible with the subsequent amendments. It is consequential on the subsequent two.

Amendment No. 277 would delete subsection (3) and insert:

''The court may only make an order under this section following consultation with the relevant authorities.''

It is important to hold a consultation. Indeed, an application should be made for an antisocial behaviour order. That is the point of deleting subsection (3). The provision in the Bill bypasses the important requirement for consultation and almost gives the courts carte blanche to impose orders.

Bearing in mind that the proposal is for the community, it surely forms the basis of the partnership between the council and police forces. Why should the court become involved and bypass the consultation? I realise that an objective is to speed things up, but I do not understand that, and I should be grateful for some clarification.

Amendment No. 278 would delete paragraph (a). It is strange to make provision for an antisocial behaviour order and a sentence. The matter does not seem to be covered in the evaluation, so I should like clarification of the origin of that. Offenders should not, in principle, be subject to a double punishment, which is what that seems to be. I thought that the intention of an antisocial behaviour order was intervention before a full criminal prosecution: I have always regarded it as almost a halfway house. Obviously criminal penalties may apply if a behaviour order is breached.

I am not sure why both are necessary, and I am unhappy about it. We are trying to change behaviour, but that is wham, wham punishment, and I do not follow the logic of including it. I can find no reference to the matter, although I have may have missed it, in the evaluation report.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time at this stage. I understand the spirit of the hon. Lady's comments in presenting the amendments, but she said something towards the end of her remarks with which I want to take issue and which was slightly inconsistent with some of the points that she made earlier. She said that everyone speaks highly of antisocial behaviour orders. With respect, given how they have operated—or, rather, failed to operate—that is not true not only in the House but even of Labour Members. Indeed, one of those who have been most critical of the bureaucracy surrounding ASBOs as originally established is the

hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), with whom I have debated on several occasions. He has initiated debates and tried to put pressure on the Government. It was therefore no doubt not a coincidence that, having expressed such great interest in the subject, he found that the business managers could not find a space for him on the Committee, because no doubt he would have repeated his criticism. He and I have spoken on many occasions outside the formal debates, and we have agreed that we need to keep up the pressure.

I welcome the Government taking the opportunity in the Bill to try to improve some of the more obvious flaws of antisocial behaviour orders. I shall not go too wide of these narrow amendments, because you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. O'Brien, but as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made some general remarks, I wanted to make that point. Some important matters that relate to the wider implications will arise later, so at this stage I shall restrict my remarks—

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some authorities—I think that Liverpool is one example—have got through their antisocial behaviour orders very quickly? There is good practice—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. We are discussing a narrow amendment. I allowed the hon. Lady to wander around the issue a bit, but the amendment says ''after '1B', insert ',1C'.'' Nobody has referred to that. I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to stick to the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In the light of your ruling, Mr. O'Brien, I shall not respond to the hon. Lady's point, although I might be able to address it when we consider other amendments.

I understand that the point behind amendment No. 277 is perhaps of greatest substance, and we shall listen with interest to what the Minister says about whether it would be better to delete clause 58(3) and replace it with the wording on consultation.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The reason why the clause is in the Bill and we are debating the amendment is that the Government have examined research on the experience of using ASBOs and listened to comments of hon. Members. Considerable success has been achieved through ASBOs but the system and the accompanying guidance can be improved.

The amendments address an ASBO that could be complementary to a criminal sentence from the courts. When we examined ASBO procedures, it became apparent that there were several instances in the civil and criminal courts when a great deal of work went into amassing evidence about individuals, whether for a repossession case in the civil courts or a criminal case, and the behaviour of the individuals was such that it would have been appropriate to restrain their future behaviour through an ASBO. It would not be an alternative measure but complementary to the steps taken by the court. That is why we are considering criminal court convictions.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked reasonably whether the criminal court should be subject to the same process of co-ordination that exists if relevant authorities apply directly for ASBOs. I understand the case that she made. The procedure in the criminal court will be slightly different in practice. There is no formal requirement for a relevant authority to apply for an order after conviction. The prosecuting counsel will be able to make representations to the court on behalf of the police or local authority and to suggest that a court order might be appropriate.

As the hon. Lady said, the consultation requirements on ASBOs apply only to applications made by relevant authorities. That requirement is present to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach by different agencies. The best way forward is for the criminal court to have the relevant information because it has examined the criminal case. Of course, it will be able to request reports if further information is required.

I am reluctant to concede a further and possibly bureaucratic and time consuming process of formal consultation with the relevant agencies, but it will be possible to ensure that the necessary information is brought before the criminal court before it decides whether to make an ASBO. It would be a shame to lose the opportunity of an additional way of imposing an ASBO by erecting an unnecessarily bureaucratic tier.

With regard to amendment No. 278, it is vital that a community may be protected from the behaviour of a person convicted of a criminal offence without requiring a separate legal process to obtain an ASBO, which is what the provision allows. The thinking is analogous to other provisions that allow an ASBO to be imposed on a person subsequent to eviction due to a breach of a tenancy agreement that involved harassment. I am sure that most members of the Committee are familiar with cases in which a local authority or registered social landlord has evicted someone and that person has popped up in a private tenancy down the road and carried on behaving as he did previously. It is reasonable to build on the court process to impose an ASBO in an analogous way. The route to a court and to a different court—it may be the criminal court—to which the police will take the prosecution, will provide flexibility in protecting the public further by restraining a person's future antisocial behaviour than the sentence that is passed by the court for criminal behaviour.

Without such a provision, we will be allowing a category of people to continue their antisocial behaviour, causing nuisance to their neighbours, against whom a great deal of time and money is spent amassing evidence. We will come out of such a situation without a necessary constraint on their behaviour. I hope that we shall retain the ability to maintain an antisocial behaviour order after a criminal conviction.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for his response. I was pleased that there has been some movement in the consultation process. I am still worried about the final point to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 51, leave out lines 37 to 39.

I shall be in some trouble now with the Minister because the provision was recommended by the evaluation document and I am speaking against it. Nevertheless, I want the answers to the important questions that I am about to ask to be on the public record. Antisocial behaviour orders are so far-reaching that they should be available only to recognised law enforcement officers—the police—or democratically accountable local council representatives. I shall not rehearse the argument about democratic accountability, but clearly that is consistent with the line that we have taken in Committee.

Some additional points need to be considered. Giving social landlords the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders could become a charter for bad landlords. Good landlords will rely primarily on good housing management procedures to tackle problem tenants and, when antisocial behaviour orders are needed, housing associations will work in partnership with the police or local councillors. If bad landlords are given such a power, they can pose the threat of an antisocial behaviour order as an alternative to good housing management.

I have spoken to several representatives of housing associations about the problem and one association did not want the power as it saw itself as a good landlord. Another representative made some important points that I should like the Minister to consider. I believe that that organisation wanted the power, but it was worried about it. How would it obtain the information? It was worried that there was a problem with data protection and data sharing with the police. It felt isolated.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Given how antisocial behaviour orders operate at present, many authorities use the local council as the lead when people are council tenants, but use the police as the lead in cases of those who are not council tenants. Does it not follow that there is logic in the housing association being the lead when people are housing association tenants? Given that people will be subject to the same processes and the same tests at court, the fact that relevant information would be needed would guard against bad landlords using the provision inappropriately.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am not convinced that that is the case. It was certainly not the view of those professionals to whom I spoke. The hon. Lady's point comes down to democratic accountability. I should like an assurance from the Minister because, even with simplification, a relatively small housing association could be left with something that is difficult to handle

and not have all the information. I believe that the cases could be different from that described by the hon. Lady.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I object to almost everything that the hon. Lady has said.

I support the principle of ASBOs, and the idea of giving that power to social landlords. However, if I were allowed one major complaint, it would be that of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath—they are too bureaucratic and difficult to use.

Longridge housing estate in my constituency has recently been transferred to a social landlord. On a recent visit there, the social landlord said to me, ''We wish we had the power to deal with the bad and antisocial neighbours, and we would love to have the power to evict them, or to restrict their activity in the way that ASBOs allow.''

ASBOs are a part of a series of imaginative penalties that the criminal justice system needs. I do not always support the way that the Government float such ideas—usually as eye-catching initiatives that are splashed in The Sunday Times. However, I agree with the principle that we need to look at more imaginative solutions.

Yesterday, I attended a Public Accounts Committee hearing with the permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department and I was stunned—as were other Committee members of all parties—at the complete breakdown of the financial penalty system in courts: only 60 per cent. of penalties levied in courts are ever collected. As the permanent secretary conceded, it is really a kind of voluntary system; the offender decides whether to pay the court fine, because it is so easy not to pay it.

The permanent secretary said that all sorts of more imaginative solutions were being considered. ASBOs fall into that category, so I support them and their extension. However, they must be made less bureaucratic, so that they are easier to use—particularly if they are extended to social landlords, who will not necessarily have all the skills and bureaucratic back-up that are required to introduce them.

In my county of Cheshire, the chief constable recently told me that his force had introduced only five or six ASBOs in the entire county. The police said that they were keen to use them, but that they presented difficulties. Therefore, I regret that the Government are not using the Bill to strip away many of the bureaucratic problems that are associated with ASBOs, but I support the principle of extending them to social landlords.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

I rise to reject the Liberal Democrat amendment. Most of the social housing in my constituency is housing association property, as a result of the stock transfer in the main council in my area.

At the moment, if the housing association wants to take action through the ASBO system, it relies on the police or the local authority to take the lead. That

might happen, but because the necessary procedures are so bureaucratic and quite expensive, one can understand why the police or the local authority might not give ASBOs the priority that the housing associations and social landlords might wish. It is important that the Bill ensures that housing associations have the power to take action—if they feel that it is important enough to do so—rather than leaving them to rely on other agencies to take the lead.

I hope that such organisations will always work in partnership, but it is important that housing associations have the fall-back position to take action. I can envisage many situations where antisocial behaviour gets completely out of control. If the local authority or the police will not take action, housing associations can do very little.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and he is right that the significant extent of stock transfer is one of the issues that have forced this to the head of the queue for legislation.

There have been concerns about the bureaucracy surrounding ASBOs; that is reflected in research. However, it is important to recognise that very little of that bureaucracy derives from the primary legislation that established ASBOs. It has accumulated along the way. Some police forces generate far more evidence than is required to secure an ASBO. Some aspects of the guidance will be revised after the passage of the Bill, as they generate unnecessary bureaucracy. Once the Bill is passed, we shall need to have a concerted campaign to get across to local practitioners that some of what has become regarded as essential to secure an ASBO is in fact unnecessary.

There has been discussion on the consultation with relevant authorities. Sometimes there is debate between local authority agencies—between, say, housing and social services—especially when a particularly young person is causing persistent nuisance. One of the issues raised by registered social landlords is that once there has been a stock transfer they are an outside body compared with the voices within the local authority. If the local authority is not willing to take the issues seriously, the landlord who has responsibility for the tenants is denied access to ASBOs in a way that probably would not take place if the housing department were still part of the corporate local authority.

Although there is no requirement in the clause for registered social landlords to take the responsibility of seeking ASBOs, it permits them to do so if the ideal partnership arrangement is not operating. That is important. Everything will be subject to a court test, so whoever is leading, it will be important to make an appropriate case. No doubt the courts will be interested in the views of other agencies, if those views are sought.

As hon. Members have said, a substantial proportion of the tenancies of social landlords now lie with registered social landlords, not local authorities. There is demand from some registered local social landlords for taking the lead, and the clause will enable them to do so.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not wish to push the amendment to a Division, because we voted this morning on the principle of accountability, and a Division would waste time. We need all the authorities to work together, whoever takes up the ASBO, if we are to tackle the causes of, and reform, antisocial behaviour. I do not think that ASBOs can work in isolation.

This morning I quoted from the evaluation in order to highlight the fact that we need the registered social landlords in the crime and disorder partnership. I hope that that will be in the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 52, line 19, leave out subsection (7).

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 275, in clause 58, page 54, line 8, leave out from 'persons' to ', and' in line 9.

No. 276, in clause 58, page 54, line 11, leave out

'any place in England and Wales'

and insert

'the local government area and persons in any adjoining local government area.'

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Amendments Nos. 274 and 276 can be taken together, as No. 276 follows on from No. 274. I should like to make some probing remarks on them.

The clause empowers the police, the council or a social landlord to apply for an ASBO that could be applicable across England and Wales. Presumably, a person will carry that on their back as they move around, although the Minister may correct me on that. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it was necessary for adjoining local authorities to be consulted before any ASBOs were applied for. The clause does not have the famous safeguard of necessity, so we may end up with police forces and local authorities being responsible for enforcing an ASBO that they have had no role in introducing.

I should like the Minister to pick up on the point that antisocial behaviour may relate to particular circumstances, and a person might have behaved very differently in different circumstances. I know that we are talking about hardcore offenders, but it causes me concern that a person could have such a label upon them. It could make it very difficult to get housing, and it could force people into the underclass. It is the package that goes with the ASBO as well as the measure itself that concerns me, in terms of how the subject of an ASBO will get support to change their behaviour, given that ASBOs cross local authorities.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We support amendment No. 275 and we can see the point of amendment No. 274. However, we do not agree with amendment No. 276, which would work in a different direction. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole pointed out, it would restrict the provision to neighbouring local authority areas, which we think would be an

undue restriction. We shall listen to the Minister's comments, but we believe that the hon. Lady has a point with the other amendments.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 274 and 276. I accept that it is a weakness of the existing ASBOs that they cannot tackle certain types of persistent antisocial behaviour because the offenders move around the country. One group that we had in mind in developing the clause was the minority in the traveller community who engages in persistent nuisance more or less wherever they go. That may involve moving from one end of the country to another, and a stay in a particular area may be relatively brief. The disruption caused may be significant but with no possibility of collecting the evidence necessary for the local authority to get an ASBO.

Persistent antisocial behaviour established in one area will enable an application to be made to the courts to apply the ASBO to the people as they move around. That is important, as it will allow the enforcement of a breach of an ASBO in local authority area that is different from the one where the application was first made.

A more limited scope could come into play when someone is moving on account of their antisocial behaviour from one local authority area to another. As I mentioned earlier, many hon. Members are familiar with the round tripping of someone who moves out of a property after a concerted effort by all the agencies merely to pop up a mile down the road, possibly in another local authority area, and continue their behaviour. In those circumstances, it might be more appropriate to apply for an order that restricts the ASBO to a group of local authorities rather than nationally. However, it is necessary to have the flexibility to act on a national level against those people whose pattern of life involves moving around the country perhaps unpredictably or within a limited group of local authority areas.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Does the Minister agree with the Local Government Association, which says in its briefing for those ideas to be effective,

''there will be need to be a national agreement on information sharing''?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Yes, information is important, and one issue that we must address in the closing stages of the Bill and in guidance is the role of the police national computer. At the moment, it does not store ASBO information in an operational form, but police officers who want to check on a group of people that they think might be subject to an ASBO need to have access, either through the PNC or another mechanism, to up-to-date information about such identifiable individuals. Police officers will not automatically know that an ASBO has been issued 200 miles away, and no one will necessarily volunteer that information. The hon. Gentleman is right that it will be necessary to resolve some important information-sharing issues in the successful implementation of this part of the Bill.

On amendment No. 275, ASBOs are designed to protect the community from antisocial behaviour, which the Government have always defined as behaviour that is aimed outside the individual's household towards the wider community or society. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole did not explain the amendment at length, and I am not sure whether it attempts to amend the antisocial behaviour order to create, for example, a domestic violence order.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am sorry about that. I forget to make a brief comment. I appreciate that that would change the nature and definition of an ASBO. I wanted to attach a question: does the Minister consider that existing legislation as it applies to a noisy household is sufficient—noise represents antisocial behaviour for a person who lives near it, however it is generated—or is there mileage in using an ASBO, which would need redefining if it were used for such a domestic situation?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The legislation is not perfect, but I hope that it is getting better at addressing the nuisance that noisy households create for other households. The ASBO procedure should not be used if one member of a household creates a lot of noise that distresses another, which is implied by the amendment. The purpose of ASBOs is to address annoyance, nuisance and disturbance to members of other households.

An entirely separate debate exists about whether legal procedures that deal with internal issues such as domestic violence are adequate. I am quite certain that that process should not be mixed up with ASBOs, and we would experience great difficulties if we tried to do that.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for his comments. He reminded me of a situation that my part of the country suffers from at great length. I understand the purpose of sharing information, which is important for everybody's welfare, including travellers, whose living conditions are a great welfare issue.

If a situation occurred with an individual—perhaps a young person—there should be supportive measures if an order were imposed because, otherwise, I have a real fear that people would be driven to crime because they had nowhere to go.

I have made many of my comments because I want them added to the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

According to the programme motion, we must conclude proceedings on clause 62 by 7 pm. At 7 pm, I shall go through the clauses. If there is a Division in the House, we shall have to come back to conclude the business.

Amendment made: No. 266, in page 52, line 24, at end insert—

'(7A) In subsection (10) of that section (penalty for contravention of order), for ''shall be'' there shall be substituted ''is guilty of an offence and''.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 - Orders in county court proceedings

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in page 53, line 25, at end insert—

'(4A) If a relevant authority obtains an order under this section it may apply to the court for the party subject to that order to be named by the court in open court regardless of the age of that party, and it shall be for the party subject to the order to establish exceptional reasons why he should not be so named.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 272, in clause 58, page 54, line 16, at end insert—

'(3A) The court may direct, having made an order under this section, that the offender subject to that order be named in open court regardless of the age of the offender, subject to the offender showing any exceptional reasons why he should not be so named.'.

New clause 20—Anti-social behaviour orders: naming in court—

'After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders) there shall be inserted—

''(4A) If a relevant authority obtains an order under this section it may apply to the court for the party subject to that order to be named by the court in open court regardless of the age of that party, and it shall be for the party subject to the order to establish exceptional reasons why he should not be so named.''.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In the light of the approaching guillotine, which I regret, I shall have to address the amendments quite briefly. The Minister knows that my party and I oppose such programming of Committees because it means that matters must be either rushed or not debated at all. I shall be grateful if the Minister would write to me with any response that he does not get chance to make on this important issue.

I move the amendment because of a specific case in my constituency. The chief executive of my local authority, with the support of the police, asked me to raise the matter, and no doubt the Minister will research its various legal aspects with his advisers. My local police and local authority were disappointed by a situation, although that would be too weak a word because the headline in my local paper talked of police anger at a judge's ruling. They were very upset at failing to obtain the full effectiveness of an ASBO in relation to the two most serious young criminals in my constituency. They finally obtained an ASBO, although the police, local authority and everyone in the community safety partnership in my area were annoyed by the bureaucracy and difficulty involved. The police felt, however, that the order would be fully effective only if the twin brothers were named and shamed.

Traditionally, we have had specific legal rules, the basis of which all lawyers and citizens will understand, which state that juveniles should not normally be named. The point about ASBOs, however, is that they are supposed to be different and to have a wider aspect, so that people in the community of a person who is the subject of an ASBO know to whom the order applies.

The situation in that particular case is slightly complicated because although the original district judge—who used to be known as the county court judge—refused to lift the anonymity of the two brothers, the police felt so strongly about the matter that they appealed to the High Court, where Mr. Justice Elias overruled the district judge's decision and sent the case back to the lower court to be reconsidered. However, to the regret of the police, although the High Court judge believed that the first district judge had applied the wrong criteria, he did not withdraw the brothers' right to anonymity. Most lawyers would understand that he was giving a firm hint to the district judge who reconsidered the matter that the case should be treated in a different way. Again, to the fury of the police, the second district judge reached the same conclusion as the first district judge, did not take the hint from the High Court judge and did not lift the right to anonymity, but he did so for a different reason. Who knows whether there will be yet another appeal?

I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendments, but I hope that he may, at least, be able to consider the matter over a longer period, in his usual helpful way, and decide that it is a serious issue. The local police and local authority in my constituency contend that ASBOs are different and that the normal rules concerning the anonymity of juveniles should be reconsidered. I am not suggesting a wholesale reform of the law or a whole new policy for juvenile courts, because in normal circumstances there are good reasons why anonymity should be retained. However, the strong view of senior police officers, the chief executive and those in my local authority who support him, based on the difficulties that they experienced in that case, is that we should introduce a provision to the effect that, in normal circumstances juveniles who are subject to an ASBO will be named and shamed, but that exceptional reasons may be argued as to why anonymity should not be lifted, introducing a reverse burden. I have put the issue before the Committee fairly and squarely, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

I shall be brief. I fundamentally oppose the proposal. When I was in a partnership that dealt with anti-social behaviour orders, we agreed that the police would always oppose the naming of young people. The reason why we do not name young people in criminal proceedings is well founded. The characters of young people under a certain age are still being formed and are open to change, so naming young people is counter-productive. I believe that that holds good for anti-social behaviour orders. Many local people in areas where ASBO's are applied for know who is involved. They may even have given evidence in a case. There is no evidence to show that those young

people should be named. Naming them gives them notoriety. That is likely to make it harder to bring about the change in behaviour that the ASBO seeks to achieve. It will also make it harder for them to get a job or to be accepted within their community should their behaviour change. It should be strongly resisted, and the presumption should remain that young people should not be named and shamed.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Although I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend and for her expertise in the matter, I am inclined to agree more with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in this instance, but to resist the amendment. The Government's position is reflected in the training material for magistrates produced by the Judicial Studies Board. It says that

''enforcement of the order will normally depend on the general public being aware of the order and the identity of the person against whom it is made.''

There is a case for suggesting, as many people have done, that publicising an ASBO is necessary in order for it to have its fullest impact. However, there has to be balance. Local outcomes have not always been as satisfactory or as consistent as we might like, but this is new legislation.

As a civil proceeding, the ASBO is not subject to automatic reporting restrictions, whatever the age of the defendant. Therefore, the defence has to ask for a reporting restriction on the basis of the age of the defendant under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so the case has to be argued from a starting point at which it is assumed that the person will be named. It is different in a criminal case, which the Bill introduces for the first time. In that case, there can be a discretion to lift reporting restrictions. Our view, generally, is that we are sympathetic with the case for there being publicity, but we are not persuaded of the need to change the surrounding legislation. There are issues concerning the understanding of magistrates and others of how the legislation is intended to work. They will best be addressed through training and education.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In the light of the Minister's sympathy for the stance of my local authority and my police force, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 - Orders on conviction in criminal proceedings

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 54, line 33, leave out 'two years' and insert 'six months'.

Briefly, if there were the opportunity to have an ASBO rescinded after six months, that might focus the offender's mind on changing his or her behaviour in a shorter period, rather than waiting a full two years.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We are reluctant to make the change, but the hon. Lady has highlighted an anomaly in the drafting of the legislation, so we shall table an amendment on Report, when we shall discuss the matter again.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Interim orders

Clause 60 - Consultation requirements