Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 27 June 2002.

Standing Committee A

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

On a point of order, Miss Widdecombe. The Committee may recall that, at our previous sitting, we discussed legislation allowing for blood samples to be taken from unconscious victims, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to representations that had been made by the British Medical Association. I told him that we would reconsider the matter, although the intention of the clause was in line with the issues that he raised. We have now had a chance to consider those representations and we shall table an amendment on Report to put such matters beyond doubt.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Further to that point of order, Miss Widdecombe. I thank the Minister for taking seriously the points that we raised and I look forward to the tabling of the amendment.Clause 63 Ministry of Defence police serving with other forces

Clause 63 - Ministry of Defence police serving with other forces

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are sometimes sensitivities between the Royal Military Police and the Ministry of Defence police. Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the matter? Does he consider that the proposals may improve the position? I represent a military constituency. Camberley is the main town, and I have a lot of contact with senior Army officers, including some who are senior—either currently serving or retired—Royal Military Police officers. Such tensions are well known to anyone who has had anything to do with the Army and we hope that they will reduce over time.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall decline the invitation to say too much about that issue. The clause does not deal with interaction or interface between the two forces. It concerns the MOD police and is set against a wider background. It recognises that greater flexibility in the operation of the MOD police with other forces is desirable. The clause provides proper legal underpinning to enable that to take place. It does not deal with the relationship between MOD police and the Royal Military Police. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise certain issues on that subject, I undertake to pass them to my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 64 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 - Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 62, line 47, at end insert—

'and, in a case where the power to make provision with respect to qualification for appointment as a constable or as a special constable, or for membership of a force, Service or Squad, is exercisable by any such regulations as are mentioned in that subsection, the regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

The clause was debated extensively in another place, and the amendment honours a commitment that was made by Lord Rooker. Police forces want to employ the best and most suitable people as police officers. They want to select people on merit and do not want to exclude people because of factors that have no bearing on their ability to do the job. Forces have found that the existing nationality rules hinder the recruitment of good people who may have been living in the United Kingdom for many years, but who do not qualify on account of their nationality.

The current rules allow Irish citizens to become police officers, but exclude people from other member states of the European Union. They also allow people from the Commonwealth who are resident here to be police officers, but exclude other foreign nationals resident here. We believe that the removal of the nationality bar will widen the pool of potential recruits, and so help the police service to improve its diversity and better reflect our society. It will make the police service more inclusive than exclusive, and it will enable us to concentrate on selecting on merit.

The police services of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland support the removal of the nationality restriction, as do the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, the Special constabulary and the Association of Police Authorities.

In the other place, several Lords expressed concern about the fact that Britain could be policed by people who did not speak English, could not be understood by the public, or knew nothing about this country. I think that those fears were misplaced. None the less, the amendment responds to those who expressed such fears. Clearly, the ability to communicate effectively with the public and write plain English is essential for police work. It is also essential that police officers have knowledge of Britain and the society that they police.

The amendment requires the Government to make regulations that will ensure that police officers cannot be appointed unless they are competent in written and oral English. Candidates' skill in oral and written English will be tested, and if they do not reach a satisfactory standard they will be rejected, even if they have all the other skills and competencies needed.

Foreign and European Union nationals—indeed all candidates—will need to satisfy our rigorous vetting requirements. It might, for example, be unlikely that

someone who has lived here for a short time could be vetted; that person would therefore not qualify for appointment. There will also be a provision to reserve posts that are particularly sensitive to national security. That combination of safeguards will be put in place and those requirements will need to be met before a candidate of whatever nationality qualifies for appointment.

We do not intend to change the immigration rules to allow us to recruit people who have no right to work and live in the UK from abroad. To be eligible to serve in the police force, foreign nationals will need to be resident in the UK and have no restrictions attached to their stay. We will not actively recruit from abroad. The intention is to allow those who already live in the UK or have the right to work here, such as EU nationals, to join the police service if they have the right qualities and skills.

The lifting of the nationality bar will not lead to a reduction in the quality of recruits. Robust recruitment standards will maintain the quality of recruits, and all applicants, whether British or not, will have to meet certain criteria before they qualify for appointment, including those specified in the regulations that I discussed earlier. Applicants will need to show that they have the key competencies required for policing. If they do, there is no good reason why they should be excluded from the police service.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the Minister rightly said, deeply held concerns were expressed in the other place about opening up the nationality bar. Lord Rooker—recently departed to other pastures—and the Minister sought to allay those concerns. I appreciate the amendment, which also endeavours to do that. I fully recognise the strength of the argument that there are people who have made this country their home and have been here a long while who are debarred on nationality grounds, and that seems unfair. I am not sure how many such recruits there will be; the implication is that there will not be a huge number. We will probably only find out what effect the amendment has on recruitment in due course. I accept the principle of the Minister's argument, although a part of me retains concerns.

First, I am puzzled as to why subsection (4)(c) does not appear in the amendment, which says that

''regulations made must impose requirements with respect to all the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).''

Why not (c) as well? That is a puzzle, and I hope that the Minister will explain. He said in his opening remarks that in some cases, involving particular sensitivities, nationality is significant. I should have thought that that still has to be covered in regulations. It may be difficult to do that, but a framework must be found, or the Commission for Racial Equality, if no one else, will scrupulously examine every appointment for which a bar on nationality grounds seems to have been introduced.

Secondly, the Minister touched on the issue of people who live here, and residency. In the other place,

his former colleague said that that would apply only to people who had made their home in this country or possibly, as the Minister says, other EU nationals. Will he give us some guidance about what is expected to be laid down in guidance or regulations about residency qualifications? That is important. It will be a widespread view among the public that a police officer, who has all the powers that we spent so much time discussing, should have demonstrated total commitment to this country. There may be understandable reasons why they have chosen not to become a British citizen, but that commitment to this country needs to have been shown for a considerable period. Competence in English, important though that is, or knowledge of British life, which can be gained in other ways, are not necessarily adequate.

What are the Minister's thoughts about residency qualifications? Certainly Lord Rooker implied that there would be residency qualifications. I am slightly worried that they have not appeared. I welcome the amendment as a step forward, but I remain puzzled about the exclusion of paragraph (c), and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

On the first point, about the exclusion of subsection (4)(c) from the requirement to make regulations, the feeling is that that approach is too prescriptive, because it seems to require before the event a list of each rank and position in the police service in order to determine whether it would be covered if we wanted to exclude it. It would be more sensible to retain the power to exclude specific posts as, in the light of experience and focus on particular posts, that becomes necessary.

It would be rather a large-scale exercise to produce for each police service, before anyone had been recruited, a list of every post, rank or position that could or could not be occupied by someone of different nationality. However, there is no difference between us about the intention of the policy, which is that there must be the ability to reserve posts of particular sensitivity.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I take the Minister's point. We have always found that a listing system in legislation inevitably creates problems, because of exclusion. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that in taking that approach he is effectively opening himself up to legal challenge every time such decisions are made and someone who is not a British citizen might be eligible for that post. The issue of racial discrimination legislation will come into play—unless he tells me that the police force is exempt, but I do not believe that it is. Otherwise, I can imagine a legion of such cases being brought every time someone believes that they might have been discriminated against, whether that is true or not.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

In practice, it would be important for such issues to be dealt with ahead of receiving an individual application from a particular person to a named post. That would present difficulties if the proceedings got that far. I suspect that at some point especially sensitive posts will have to be identified, but I would resist the idea of needing to have a full list before anyone is recruited to any rank of the police service. Also, there is no risk of legal challenge if the

rules clearly provide for the reservation of posts. We would be more vulnerable had there been no provision to make such regulations, and some way down the line someone was told, ''You are not going to become the director of terrorism in the Metropolitan police.'' I believe that we are legally covered.

The second question concerned guidance. The amendment enables the Government to make regulations with regard to immigration status. It is our intention that the regulations that we introduce will include a requirement for applicants to have a settled immigration status in the United Kingdom—they must be eligible to live in this country without any restrictions on their stay. I have examined the drafting, and whether in 15 or 20 years' time somebody would apply the amendment in the same way is something that we will have to leave open. However, the Government intend to introduce regulations to require that foreign nationals must be resident in the UK with no restrictions attached to their stay. I believe that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It went a bit further than that. I appreciate that applicants must be living here legally and able to stay unhindered, but my question related to the period of residency required prior to making an application—the showing of a commitment to this country. There are plenty of people in the world who can come to the UK and have the necessary immigration status within a matter of weeks or months of arriving. I am more concerned about how long they have been here and been part of British society and so learned how we live.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

To be honest, that is a matter that we will have to examine in more detail when we draft the regulations. At this stage, we have not set out that there should be a two-year, five-year or 10-year test. In general, the other tests of competence and knowledge that would be part of the recruitment service are probably more focused on identifying whether an individual has sufficient knowledge and understanding of this country to do the job. We can consider whether there should be a further residence test when we come to the detailed drafting of the regulations.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Is it not the case that non-UK citizens are practising and therefore administering the law? It is not necessary to be a UK citizen. My solicitor—an American citizen with permanent residency of 20 years—regularly practises in the courts. In the administration of justice, therefore, non-UK citizens are already part of the process.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I would draw a distinction between someone practising professionally, albeit as part of the criminal justice system, and someone who would exercise the full powers of a sworn constable—powers of arrest and detention over citizens and other residents of the UK. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the Government believe that becoming a police officer has a significance that sets them apart from other citizens.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is being helpful in his response to the Opposition's points. I respectfully agree with his comments to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). However, when he and his advisers consider what the minimum period of residency should be, he should take into account that the Police Federation has urged us that a minimum of three years' residency in the UK should be a precondition of someone being considered. I agree, and think that, in the end, we may need an even longer requirement. Three-years' residency should be the irreducible minimum.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to make any commitment today. There is a logic to his comments, but imagine a situation in which somebody who lived in the UK some time ago—perhaps an American citizen and serving police officer with a distinguished record in America—came to the UK with a British wife and had right of settlement. We might find that we had produced an arbitrarily high barrier to someone who would be welcome in the police service. To be honest, the issue should not be resolved when considering the Bill in Committee, but I undertake on behalf of the Government to examine it seriously when we produce the regulations. Of course, we will consult on those before we lay them before Parliament.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I just wonder how far the provisions are compatible with European law. If I were a Greek dentist who wanted to practise in London as a citizen of the European Union under single market legislation and the great treaty of Maastricht, there would be nothing to stop me. Indeed, there is a long tradition of police officers, such as Inspector Clouseau and Poirot, coming to work in this country. I am rather surprised that a restriction appears to be imposed on European Community nationals serving as policemen in this country.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

As we shall discuss later, Hercule Poirot turns out to have been working without proper insurance cover during all the dramas that we enjoy on television. We shall try to put that right when we discuss later clauses.

Of course, the European Union has not tried to extend provisions on free movement of labour to certain functions, and one of those is national policing. The Bill is entirely compatible with our international treaty obligations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - Attestation of constables

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I rise tentatively to make a point on the form of declaration, which contains a reference to the monarch. In the previous clause, an attempt has been made to try to broaden the base of

those who are eligible to serve in the police force, which I wholly support. The points made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and others about commitment to this country are absolutely right, and the Minister appears to share that view, as, I suspect, do we all.

Those who have already taken nationality would not by covered by clause 67. That is designed to attract people who have been living in this country for some time, who have shown a deep commitment to the country and who have a satisfactory status, but who are not British citizens. Many such people would not be British citizens because they chose not to take the required oath when they took up residency. Many famous people fall into that category either because they are republicans or think that they might want to return whence they came when they reach 65 or 70. Consequently, they do not want to take the ultimate step of swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Do the terms of the form of declaration undermine the Government's attempts through clause 67 to attract people who are committed to this country but have not taken British nationality for one reason or another?

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that deleting the words ''the Queen'' would harm in any way the policing function of a person who swore such an amended oath?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I think that the form of declaration would be robust without those words and would perform the desired function. The person who swore the declaration would be committed to acting with fairness, integrity, diligence, impartiality and so on. That is a satisfactory oath that meets the high standards that we require of a police officer in this country. Without being disrespectful, the phrase is unnecessary and undermines the Government's attempts to attract people who, for their own reasons, do not wish to take British nationality. If people had taken British nationality, they would not be covered by clause 67.

I did not table an amendment on the matter, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Before we pass on from this clause, I want the Minister to explain why the oath is being changed. I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on the matter.

The oath has long referred to carrying out the office,

''without favour or affection, malice or ill will''.

That is a poetic form of words, but it has been replaced by a thoroughly modern, new Labour phrase. The new oath refers to carrying out the office

''with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people''.

Why is it necessary to change a form of words that has served us well, and which reflects the history of our language? That change is similar to opting for the modern, rather than the traditional, form of marriage vows.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Unlike the Government and their Back Benchers, I am not obsessed with the cult of modernisation. I entered this House to uphold the traditional virtues of this country. I hope that the Minister has a good explanation for this change. I do not like getting rid of things hallowed by tradition and usage, unless there is a very good reason for doing so, and I would prefer to keep the traditional language. A parallel can be drawn between this change and the difference between the King James Bible, with which many of us grew up, and the appalling modern grammar of some new versions of the Bible. [Interruption.] I prefer the traditional version of the oath, as do most police officers. They will not be encouraged by this watering-down of the language.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Order. It is difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because of the continual susurration from the Government Benches.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to you, Miss Widdecombe.

I am delighted if I am provoking ire on the Government Back Benches, because one of the Opposition's most important tasks is to defend the traditions of this country against the raging cult of modernisation. I will not labour that point, because there are other matters to raise. However, I hear encouragement from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), and I am sure that he also wishes to express his views on the subject.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I wish to add two points to the compendious case that has already been put to the Minister. I want him to justify the exclusion from the modern, politically correct, organic version of the oath of the words,

''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen'',

and ''Her Majesty's subjects''. Is some subtle constitutional agenda in play here? Does the new oath envisage an attenuation of Her Majesty's sovereignty? Is the requirement of conformity with the treaty of Maastricht, or something similar, the reason why we are no longer allowed to refer to ''Her Majesty's subjects''?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I fear that I must remind my newsagent to deliver The Spectator this week, so that I can read what the hon. Gentleman has written.

I find myself in the middle ground between the rampant republicanism of the Liberal Democrats and the die-hard conservatism of the official Opposition. Some important points must be made on the matter.

One of the unique characteristics of the police service in this country is that police officers are servants of the Crown—they are not servants of this Government, the previous Government, or the future Government. That gives them a unique constitutional position, as we have discussed in debates on other topics. Unlike teachers and other public servants, police officers are not employees. As servants of the Crown, they have more in common with members of the armed forces than with any other group of public

servants. It is important to have an oath that retains that unique nature of the police service.

The reasons for the change are twofold. Anyone who is not prepared to swear an oath that they will serve the Queen, as all other police constables do, will exclude themselves from entry to the police service. There may be a category of people, as the hon. Gentleman said, who would like to join the police service but are not prepared to swear the oath, and they could not be accepted. Equally, however, citizens of other countries who owe their duty of citizenship to another Head of State or nation state would have difficulty in swearing an oath of allegiance to the sovereign of another country. The wording of the oath, on which Buckingham palace has been fully consulted, enables all police officers to swear to serve the Queen but avoids citizens of other countries having to swear a constitutional oath that they could not make.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Is it not time that we owned up to the constitutional fiction that the police are servants of the monarch? They are servants of the people.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

That would be an interesting debate and I invite my Friend to seek an Adjournment debate on the matter at a time of his choosing.

Something that strikes me quite forcibly and, I suspect, my hon. Friend, because of his knowledge of law, is that for the vast majority of police officers their status as servants of the Queen is enormously important. That applies to police officers with a huge range of private views on political issues and so on. It is part of the status that they value enormously. We do not want to change that, nor do we want a two-tier system of oaths whereby police officers who are British citizens swear one oath and others swear another.

The second point of the hon. Member for Henley concerned the change from Her Majesty's subjects to people and property. The reality is that we would expect an American tourist in London who was the victim of crime to receive the same quality of service, respect and treatment as a British citizen who was the victim of crime. The wording of the traditional oath—I understand what was said about the language—is technically restricted to British citizens and that is not the way in which we want our police service to operate. The broadening of its range of responsibilities is reflected in the oath.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

Could the Minister clarify why the phrase

''Our Sovereign Lady the Queen''

has been removed? Is that because the phrase might stick in the craw of some foreign policeman or a republican? Is the purpose of the change to attenuate the sincerity of the oath?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The issue is the difficulty that arises for people who may be prepared to promise to serve the Queen as police officers but would find it difficult to swear to the sovereignty of the Queen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Director General of NCIS

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I rise to make a brief point about which we were again approached by the Police Federation. It is concerned that the clause would enable someone who is not attested as a constable to be appointed director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but there is no similar provision relating to the director general of the National Crime Squad. The federation believes that it would be wholly inappropriate for someone who is not an attested police officer to head NCIS and to have command of attested police officers, so it is opposed to the change. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on the matter.

It is right to say that I have recently had a briefing at NCIS, with a couple of former senior colleagues in the House, but that was under Chatham house rules. I shall specifically not refer to that in anything that I say on this or any clause, and I should not want it to be taken that anything that I say results in any way from that briefing. I am speaking for myself and my party and where I quote another organisation such as the Police Federation I am happy to put forward its view. I thought that I should make that clear.

It is, however, fair to say that that very helpful briefing reinforced my personal view that the Police Federation is right about the matter. It is very difficult to see how someone who was not attested as a constable could be as effective in running NCIS as someone who was. We want someone running NCIS who has the experience of a long career in the police and reached a senior level. We have already seen a situation in which former Members of Parliament—so far, one from each side of the House—have been involved as chairmen of NCIS and the NCS but, from my observations, I think that the Police Federation is absolutely right to say that someone who is attested as a constable should be directing the operational side of the organisation. I shall be very interested to hear whether the Minister can justify making the change.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We may have to agree to differ on that. NCIS is not a police but a multi-agency organisation. It has staff seconded from 22 national and international agencies. It plays a very important role in the fight against organised crime but it is for that reason that we want to ensure that the post of director general always attracts applications from the best candidates, potentially with a variety of relevant backgrounds. As the hon. Gentleman will have learnt from his time at NCIS, it focuses on intelligence, not on operational work. It informs the work of operational agencies, particularly but not exclusively the police. In intelligence work, police officers are not the only individuals with the right experience and personal qualities. Clearly, there are many people in such agencies as Customs and Excise, which are important components of NCIS, who potentially

have the relevant expertise to hold the post of its director general.

The change is being made for NCIS and not for the National Crime Squad because the NCS is a police organisation, carrying out operational police activities, and should be led by a police officer. The breadth of organisations involved in and co-operating in NCIS, and the reality that any one of those organisations could potentially produce the best candidate for the job of director general, has led us to the conclusion that there is no present need to restrict that post to a serving police officer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Police members of NCIS

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, I want to put on record the very strong concerns expressed by the Police Federation. Clauses 71 and 72 propose to change the way in which people can go into NCIS or the NCS. They make provision for the appointment of a person attested or sworn as a constable of any rank to be appointed as a permanent police member of either NCIS or the NCS.

The Police Federation makes the point—I have seen this at NCIS and the NCS, where I had a briefing some time ago—that serving officers are currently seconded to NCIS and the NCS for a period and then, having done their secondment, go back. The Police Federation says, which seems to me to make eminent common sense, that that is an efficient and effective way of ensuring a free flow of skills between the forces and the service authorities. It makes the point that when officers have spent some time at the NCS or NCIS and then go back, they return to their forces with enhanced skills and specialist experience, which helps build up and strengthen the detective skills base in the forces.

One point that was made to my hon. Friend, myself and others in our Front Bench team as recently as last night by a retired, senior Customs man who had worked closely in this field was that in some forces there is a shortage of people with the required experience to carry out the operations. If some of the best people are taken away from some of the forces—particularly from smaller forces—and go permanently to NCIS or the NCS, that will compound the problem. The man who spoke to us last night made the point that that will exacerbate the problem that already exists. He said that he had something like 28 years' experience of dealing with drugs seizures and he expressed serious concern about the shortage, especially in smaller forces, of officers who were sufficiently senior to carry out big operations against those who NCIS call level 3 criminals—the most serious criminals.

If that is the case, making the changes and having lots of people move permanently into NCIS and the NCS could make the situation worse. The Government recognised in their White Paper that there is a shortage of experienced detectives in some forces as a result of the over-rigid application of tenure policies. That is the Government's view, as set out in their White Paper and it was reinforced in spades by the gentleman who briefed my hon. Friend and other hon. Members last night.

The Police Federation says that that shortage, which the Government have already acknowledged, could become a famine if the supply of detectives returning from what are currently secondments to NCIS and the NCS is significantly reduced. The Police Federation has made the point that that would be a qualitative as well as a quantitative reduction. The service authorities, NCIS and the NCS, would clearly have a motivation to retain as permanent police members those officers who had performed particularly well. That is human nature, and what we would expect. However, they would be prepared for those of perfectly competent but less star-like—what the Police Federation call ''standard''—performance to return to their forces, so that the effect of sections 71 and 72 could be to allow centralised organisations such as NCIS and the NCS to cream off the best talent from around the country to the impoverishment of the supplying 43 forces.

The Police Federation made the point that there could be a danger of exclusivity and reduced co-operation between service authorities and forces. Indeed, we know from experience in other countries—particularly and most worthy of note, the United States—that police or security agencies operating exclusively can lead to a danger of communications failures between them. All members of the Committee have been very much aware that in the USA, during the past three or four weeks, there have been huge debates and great investigations in Congress and the Senate about whether intelligence failures in the run-up to the terrorist atrocities on 11 September were caused by the danger of exclusivity.

The Police Federation says, and I agree entirely, that communication and co-operation between the service authorities—NCIS and the NCS—and forces are presently facilitated by the current secondment arrangement, which ensures a regular movement of personnel in both directions. If that movement is all, or mostly, one way, NCIS and the NCS could increasingly be seen, and could come to see themselves, as an exclusive set of organisations, and that could be to the detriment of communication and co-operation with police forces. That would be hugely detrimental.

I have been very impressed with what I have seen of the work of the NCS and NCIS. We want them to get even better. There is no doubt that what they have achieved in operations against the most serious criminals—many of them operating internationally and in this country—has been wonderful. I cannot praise them too highly. We do not want to do anything that could risk damaging that. The Police Federation has a very good point, quite separately from the

briefings that I have had at NCIS and the NCS. As recently as last night, my hon. Friends and I had a briefing from someone who was at the sharp end for many years—in his case, in Customs. Without being aware that the matter was about to come up in Committee, he made very much the same points that the Police Federation made about what needs improving and the danger that the situation could get worse. I believe that it can get worse, if the measure is implemented. I put that point seriously to the Minister and know that he will take it seriously. I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Without repeating the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), by and large, I endorse them. I, too, have had a meeting with the Police Federation and found their arguments on the matter persuasive. Obviously, I shall listen to what the Minister says to find out whether there are counter-arguments.

This is not a philosophical but a practical point about what works best for the police. It is right that the Government should examine continually the operations of the police to see what improvements can be made. Indeed, some improvements have been set out in the Bill. However, I have not detected any failure in NCIS or the NCS. The arrangements in that part of the police family work well. I am concerned about the potential for NCIS and the NCS to cream off the best personnel at the expense of the 43 forces. I am also concerned that reinforcing the differences that already exist between NCIS and the NCS and the 43 forces by separating their personnel could lead to competition between different parts of the police, which would not be very healthy.

I recently attended the launch of an initiative, which I am happy to support, at Newhaven in my constituency. It brings together Customs, special branch and district council environmental health officers in recognising that there has not been the co-operation necessary to deal with the problems that are associated with the port. The work and information of different bodies were not being shared. There is a recognition that close co-operation is necessary, and I fear that that co-operation, which exists at present—I have seen no evidence to the contrary—may be jeopardised by the measure. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me. The Police Federation has made sensible points, which merit a proper response.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The Minister will be aware of the work that the Select Committee on Defence has been doing recently on homeland defence. A point that has been raised, not just by police forces but by ambulance and other emergency services, is that the level of threat to this country that has developed—or that has been underlined—since the events of 11 September last year has made it clear that all types of specialist skills are woefully lacking in some of the ordinary forces, not just police forces, across the country.

One of the clearest statements came first from the Ministry of Defence police and then from several different chief officers of constabularies, who discussed

the intelligence effort necessary to combat the higher level of threat that we now face. They mentioned how heavily they depended on the cross-fertilisation of expertise from organisations such as NCIS and the NCS and how powerfully useful officers were, at quite modest levels, who had had a two or three-year tour with those organisations. They went into a hothouse of intelligence matters, understood intelligence at a level higher than just that of the petty criminal on the streets, honed their skills and were allowed to return to the forces to the huge aiding and abetting of the ordinary workaday intelligence out in the shires. I shall not labour the point further. However, the forces made the point clearly that the cross-fertilisation is important and that clauses 71 and 72 would probably work to its detriment.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

There were points of substance in the contributions of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath, for Lewes and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), but we must get the balance right. I am sure that opening up the possibility of direct recruitment is appropriate. It is undoubtedly true that the system of secondment is of value to NCIS, and it is of particular value to the police forces because NCIS trains people, as the hon. Member for Newark said, to a specialist level of operation that they would not necessarily gain in their own police forces. That is of enormous benefit to all the forces that supply officers to NCIS.

Equally, NCIS and NCS must be able to do their own job. Training people for two or three years only for them to disappear when much time and energy has been invested in developing the skills that they need to have in NCIS frequently creates problems for that organisation. NCIS has never yet managed to reach its full complement of 1,300 officers. It is about 200 short.

The further difficulty is that it is not always easy to attract officers to the relatively short secondments that are on offer, nor it is easy to attract them to the longer secondments. Officers who intend to return to their force worry about what will happen to their career prospects while they are away. I assure the Committee that there is no intention of moving away from reliance on secondment as the primary method of staffing the organisations. Allowing some direct entry would enable NCIS and NCS to develop and skill up those that they have recruited directly, so that they are not always dependent on the existing body of skills.

It is most important to have permanent appointments in some senior and supervisory posts to enable the expertise in the organisation to develop. It will enable the organisations to achieve a better balance between secondment and direct employment. At present, direct employment is not possible. While I understand the arguments about not throwing out the baby with the bath water and ignoring the benefits of secondment, no justification has been made for not allowing the organisations direct recruitment.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, we have recognised in the White Paper the shortage of specialist investigative skills and we will be dealing with that problem through the police reform programme. Some uncontroversial clauses allow a wider range of people to take up investigative jobs within the police service. I do not think that the two

clauses would diminish the number of people with investigative skills in the police service. Indeed, on some occasions they would enable NCIS to train up people in situ rather than rely on secondments. If anything, the provisions are more likely to increase the number of people with investigative skills in the police service.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister is responding constructively and making a persuasive case for the provisions. What is the attitude of the Association of Police Authorities? Is it satisfied that a correct balance has been struck?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I would have to refer to the ACPO document to answer that question, and I do not have it with me. I think that ACPO is content that we should move in that direction. Individual forces may share some reservations about how far to go, but such matters cannot be prescribed in primary legislation. There is a professional recognition of the need to move in that direction throughout the service. In its report on the National Crime Squad in 2001–02, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary said:

''It soon became clear that the constant turnover of staff, in whom the National Crime Squad had invested significantly in specialist training, was causing operational difficulties for the organisation . . . Unless arrangements can be made for generally longer secondments, the demand for direct entry will become unanswerable.''

That is the independent view of the inspectorate. I have rehearsed the reasons why longer-term secondments cause a problem. Officers are reluctant to take them up because they are not sure about their career position when they return to their home force at the end of the secondment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Regulations for NCIS

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, I wish to refer to some points about which the Police Federation of England and Wales contacted my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and me. They apply to clauses 73 and 74. The federation is pleased that the Government have responded to its wish for regulations. It has argued that regulations governing the terms and conditions of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad terms should be identical to regulations that govern the terms and conditions for forces made under section 50 of the Police Act 1996.

The Police Federation anticipates that the Home Secretary may intend the regulations applicable to NCIS and NCS to be similar in structure to those that will apply to forces as a consequence of the recent police negotiating board agreement on pay and conditions of service. That is, it anticipates that the regulations will provide the structure and appropriate

safeguards, and that the details will be set out in determinations made by the Secretary of State, which will be informed by police negotiating board agreements.

The Police Federation says that if that is so, the wording of clauses 73(1) and 74(1) would have the following result: three sets of determinations would be made by the Home Secretary, and three sets governing terms and conditions of service would apply separately to the 43 home forces, NCIS and the NCS. The Police Federation says that a simple way of avoiding the additional bureaucracy of legislating separately would be to bring NCIS and the NCS within the scope of section 50 of the Police Act 1996. It has suggested various ways in which that could be done by amending and combining clauses 73(1) and 74(1).

I am sure at the Minister and those who advise him have considered the matter, and have also looked at clauses 73(2) and 74(2), with which the Police Federation do not agree. That is because those subsections enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission to bring and conduct disciplinary proceedings. The Police Federation says that it is far from ideal to give a body powers both to investigate and prosecute disciplinary matters. The Minister will remember that I raised a similar point under another clause.

The royal commission on criminal procedure reported in 1981 that it is unsatisfactory for the person who has investigated the case to be the person responsible for the decision to prosecute. As I told the Minister in an earlier debate, that is a fundamental principle of criminal justice.

Clauses 73(2) and 74(2) confer

''a right to participate in, or to be present at, disciplinary proceedings on such persons as may be specified''.

The federation is concerned that the proceedings might be made open to the public. We raised that issue earlier, and I remember that the Minister said that there could be exceptional cases in which that might be considered, but that that would not be the norm. For the sake of clarification, it would be helpful if he would say on record that he believes that that also applies to the provisions under discussion. His comments could then be referred to if anyone considered our discussion under the ruling of Pepper v. Hart.

Another issue raised by the federation is the withdrawal of the right to silence without adverse inference at disciplinary proceedings. We had quite a debate on that earlier, and I do not think it would be sensible to repeat it. I simply note the issue, as the Police Federation has raised it once again. The Minister will, no doubt, want to say a word or two confirming what he said on that earlier occasion. Having put that on the record, I shall not detain the Committee further.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Gentleman raises two main issues: one is whether we should automatically align the regulations for NCIS and NCS employees with those for the wider police service in England and Wales, and the second is about the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point on the first issue; certainly, we want to avoid bureaucracy. The service authorities will be the employers of police officers working for NCIS and NCS. It would be sensible to allow some discussion with them on the way in which regulations should be shaped before committing ourselves absolutely. I anticipate that a similar general approach will be taken to the regulations applied to Home Office police forces in England and Wales. We should be sensible and ensure that regulations are properly tailored to specific requirements of, and specific circumstances experienced by, the organisations, if they would not arise elsewhere. Powers exist to consolidate the regulations should we decide to do that.

I know that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), led for the Government during the sitting in which we considered the IPCC. There are issues of principle about the IPCC's ability to pursue a disciplinary case if it has worries about the way in which it might otherwise be conducted. We discussed exceptional circumstances relating to opening things up to the public. I should expect the approach taken on NCIS and the NCS to reflect the same approach that we take with regard to the IPCC. During discussions, it was decided that the sheer complexity of drafting primary legislation for every different part of every police service for which we want an IPCC approach would be an enormous job, which is why some will be addressed through regulations. However, we want the approach to be the same for all police officers, wherever they are.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 74 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Police authorities to produce three-year strategy plans

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

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 70, leave out line 36 and insert

'In considering the draft plan, the police authority'.

The position of the police authority is absolutely crucial throughout the Bill, and the amendment emphasises the role that we think the police authority should play. The clause is clear that the police authority will be responsible for issuing the three-year strategy plan. Naturally, the chief officer will produce a draft and must be mindful of local opinion during that process. We want to ensure that the police authority makes contact with the local community. That is its legitimate role and such input is an important part of the tripartite system that we have discussed so much.

The Bill confuses the roles of the police authority and the chief officer in many ways. The amendment would reinforce with whom we believe the consultation should occur and the police authority's role, rather than that of the chief officer.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The Government took the line in another place that the amendment adds nothing to existing arrangements. Under section 96 of the Police Act 1996, consultation with local people on policing in their area is done by the police authority in conjunction with the chief constable. We expect the same arrangements to be used—and improved, if necessary—when developing the three-year plans. Most people believe that the consultation system works satisfactorily for the one-year plans.

The amendment would bring in the police authority's assessment of consultations at a very late stage—after the chief officer had produced the draft plan. At the moment, the arrangements in place in most local areas are that those views are

fed into the draft plan while it is being prepared by the police authority in conjunction with the chief officer, which is a sensible arrangement. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment because it does not helpfully add to the arrangements that have been in place since 1996.

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

That argument is a matter of opinion, but as future amendments require further debate and we will return to the issue, I shall withdraw the amendment. I am sure that the Minister has been involved in compiling many local authority plans and knows that there is interaction at an early stage. When draft plans are being produced right across the range of services in my local authority, councillors go out and consult the local authority early in the plan's preparation. That would be good practice for a three-year strategy plan. The matter gains significance with the additional time in the plan. I ask the Minister to give the matter further consideration, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 71, line 6, leave out from first 'plan' to the end of line.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 70, in page 71, line 12, at end insert—

'(6A) Any guidance, or any modified or revised guidance, issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) above shall be issued no later than 30th June in the year preceding the beginning of the relevant three year period to which it applies.'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We discussed this subject at length earlier in the Bill when we debated part 1, which related to the appropriate extent of the Home Secretary's powers and how far he or she should be able to go in directing or cajoling police authorities or individual chief officers. Proposed new subsection (6)(a) requires the Secretary of State to:

''issue guidance to police authorities and chief officers of police as to the matters to be contained in any three-year strategy plan''.

We do not object to the idea of the Secretary of State issuing guidance, and it is sensible that police authorities and chief constables are made aware of national priorities and good practice. It is also appropriate for the Secretary of State to say, ''Given the changes in technology, you should be looking at this,'' or, ''Given this experience and training, you should be looking at that.'' That is entirely sensible.

The form of words that we object to is:

''and as to the form to be taken by any such plan'',

which we believe to be unnecessarily over-proscriptive. If the Secretary of State can issue guidance, he or she has other levers to pull elsewhere in the Bill or in existing legislation—throughout the Police Act 1996, for example. Why is it necessary to include those words?

I am sure that the Secretary of State could achieve what was required without inclusion of the words in question. As drafted, the new subsection goes too far in restricting the ability of the police authority or chief constable to respond to local conditions. Those bodies should be able to understand the guidance from the Home Secretary, to take full account of it and include it in their plans, but nevertheless produce a plan that reflects the local community and its needs.

The form set out by the Secretary of State may be too much of a straitjacket, making it difficult for the Secretary of State's wishes to be delivered at local level because the form is not applicable to the area in question. The form would be very different for London and for Sussex or other shire counties. We oppose such unnecessary inflexibility.

Amendment No. 70 concerns timing. We seek to ensure that the Secretary of State gives police authorities and chief constables adequate time to draw up a plan that works and meets the Secretary of State's own requirements. The Minister may argue that 30 June is the wrong date and we may disagree about the exact date, but we believe that November—as is currently proposed—is a little late.

Those of us who have been in local government—I served for six years as leader of a district council and I am sure that other Members of the Committee have council experience—will know that local authority officers complain that they are given insufficient time to respond to Government circulars, diktats and requirements. They need to be given their budgets in time. They have to respond in a haphazard and unco-ordinated way to meet deadlines for the beginning of the financial year. Amendment No. 70 is intended to install good practice—from the Minister's point of view, to ensure that the Secretary of State's wishes and guidance are properly taken into account. If the guidance comes out late in the year, that will hinder the police authority and the chief constable from responding to it in a positive and constructive way.

These are sensible amendments, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Amendment No. 69 is about form rather than substance. We want to enable the Secretary of State to say, for example, that it is not adequate to have one copy of the plan that is kept in a locked room in police authority headquarters—although that is not a hugely important point. We want to encourage a proper balance between traditional and modern forms of communication, so that the plans can be made available on the internet, as well as in the form of leaflets and so forth.

There is nothing particularly exceptional about having such wording in legislation of this nature. A best value provision in the Local Government Act 1999 has a different but similar form of words. It states:

''The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the form and content of plans and the manner in which they should be published.''

Therefore, there is nothing sinister about the use of the word ''form'' in subsection (6)(a).

Amendment No. 70 raises a more substantive point. It is important that guidance about the preparation and publication of the three-year plans goes out to the police authorities and the police service. We will soon be into the annual programme of updating the national policing plan, the first of which will be published in the autumn. The national policing forum, which advises the Home Secretary on the plan, met for the first time on 24 June, and there was a good discussion about what would be valuable to have in the national policing plan in future years. That plan will develop incrementally, and it will become the document to which police authorities will be able to refer from year to year, when they draw up their one-year or three-year plans.

I acknowledge the point that if there is any additional guidance ahead of that, it should go out in good time. For reasons that we discussed in earlier debates, it will not always be appropriate to tie ourselves to a specific calendar date, but I accept the point that Governments have a responsibility to ensure that such advice is put out in good time, so that those who are meant to act on it can do so.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I thank the Minister for his constructive response. On the words in the Bill to which amendment. No. 69 refers, I accept that his intentions are good. We must ensure that police authorities do not keep a single copy of their plan in a locked room, and in a safe with a combination that is difficult to crack. However, we must examine what the words that are employed in legislation could be used to achieve. I submit that the words that amendment No. 69 seeks to delete can be used to achieve a different purpose from that which has been described, but that is not a particularly important point, so I will not pursue it.

On the issue of time for guidance, it is important that the Minister said what he said, and that those comments have been put on the record. He recognised the need to allow proper time. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 71, leave out lines 20 to 22.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

With this it will also be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 72, in page 71, leave out lines 32 to 41.

No. 102, in page 71, line 33, at end insert 'in preparing'.

No. 103, in page 71, line 37, leave out

'may not be consistent with'

and insert

'the police authority in question has not taken into account'.

No. 104, in page 71, line 37, leave out

'may not be consistent with'

and insert

'has not had regard to'.

No. 105, in page 71, line 40, leave out

'is in fact so inconsistent'

and insert

'did in fact fail to have regard to the relevant National Policing Plans'.

No. 73, in page 71, line 42, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 72.

No. 74, in page 72, leave out lines 14 to 21.

No. 75, in page 72, leave out lines 22 to 24.

No. 107, in clause 82, page 76, line 28, leave out 'include' and insert 'take account of'.

No. 108, in page 76, line 34, leave out

'so as to include in it a'

and insert

'to take account within the'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This group of amendments again raises the issue of the proper powers of the Home Secretary vis-à-vis the police authority and the chief officer. It returns us to the discussion about the appropriate weight on each leg of the tripod. I make no apology for raising that issue here, and for tabling these amendments.

I return to the point that I made in our discussion of the previous amendments: this Bill and earlier legislation give the Home Secretary many levers to pull, and these amendments have been tabled because we object to some of those powers—they are a lever too far. We particularly object to the powers in clause 82.

The amendments would remove the requirement for the police authority to send a copy of the plan to the Home Secretary for amendment—it would have to send the plan, but not for amendment.

When the matter was discussed in the Lords, Lord Rooker was keen to emphasise that in his view the clause does not give the Home Secretary a power of veto over the three-year plan. However, that is a matter of interpretation, and we believe that there is a possibility that that might be concluded from the drafting of the Bill.

Having read the Lords Hansard carefully, we do not believe that Lord Rooker made a persuasive case for the Home Secretary to have the power to call in draft plans to be checked, presumably by his officials, and to make comments to the authority if he or his officials are not happy with a plan. I do not understand why the Home Secretary feels that he needs those powers. There is no evidence that police authorities will not have regard to the national plan in developing their three-year plan. There are many other checks on police authorities. The Home Secretary issues guidance, and

there is HMIC and a police standards unit. There is a range of other ways of ensuring that police authorities and chief constables do their duty properly, without such micro-management, poring over plans in great detail and having Home Office officials checking them and sending back comments as though they were recalcitrant pupils who need to be ticked off by the teacher, which is how the clause reads. In practical terms, a point might also be made about whether Home Office officials in Queen Anne's gate are in a better position to know what is best for micro-managing a police authority or force elsewhere in the country than are people who live, work and regularly deal with police matters in that area.

I am at a loss to understand why the Home Secretary feels that the powers are appropriate. I hope that he will explain why he feels that they are and that he will accept that the provisions are in some ways offensive to police authorities, according to comments that I received from the Association of Police Authorities. They do not believe that the proposal will enhance their role or that it is innovating. On the contrary, they believe that it will undermine their role in a way that suggests that they are not to be trusted. The Minister may not like what I am saying, but he will have to deal with the APA's view. I urge him to give further consideration to the provisions and to consider whether they are necessary or may in fact unnecessarily damage the tripartite arrangement.

We are happy to endorse Conservative Members' amendments. I shall return if necessary to the subsequent group of amendments, but the key point relates to arrangements in the tripartite structure and the erosion of the police authorities' powers.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the Committee will have noticed, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I have added our names to several amendments in the group of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. We have also tabled a cluster of amendments, Nos. 102 to 105, which are in our names only. The distinction is best described by saying that amendments Nos. 71 and 72 take a bludgeon to the clause, whereas Nos. 102 to 105 take a scalpel to it. However, the effect, and the concern, is the same. The concern is so strong that, depending on the debate and the Minister's response, I am minded to press amendment No. 102 to a Division.

The group stands together. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103, or, alternatively, Nos. 102 and 104, are necessary to make grammatical sense, and are followed by amendment No. 105. The purpose of the amendments is to retain the police authority's ultimate discretion in setting its three-year strategy. The tripartite arrangement, for which all Committee members have expressed admiration and support throughout proceedings on the Bill, is essential. Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I am concerned that the clause will tilt the balance back towards the Secretary of State. I am slightly puzzled about why the clause is here and not in part 1, which brought together the national policing plan, where it would have fitted much more clearly. However, that is a technical issue.

It seems entirely obvious that it is necessary for authorities to refer to the national plan when drawing

up their three-year strategies. It also seems sensible that, if it is obvious that a police authority has totally and utterly ignored the plan and gone off in completely the wrong direction, there should be some mechanism for saying, ''Hang on, you'd better have another look at this—do you realise that you are one police force acting totally differently from all the rest?'' I accept that the Secretary of State should then at least have the power to consult those listed in subsection (11), to see whether they agree with him that that particular police authority has gone completely away from the national plan.

The distinction that I want to draw, however, is between the wording about guidance in subsection (6) and that in subsection (10). Subsection (6) says that

''it shall be the duty of every police authority and chief officer of police to take account of any guidance under this subsection'',

and I have no difficulties with that wording at all. Where I have a difficulty is with the wording in subsection (10), which states:

''If the Secretary of State considers that there are grounds for thinking that''

the plan

''may not be consistent with any National Policing Plan''.

That takes the wording a stage further.

We are arguing about the meaning of words, but I think that, to most people, the term ''consistent with'' means almost matching, or having a very close similarity. That is, to me, as the hon. Member for Lewes said in a different way, granting to the Secretary of State the power to ensure that his policing plan is adhered to almost to the letter, through the police authorities' three-year strategies, and that is too much of a tilt towards the Secretary of State. Yes, those authorities should have regard to the policing plan or take it into account. We have given the Committee the option, through amendments Nos. 103 and 104, of having the wording ''taken into account'' or ''had regard to''.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, having taken the plan into account, the police authorities should then be able to defy it?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I certainly believe that a police authority should have the ultimate decision about its three-year strategy. As I made clear, if it seems to the Secretary of State that the police authority has drawn up a strategy that, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, defies the plan substantially—goes off completely in the wrong direction—it would then be acceptable for him to use his power to consult the people listed in subsection (11) about whether they agree with him that that is the case. Even then, however, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to overrule the contents of that strategy. The tripartite arrangement is so important that the ultimate decision about the content of the plan must lie with the police authority. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it must take account of or have regard to the plan, but we should not use the phrase ''consistent with'', which, to me, implies a much closer identity.

The penultimate line of subsection (10) says:

''he shall, before informing the police authority of his conclusions on whether or not it is in fact so inconsistent, consult with the persons mentioned in subsection (11).''

There is a much more desirable way of explaining that if an authority clearly defies the national policing plan, the Secretary of State can operate according to the legislation. We are now addressing amendment No. 105, by which we seek to insert the words

''did in fact fail to have regard to the relevant National Policing Plan''.

He should not have the powers to make it consistent, but he should have extreme last-resort powers in the eventuality—which I do not envisage—that some police authority and chief constable were complete and utter mavericks and went off in completely the opposite direction to the national plan. In that case, I would be prepared to accept that there should be a fall-back position. I am concerned about the terminology. The word ''consistent'' implies that the Secretary of State could intervene on much more minor aspects of deviation from the plan.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

The hon. Gentleman accepts that the police authority should not be able to defy the national plan, so I presume that he accepts that there should be broad compatibility between the various tiers of police planning. What is the difference between compatibility and consistency?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The difference is that ''compatibility'' does not appear in the Bill and ''consistency'' appears in our amendment. No one has put forward the word ''compatibility'' so I do not see the relevance of it. We are discussing a grammatical interpretation of individual words. I am concerned, and if there is an alternative form of words to explain the meaning that I am trying to achieve, I will be the first to accept that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Is not it the point that the police authority and the chief constable in an individual area should—having had regard to guidance—be able to use local flexibility to get to the end that the Home Secretary wishes, but not necessarily by going along a particular road at a particular speed in the particular vehicle that the Home Secretary wants them to use?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

That is a perfectly good analogy of what we are trying to achieve. We come back to the interpretation of words. I believe that the word ''consistent'', which is what we take exception to, implies a very close following of the plan in detail. Therefore, the Secretary of State's powers outlined in the later parts of the clause can be brought into play far too early in the proceedings, and he can effectively dictate what is in the strategy. That is what I am trying to avoid. I simply say that the purpose of the amendments is that the police authority should make the final decisions as to what is in their strategy for the reasons proposed by the hon. Member for Lewes, other than absolutely in extremis when there is complete failure to have regard.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We have had a useful debate, which will give me the opportunity to clarify what the clause does.

Let me reiterate our support for the tripartite structure. There have been several references to the

three legs of the tripod in this and other debates. It is worth reminding ourselves that tripods are generally erected in order to support something. In this case, the tripod exists to support effective policing at national and local level throughout England and Wales. The combination of the national policing plan, the local consultation, the local plans and the clauses work to ensure with the partners in the police service—[Interruption.]

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Order. Can I ask the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) either to take that device outside, or to switch it off now?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The combination of measures is intended to ensure that we promote the most effective policing at local level, and ensure that the combination of forces working effectively with each other at local level produces the most effective policing at national level. That is what the clauses do.

The hon. Member for Lewes asked for examples and I shall give one on which there will be consensus in the Committee. It is highly likely that the national policing plan to be published in the autumn will yet again emphasise the importance of extending the national intelligence model to all forces in England and Wales during the next year or two. If a police authority decided that it was not prepared to make resources available for implementation of that model and said so in its plan, the Home Secretary would have every right to raise the matter. The process is that the Home Secretary would do so after consultation with ACPO and the police authority. There would be a bringing together of the circle because those police service partners were involved in drawing up the national plan and advising the Home Secretary. That is an example of when it would be right for the Home Secretary to say that a police authority's action was simply not consistent with the national policing plan. I suspect that hon. Members would be sympathetic if a force or authority had clearly set itself against measures that had been advocated after Sir David O'Dowd's taskforce reports on the reduction of bureaucracy and red tape in the police service to free up officer time.

The national policing plan will, in addition to best value performance indicator and other indicator targets that we are trying to bring together coherently, give a sense of direction in some of those qualitative areas of work that do not lend themselves easily to numerical targets.

Having explained the role, I turn to the amendments. On consistency with the national plan, there are two arguments. The process involves consultation with police authorities and different elements of the police service. On the policing forum are Victim Support, the Council for Ethnic Minority Voluntary Organisations, the Evangelical Alliance, the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Education Officers, the Local Government Association and a wide range of partners from outside the police service as well as the core police service advisers. We brought those people in to give a sense of direction to policing

at national level. It would be wrong to say that the Home Secretary should not be able to express a view on what is happening in a specific force.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire expressed the argument more subtly. He said not that there should be no response from the Home Secretary but that the choice of wording is between ''have regard to'' and ''consistent with''. Without becoming too bogged down in the interpretation of individual words and phrases, I simply say that to make a judgment on whether a police authority did or did not have regard to something is a much more subjective assessment for the Secretary of State to make than whether the document produced as a result of whatever process is consistent with the national policing plan. In practice, it would be enormously difficult for the Home Secretary to have a clear view on whether the document in front of him had been through a process of having had regard to the national policing plan. It is relatively straightforward to be able to make a judgment about consistency. That is why we prefer the word ''consistency''.

The final point must be emphasised strongly. At that stage the process stops. There is no further stage at which the Home Secretary can draw in the plan and order it to be rewritten. It is important to understand that. The Home Secretary may tell a police authority, after consulting other organisations, as set out in the Bill, that its plan is not consistent with the national policing plan, but that is where we have let the process stop. There is no further power—despite the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes—to rewrite that plan.

That is a balance between a good, sensible, broad sense of direction for national involvement in the police service in England and Wales and the development of plans consistent with that. However, ultimately, the autonomy that is highly prized by the hon. Gentleman and others on the final content of the plan will lie with the police authority, as it does today. I hope that we have the process correct.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. However, if that is the case, why has he included subsections (10) and (11)? What happens if the Secretary of State believes that the strategy is inconsistent with the national plan and consults the people listed in subsection (11)? If he cannot rewrite the strategy, what is achieved? Assuming those people all agree with him, what does he do? Does he just put a note on the strategy to say that he does not accept it?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The reason for including subsections (10) and (11) was to underline the fact that the national policing plan, though produced by the Home Secretary, is produced after consultation with the national policing forum, key members of which are tripartite partners at national level: the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. We thought it advisable that the Secretary of State should consult ACPO and APA before he writes to a police authority to say that he does not like its draft plan or that it is inconsistent. Clearly, for a police authority to know that the Home Secretary had written after consulting police authorities at national level through ACPO and that they shared the view that

there was a serious inconsistency in the plan would have greater force that what might be seen as the opinion of the Secretary of State. The point of the process, even at that stage of intervention, is to bring in the other partners who played a key role in drawing up the national policing plan, in addition to the Secretary of State.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I understand the reason for the consultation. However, is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State simply writes to the police authority after the consultation, assuming that it supports his view, and says that he does not believe that the police authority's strategy is consistent with the national plan and that all those consulted agree with him, but that, ultimately, if the police authority wants to stand by its strategy, it does so?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

That is precisely the point. The Secretary of State relies on the force of the intervention based on his consultation with the other police service partners. He does not rely on an ability to require the plan to be amended in a specific way.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I would like the Minister to deal briefly with one further point. My hon. Friend has drawn out from the Minister who the Secretary of State will consult and what then happens. The Police Federation believes that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to consult the Police Advisory Board and the Police Federation Joint Branch Board, in addition to the people who are listed in subsection (11). Has the Minister considered those suggestions?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I cannot imagine that it would usually be advisable to involve the Police Advisory Board. It deals with different matters, such as the non-statutory part of employment conditions in general and other wider issues. The Police Federation is involved, in that as a member of the national policing forum it will have advised the Home Secretary on the national policing plan. Sensibly, the legislation is probably better as it is. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the other two main tri-partite partners and leaves him some discretion.

It is always dangerous for Ministers on their feet to come up with examples but if, for example, the area of concern was that a police authority plan clearly neglected the importance of partnership with other local agencies—the entire Committee agrees that the police service must work in partnership with other groups—it might be appropriate to consult other organisations such as the Local Government Association or the health service before commenting to the police authority on what the expectations are. However, I would not want to give a commitment to the federation, the PAB or any individual members of the national policing forum that they would always be consulted. There is a substantial number of them, as I indicated earlier.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was useful in teasing out the fact that a police authority may stand its ground if it wishes to do so. The Secretary of State will obviously be able to pull other levers, and will be keen

to invoke the police standards unit, HMIC and anything else he can get his hands on, but it is important to establish that a police authority has the right to stand its ground.

Nevertheless, I am unhappy that there is still too much potential for interference after the guidance has been issued. The Minister talked about the national intelligence model, and picked an example that would, of course, find consensus in the Committee. It would obviously be a serious matter if a police authority did not opt in to a policy that needed to be operated nationally, but detailed interference may be inappropriate in other cases. A study in a small force somewhere in the country might, for example, conclude that police stations outside major towns should be closed, because they take up the time of officers who should be on the street. The national guidance might then recommend reducing the number of police stations and the working hours that they involve. However, a police authority might feel strongly that that was wrong, and that we should increase the number of stations and keep them open for longer because of the need for community support. The Minister will be aware of the recent reversal in Sussex. The previous chief constable closed police stations, but I am glad to say that the new chief constable is reopening them.

Those are matters for individual chief constables and police authorities, not for guidance from the Secretary of State. The clause would, however, allow guidance to be issued not simply in the initial stages, but as a comment on plans that were being produced. That would be inappropriate, and would put undue pressure on police authorities and chief constables.

The Minister did not like the phrase ''have regard to''. I agree that it is more subjective, but that is no bad thing; subjectivity is sometimes quite useful. Some police authorities and chief constables might want to take a different direction from the Secretary of State or a different route to the same end, as I suggested in my earlier analogy. They would still listen carefully to him; indeed, they would be foolish not to. None the less, they might ask, ''What is his purpose? Does he have a valid point?'' Having listened carefully and considered the matter, they might conclude that he is wrong and that their duty is to plough ahead.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister feels that the words ''have regard to'' are too subjective, which is a subjective judgment in itself. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that amendment No. 103 offers an alternative, and that the Minister could not possibly object to the phrase ''taken into account'', when he uses something similar in subsection (6)?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We have not yet heard a Minister object to his own formulation, so I suppose that he will go along with that phrase.

John MacDougall (Labour, Central Fife)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be inconsistent to use delegated responsibilities to give police forces the power to act in ways that were not consistent with a plan drawn up after extensive consultation? Would the Secretary of State not then intervene more often? Is it not better to have consistency once one has reached an

agreed position? As the Minister explained, police forces will have room to stand their ground if they have credible reasons for doing so. Will that not allow for consistency and the freedom to act without intervention?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Minister's concluding remarks mean that a police authority can stand by its plan, I welcome that. However, I do not want to get into an argument about semantics, or about consistency and compatibility, because that would not be helpful.

I would like the Home Secretary to issue guidance, and the police authority to take it forward. The Home Secretary should have a right to intervene if the police authority goes way off beam into a different direction. However, if the police authority determines that it should take a different route to the same end, or go at a different speed in a different vehicle, I see nothing wrong with that.

John MacDougall (Labour, Central Fife)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if it is not consistent, then it must be inconsistent? We will end up in the position of saying, ''This is the agreed procedure, but we can be inconsistent with it.'' Does that not make a mockery of the consultations that lead to the agreed position?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We are getting into semantics. It depends what it is consistent with—the overall aims and objectives or the micromanagement that the Home Secretary might wish to impose.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall return to semantics. There is a difference between a requirement to take something into account and an objective of seeking consistency. The former is a process, the latter a desired outcome. As a public lawyer, I have seen numerous judicial reviews in which somebody who is required to take something into account pays lip service to the principle and says that he has done it, but clearly has not.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The alternative ''has not had regard to'' appears in one of the amendments. I do not think that a police authority will proceed in a way that is completely at variance with the Government of the day. No police authority is not going to take seriously the comments of a Home Secretary. When the tables were turned and I said that the Home Secretary could do one thing or another, the Minister's response was to say that no Home Secretary would ever do that. For the purposes of its deliberations, the Committee assumes that the level of variation from the norm by chief constables, police authorities or the Home Secretary is limited. Therefore, the problem will not arise.

I return to the point that there is too much potential for micro-management, although I welcome the Minister's confirmation that a police authority can, if it wishes, stand out. It will be judged by its decision and that will be subject to comment by HMIC and others, as is proper. I still believe that the clause goes too far in giving the Secretary of State the ability to intervene on a micro-management level. I shall not

press amendment No. 71 but, given the comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, he may wish to pursue one of his amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 102, in page 71, line 33, at end insert 'in preparing'.

Question put, That the amendment by made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 15.

Clause 79 - Expenses of members of police authorities etc.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, the Police Federation has been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and myself. It believes that, as a matter of principle, the rules governing the reimbursement of expenses of members of police authorities should not be substantially more favourable than those governing the reimbursement of expenses incurred by police officers. As an example, it quotes from the recent police negotiating board agreement on police pay and conditions of service:

''refreshment and subsistence allowances are due to be replaced by reimbursement of actual expenses incurred evidenced by receipts.''

The Police Federation believes that the same change should be made to the expenses arrangements for members of police authorities. On reading that, I decided that it was at least a legitimate matter to ask the Minister about, although I shall not vote against the clause, and I anticipate that the Minister may say that the rules have to be slightly different for various reasons.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

It involves slightly different matters of substance. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the changes in the PNB regulations were part of a wider attempt to remove at least some of the multiplicity of individual allowances, leads and payments in the police pay system. It is a sensible approach to the expenses of police authority members, but there is no need for us to make detailed regulations nationally in relation to allowances that have previously been deregulated. We are now doing the same for

expenses, which has generally been welcomed by police authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - President of ACPO

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In this case, the Police Federation has written to my hon. Friend and myself to say that it agrees with what is proposed in clause 80, although it says—and I share this opinion—

''we are intrigued as to the intentions behind it.''

It is intrigued about whether there is any special significance in introducing a special measure in an Act of Parliament to provide that the president of ACPO shall continue to hold the rank of chief constable. I am equally puzzled and intrigued about that, so I am interested to know what the Minister has to say.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The underlying policy is to enable the creation of a full-time presidency of ACPO, because it is becoming increasingly demanding for someone to

act as chief constable of a force and as the professional leader of the whole police service. We were first persuaded of the need to create a full-time presidency of ACPO. Then the organisation persuaded us that the person who acts, in effect, as the leader all chief constables would need to have the same professional status. There are some additional functions that go with the presidency, such as activities related to the work of the police national co-ordinating centre, which come into play to deal with floods and similar events. ACPO argued that in those situations where there is something of an operational crossover, it would be necessary for the person in office to be a chief constable, and because otherwise they would have to forego that office when they left the force to become full-time president.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That seems very sensible. I am happy with that answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 to 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Clause 92 - Short title, commencement and extent

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Given the importance of the amendment, I am surprised that the Minister should have moved it formally. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I cannot understand why the Government want to delete the words

''Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.''

They are a splendid part of the Bill. Do the Government have a sinister plan to impose new charges? Why remove those helpful words under subsection (11)? Surely, such a provision should be contained in all Acts of Parliament. Naturally, we cannot ensure that all legislation does not impose charges on the public or on public funds, but the subsection is useful and something much to be encouraged, especially given that it has been printed in bold. I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation of why it is being removed.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

As always, the hon. Member, being a quick-witted parliamentarian, has outwitted the Chair. I am advised that the amendment is not debatable. It is purely a technicality. The hon. Gentleman has had a chance to make his point, but I cannot allow a debate on the matter.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Will you explain to the Committee why you and your advisers have deemed the matter to be a technicality when it seems to be of such material interest to the people of this country, who will be called on, if the provision is excised from the Bill, to pay for the intrusive measures envisaged?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am advised that all such Bills have that provision, which is designed to protect the interests of Members of the House of Commons so that Members of the other place will not be able to usurp their authority.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Does that mean that the removal of the provision allows Members of the House of Lords to use that authority?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am sure that the Clerk will advise me accordingly in a few moments. Hon. Members can either allow me to stand on my feet and talk until he does so—[Laughter.] Order. I am advised that the matter is a technicality. Nothing involved is debatable in the normal conduct of Committee. I shall leave it at that. I hope that hon. Members will accept that ruling.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Thank you for having recognised me. I understand what you said for the Committee's edification and to educate those of us who have not come across the provision before. However, when a provision such as subsection (11) is deleted, does the fact that that affords immunity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer itself mean that we are avoiding discussing a pertinent and financial measure in the Bill that limits the Committee's power of scrutiny? The substance of the subsection is that the Bill will not impose a charge on the people or public funds. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that the raison d'être of the House was for Members to be voted in, extract money through taxation and deploy that money for the benefit of citizens of the United Kingdom. Is it not, therefore, important constitutionally that the deletion of a provision that affords immunity to the public purse should not be subject to detailed scrutiny by the Committee? I should be most grateful for your advice. I apologise to Committee members for having delayed the Committee, but that is an important point, and we would all benefit from your advice and wisdom.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

The hon. Lady is right. As I anticipated, the Clerk has found the relative procedural guidance, which I shall quote. My original ruling was not quite correct. Debate is possible, but:

''Where the Lords have inserted the privilege disclaimer as the last subsection of the last clause of a bill—

which is exactly what we are debating—

''the scope of debate on the amendment to remove it is confined to the question of whether the Commons should maintain their claim of financial privilege.''

It does not include the debate that has since been pursued. It is perfectly in order for hon. Members to debate whether the Commons should maintain its claim to financial privilege, but not to debate as hon. Members have sought to debate so far. I hope that that clears matters up.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am most grateful that we have taken the time for you and the Clerk to arrive at a judgment, Mr. Stevenson. It gives me great satisfaction, because it assures me that my role as a parliamentarian in this place has not been diminished.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

It gives the hon. Lady great satisfaction; it gave me some relief.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful for your ruling and explanation, Mr. Stevenson. I am pleased that the Clerk was able to elucidate the matter for all Members of the Committee.

Although I did not know it, what I said referred to the Commons maintaining its privileges. Everything that I said before you ruled that we were not allowed to debate the subject was germane to that point. I therefore hope that it is proper for me to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, that I strongly feel that the House of Commons needs to maintain its financial privileges. I am puzzled, because I thought that subsection (11) was doing just that. I am therefore now even more concerned that the Government are seeking to take it out. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who were trying to join me in debating the matter but were only able to do so on points of order, will want to follow that up.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I concur heartily with what my hon. Friend says. If we were sent to this place for any purpose, it was to vindicate the right of this House to determine taxes and public expenditure. It is absolutely outrageous that some 400 years after—what was his name—Charles I tried to get away with levying ship money without the scrutiny of Parliament, this pair of Ministers should try to excise from the Bill the Committee's right to scrutinise and protect the public purse. That is our fundamental purpose in being sent by the electors to the House and to this Committee Room. I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) will want to add to what I have said in a very vociferous manner.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I fear that we may be getting into a rather convoluted and perhaps unimportant debate that goes back centuries. As I have mentioned, there is a provision for debate, but it is up to hon. Members to decide whether to discuss the matter, as I am advised that the amendment is a pure technicality, and that there is no problem with it. We could waste—I use the word advisedly—quite a bit of time debating it, but it has no real effect and in no way compromises the House of Commons' privileges. This is a House of Lords Bill, and as such the amendment and the disclaimer in subsection (11) are technicalities.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

This could be one of the few times that I shall speak during the Committee, so I should like to take the opportunity to thank you and your colleagues in the Chair for your first-class chairmanship of the proceedings, Mr. Stevenson.

The amendment may be a technicality, but it concerns money and the public purse, and some of our primary functions in this House relate to those matters. On many occasions, it is quite sufficient for a Minister to move an amendment formally and not speak to it, but I hope that the Minister will delve deep into his file and find a small explanatory note that will help to put some flesh on the bones of the amendment. If he does not, I shall be rather distressed, as I think that any amendment, technical or otherwise, to a Bill as important as this should be explained by the Government. We are not under great time pressure; we have made good progress on the Bill, and there has been much co-operation from all parties. This is an opportunity for the Minister to speak one or two sentences and enlighten the Committee.

Having said that, it has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and I hope that the Bill is a little finer for the scrutiny that you have given it, Mr. Stevenson.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am always extremely grateful to hon. Members for their kind remarks, guidance, patience and forbearance. Sitting in this Chair is sometimes a difficult job, although it is a privilege for all who do so. I also have a responsibility to ensure that the Committee's business is conducted. I accept the advice that I have been given and therefore rule that the amendment is not about money but is a procedural device to avoid the impression that the other place has authorised expenditure—something that only the House of Commons can do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Minor and Consequential Amendments

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 268, page 141, line 27, at end insert—

'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

3A In section 7(2)(bb) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53) (limitations on rehabilitations under Act etc.), for ''a sex offender order under section 2 or, as the case may be, 20'' there shall be substituted ''an order under section 2, 2A or 20(4)(b)''.'

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this we may discuss the following: Government new clause 17—Sex offender orders.

Government new clause 18—Interim orders: sex offenders.

Government new clause 19—Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Government amendment No. 269.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We come now to a substantive and important debate. This is the first time that hon. Members have had an opportunity to discuss these new clauses and amendments. Although I was tempted to dwell on the tragic events surrounding the reign of King Thingy the Wotsit who, as we all know, lost his head in unfortunate circumstances, we should move on.

The new clauses have been introduced since the publication of the Bill primarily to deal with weaknesses in the existing legislation surrounding sex offender orders—they could not be used sufficiently flexibly or widely—and to ensure effective coverage of the United Kingdom. We have taken the opportunity to introduce a new, more flexible element into the system. A couple of additional amendments on Report will also be necessary to complete the picture.

As hon. Members may know, a sex offender order is a civil preventive order made by a magistrates court. If the police consider that a sex offender has acted in a way that gives cause for concern that he may re-offend, they can apply for an order. The order places prohibitions designed to prevent the offender from engaging in behaviour that may lead him to re-

offending. For example, he may be prevented from entering children's playgrounds or visiting swimming baths. Any breach of the prohibitions carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

Sex offender orders have proved to be an effective tool in managing the risks that sex offenders pose to the public. Approximately 170 orders have been granted to date, mainly against the most dangerous offenders living in the community. About half of those have been breached, with custodial sentences following in the majority of cases.

Some individual cases have highlighted weaknesses in the existing legislation. Such anecdotal evidence has been backed up by Home Office research on sex offender orders, which we published last week. We are taking the opportunity to legislate to increase the effectiveness of sex offender orders and so enhance the protection of the public.

New clause 17 seeks to give greater flexibility to the police in how they apply for and amend sex offender orders. At present, the police can apply for a sex offender order only if the offender is already in their police area. The new clause will allow police forces that know an offender is coming to their area to apply for a sex offender order in advance of his arrival. Police forces will be able to make an application to any court in their police area, rather than to a court only in the area where some of the risky behaviour took place.

New clause 17 extends the prohibitions that may be imposed in a sex offender order to the United Kingdom as a whole by amplifying the definition of the ''public'' to the

''public in the United Kingdom, or any particular members of that public''.

Currently, orders extend only to England and Wales. The clause amends the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to allow police forces to vary or discharge orders at courts in their own police area, without having to go back to the original court that made the order.

New clause 18 introduces interim sex offender orders in the same way as clause 59 introduces interim antisocial behaviour orders. Interim orders would be useful in high-risk situations that require urgent intervention. The police have complained about the length of time that it takes to get a full hearing, and interim orders would address that problem. Anyone made subject to an interim order will be placed on the sex offenders' register for its duration. He will be required to notify the police of his name and address, and of any subsequent changes. That is the same requirement as with full orders, and forms an important part of the sex offender orders because the police are aware of the whereabouts of the offender.

New clause 19 introduces new section 2B to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That makes the breach of sex offender orders made in Scotland and Northern Ireland an offence if it occurs in England and Wales. The offence will carry the same penalty as a breach of an English order.

It has not been possible to table amendments to make reciprocal changes to the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland in time for the Committee. I shall

move amendments on Report that will mirror new clause 19 so that a breach of English orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be offences under their law. The Scottish Parliament is debating a Sewel motion today to allow this Parliament to legislate on its behalf.

The amendments, including those that will be moved on Report, will make a breach of an order an offence throughout the United Kingdom irrespective of the jurisdiction in which it was created. Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 are consequential to the three new clauses. I commend the new clauses and amendments to the Committee.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for ensuring that the earlier item allowed me to return to the Committee in time to speak to the amendments and new clauses.

The Minister rightly said that this is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss this subject during our consideration of the Bill, with the exception of the glimpse of the Government's intentions that he gave during his speech on Second Reading. I am grateful for the letter that he sent to me on 19 June with an explanation of the background to the amendments. I say from the outset that we do not have any serious worries or objections that would cause us to oppose them. Obviously, sex offender orders are extremely important and, as the Minister described, clearly operative. I think that he said that half have been breached, which illustrates their importance and value. We hope that we will reach a stage at which fewer will be breached.

I have one or two specific questions. I understand from the Minister's comments and letter that an order made in the future will apply throughout the UK. If that is the case, I am slightly puzzled why there is a need for some of the other amendments, such as those that relate to the court at which an application is made or to an application for an order by a chief officer from a police area different from that in which the person lives. If a person is eligible—that is not quite the right word—for an order and the chief officer of the area in which the person lives applies for one, the order will extend throughout the UK. I am sure that there is a perfectly logical explanation why the other amendments are necessary, but I should be grateful if the Minister would provide it.

My second point relates to police costs with regard to orders. The Minister is fully aware that there have been several cases—including one in Cambridgeshire—when sex offenders have had to be accommodated in police cells for public protection and for their own safety because the public have made so many threats against them. I am sure that no hon. Member approves of vigilantism. Sex offenders deserve protection, however despicable their original offence. However, such an action can cost substantial sums of money and use much police time. Although the amendments do not directly address the issue, I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government plan to do about it. I know that the case in Cambridgeshire is not isolated and that a similar case has occurred in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr.

Letwin), and, I am sure, in other hon. Members' constituencies. The problem is serious; these people become undesirable to society when their presence is known, yet they have to live somewhere. That imposes significant costs.

I am disappointed that this group of amendments does not go further with regard to a couple of other areas where current legislation has been shown to be inadequate. The Minister referred to the registration period. The Government have cut the period for first registration to three days. However, as he said, when the subject of an order moves, that period is much longer. There is concern that that gives them what the police have described as a holiday, before they have to re-register in their new location. I wish the Minister had taken this opportunity to also reduce the period for re-registration to three days.

I am also disappointed that these amendments do not address what is taking place on the internet—particularly the grooming by potential sex offenders of potential victims. That is a concern to many parents who discover that their children are being groomed in this way. I should like the Minister to respond to that point.

I come to the related matter of internet use and paedophilia and other sex crimes. The recent case of the paedophile information exchange involved a group of criminals who were prosecuted for horrendous crimes against children using the internet. Almost everyone in that group was imprisoned, but I understand that its leader escaped prosecution because he refused to give the key to the encryption of some of the software, and the police were unable to break into parts of it. It has been suggested that the failure to provide that key, when required to do so by the police, should be an offence that is equivalent to the crime itself—which would be a bit like the refusal to say who was driving a car opening one to prosecution in the same way as does the offence of driving it.

I am aware that I have strayed beyond discussion of the amendments, but this is a Second Reading debate. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Stevenson. We are all very concerned about sex offences, and their apparent proliferation—although we could argue about whether such crimes really are increasing, or whether that merely seems to be the case because they are more noticeable, or commented on, or reported. However, the fact of the matter is that they take place, and there is a huge amount of public emotion about such crimes. The law needs to be tightened up. I welcome the Government's proposals, but further measures should be taken.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is right to draw attention to other areas where the law might be reviewed and improved. The Government are now committed to acting on the ''Setting the Boundaries'' report, which was the subject of considerable consultation a couple of years ago: they say that they will change the law with regard to sex offences, and I welcome that.

The Government are acting on the encryption key aspect. I think that they are doing that in the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Is that right?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

No.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

However, they are acting on it in a Bill.

The issue that I wish to raise does not address a matter of legislation; it is about guidance to police—which I know that the Minister is very keen on—to ensure that those who commit sexual crimes are properly pursued and prosecuted. That does not always happen, because the police too frequently rely on the victim's statement, and if the victim is a vulnerable person—such as a child, or someone with a disability—they are not always able to make such a statement. The traditional response of the police to such circumstances is that no prosecution is therefore possible. That must change, because those who indulge in sexual exploitation and abuse deliberately pick victims who will not make statements to the police. Consequently, some people are getting away with horrendous crimes. I shall not go any further, but I wanted to put that serious issue on the record. Members of the Committee who have followed a particular case in the press will understand my argument.

As for the amendment and the proposed new clauses, I am happy to say that the Minister is right that the Bill should be so amended. They are sensible and will go some way towards improving the law. We all want the law against sex offenders to be as efficient and effective as possible. I have great pleasure in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and I will support the proposals. Given my generous response to them, I hope that the Minister will reciprocate when it comes to the new clauses that I have tabled.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I wish to supplement what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Like my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), I have also had a difficult constituency case. I pay a genuine tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) who, before her recent well-deserved promotion to Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, dealt with these issues. I had to see her about a difficult case in which someone had committed serious sexual offences against his children, for which he had received a substantial custodial sentence. He was imprisoned elsewhere in the country but, on his release, he was proposing to move back to the area in which his victims lived, which was near my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).

The moves outlined in the new clauses are helpful, but they reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the advice that we have received about the holiday period. My constituents are worried about such a gap. It has been said that the gap or holiday can be used by a

persistent sex offender to chase children. As a result not only of my experience a barrister some years ago, but the constituency cases that I have taken up in my 10 years plus in the House, I have tried to adopt a balanced and measured approach that is based on protecting the innocent. The very tragic cases that have received so much publicity in recent years are an acid test. The test that I would apply is whether the Government's proposals will prevent tragic cases from happening, such as that of Sarah Payne? Will they have stopped killers such as Whiting?

As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we have not gone all the way, but I do not criticise the Government for that because they are proceeding by stages. There is no doubt that the measures will help, but I share my hon. Friend's slight disappointment that other steps have not been taken under the Bill. We hope that the Minister will say that the Government are still keeping matters under review and may bring forward proposals in future legislation. I hope so, because in all parliamentary Sessions there will be criminal justice or other Home Office Bills to which future measures can be attached. Like many members of the Committee, I have dealt with a difficult constituency case. Some of the Government's proposals would have helped in that instance, had they been law at the time. I am not sure whether they go far enough, however, because of what my hon. Friend said.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am pleased by the warm welcome that the new clauses and amendments have received from the Committee. I can understand why members of the Committee want legislation to cover other issues relating to sex offences. However, this is the Police Reform Bill and, despite the reputation of all Home Office Bills under any Government of attracting new pieces of legislation like flypaper, there is a limit to how much can be included under the guise of a Bill that seems to be about something completely different. We have taken the earliest possible opportunity to close a particular loophole in the law.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked why, if the provision covers the whole of the UK, the power to make anticipatory orders and the ability to vary the orders are necessary. The circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) would answer that question—somebody who is not the subject of a sex offender order may be about to move to another part of the country. The police should not have to wait until he gets there before they can apply for an order.

Although orders will apply to the whole of the UK—at the moment they apply only to England and Wales—they can be specific. They may say, ''You shall not approach this particular primary school, park or swimming pool.'' It is necessary to have the ability to vary an order in another part of the country—perhaps because somebody has arrived or in anticipation of somebody arriving.

With regard to police costs, there have been well-publicised cases and we all recognise that there are costs. With the exception of unprecedented and major expenditure, the assumption has always been that the police grant that is made available to forces will

accommodate particular costs that arise. Those may relate to the type of incidents described by the hon. Gentleman or involve a particular type of crime that comes to the fore in a certain area. It is difficult to say that we could underwrite that cost.

Hon. Members will be aware—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell)—of the difficulties that arise whenever the state attempts to make or expand provision for sex offenders in any type of institution. There is always deep public resistance and a balance must be struck between the demand for provision and attempts made to expand it.

With regard to whether we are able to go further, we have reviewed the sex offender orders and we hope to deal with registration issues in a Bill on sex offenders and sex offences. That is also where we would look at issues surrounding internet grooming, on which my hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he would like to take action. Obviously, I cannot anticipate future Queen's Speeches, so I cannot give an indication of the time scale. My colleagues who are dealing with the matter hope to publish proposals in the autumn so that people can see clearly how we hope to move ahead.

Internet child abuse falls within the remit of the new hi-tech crime unit, on which we will be spending approximately £25 million over the next three years. On the specific case involving encryption mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, powers to tackle the criminal misuse of encryption were dealt with in part by the much-maligned Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which includes many excellent features. The commencement of the relevant part of the Act awaits work currently being undertaken on a code of practice for the use of the powers.

As we all know, the Bill raises sensitive issues, including the circumstances in which it is legitimate to require people to reveal their encryption systems. Determining the circumstances in which it is not legitimate requires careful differentiation. A code of practice is being devised that will enable the relevant part of the 2000 Act to commence. My understanding is that the Act goes some way towards dealing with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.

I hope that that has answered specific questions. The hon. Member for Lewes raised a wider issue relating to statements and the pursuit of such cases by the police when they are not able to take statements. I do not feel able to say any more than has previously been said by the Government, although I will talk to my colleagues to see whether it will be dealt with in the wider review of sex offender legislation. The hon. Gentleman understandably registered his concern about the issue with the Committee this afternoon.

I hope that I have touched on the points that hon. Members have raised. I am confident that the Committee will accept the new clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 241, in page 143, line 6, after '35' insert

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

No. 242, in page 143, line 17, leave out

'or accredited under section 35 or'

and insert

'under section 35 or (Police powers for contracted-out staff) or accredited under section'

No. 260, in page 143, line 26, leave out '31(1) or 32(2)' and insert '17B, 30(1) or 31(2)'.

No. 261, in page 143, line 27, leave out from 'detention' to end of line 30.—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8 - Repeals

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 148, line 4, at end insert—

'Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18)

In section 200(1), the words ''Part IVA,'' and ''47B''.'

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this it will convenient to take Government amendment No. 263 and Government new clause 16—Protected disclosures by police officers.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The Government accepted in principle that the same level of protection provided to employees and workers by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 should be provided to police officers. We now accept that the best way to achieve that is by removing the exclusion of police officers from that Act. Accordingly, new clause 16 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that police officers in England, Wales and Scotland who are reporters of wrongdoing—whistleblowers, to use the popular jargon—have the same rights as other workers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Police officers will be treated as employees for the purpose of that Act.

Such protections are likely to lead to a more open police service and to greater confidence in the police service. The change will allow for compensation to be paid to officers who suffer any detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and for claims of unfair dismissal if officers are dismissed primarily because they made a protected disclosure.

Police officers will be able to make a claim to an employment tribunal if they suffer detriment or dismissal by virtue of making a protected disclosure. Protected disclosures include disclosures that a criminal offence has been committed, that a person has failed to comply with a legal obligation to which he is subject or that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. It is intended that protections under the 1998 Act should be available to police officers at any stage prior to or during the disciplinary process.

The change will give a police officer the assurance that failing all the safeguards already in the system, he has a route to an employment tribunal. He will be able to report wrongdoing with the assurance of full protection if he is subsequently discriminated against, or if he suffers detriment for doing so.

The change will cause the protections provided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to apply to police officers, seconded police officers, officers in constabularies maintained otherwise than by a police authority, and NCIS and NCS police members. The protections will extend to England, Scotland and Wales.

Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 are consequential amendments to schedule 8.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We acknowledge that many police officers will welcome the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—the so-called whistleblowers' protection Act—should they want to report matters of serious concern. However, I want to flag up a slight worry in order to get reassurance that the Government will not move further down the road of treating police officers as employees in other senses. In another context, the Minister rightly said this morning that police officers' terms and conditions put them much more on a par with members of the armed forces than with any other category of profession—and they are not treated as employees in other respects.

This is simply a move to give them extra protection, and it will be welcomed. However, I flag up another warning. I do not want this to become the thin end of a very large wedge of many compensation claims, which would be a burden on police force budgets that are already very stretched. The police force has to spend a lot to deal with the compensation culture that currently exists, where civil claims are brought against police authorities, so that—as it were—the police are defending themselves against other people. Often, a lot of money is spent on that, instead of on policing.

It has been suggested that the Government are largely responsible for the huge explosion in the compensation culture since 1997, and that, therefore, police forces should receive extra provision from central funds to counteract the costs that are imposed on them as a result of the growth of the compensation culture.

This provision will not, of itself, necessarily lead to many more claims for compensation being brought by police officers against their employers—as it were. However, I want to hear what the Minister has to say, so that his comments are on the record.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I can be even briefer. I warmly congratulate the Minister on bringing this forward. It is sensible, and it enhances rights that police officers should have. It has my party's full support.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am trying to recover from my shock at that intervention by the hon. Member for Lewes.

I come to the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Nobody wishes there to be

an explosion in the compensation culture. The hon. Gentleman is the first person who has blamed this Government for having caused that. Regrettably, there has been a rising trend in compensation claims over several years.

It was always the Government's intention that the existence of this legislation would lead to employers putting in place proper systems for employees who are aware of something wrong to report that, and to be confident that action will be taken. It was also the Government's intention that, by having proper systems in place, the likelihood of someone needing to use the provisions of the Bill would be minimised—rather than that there should be a lot of whistle-blowing, because that almost always occurs when someone has given up in frustration after the failure of all of their other attempts to have wrongs addressed. If we have the intended response to this, that should prevent any addition to the compensation culture, which, in a wider sense, is a worry.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this does not presage a series of measures designed to reduce police officers to the level of employees. However, treating police officers as employees for the purposes of the Act is a simpler way of extending this protection to them than would be the construction of entirely separate and parallel legislation for the police service.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 263, in page 148, line 15, at end insert—

'Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c.23)

Section 13.'

No. 264, in page 148, line 16, column 2, leave out '7' and insert '4'.

No. 265, in page 148, line 39, column 2, leave out '51' and insert '151'.

No. 246, in page 148, line 43, column 2, at end insert—

'Section 80(2).'—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 11 - Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant

New clause 12 - Persons authorised to take intimate samples from persons in police detention

New clause 13 - Application of the Police (Property) Act 1897

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

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

The new clause will give effect to one of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report on the Bill. The Police (Property) Act 1897 allows the police force to dispose of property that comes into its possession during the investigation of a suspected offence. Property may be

sold or retained for use by the police, and the proceeds of the sale go to the police authority. The new clause extends the 1897 Act to cover the National Crime Squad. In cases relating to that body, the proceeds from the sale of any property will be paid to the service authority.

The Home Affairs Committee also recommended that the 1897 Act be extended to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but as that is an intelligence-gathering organisation and is not involved in operational activity, property would not come into its possession. The new clause therefore does not extend the 1897 Act to NCIS.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The new clause seems extremely sensible. As the Minister has rightly said, it arose from the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. That is a justification of the system whereby Select Committees consider specific Government Bills, and I am glad that the Minister took the recommendation on board.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The new clause is sensible. That is the third time that I have said that this afternoon, so it is ''Three strikes and you're in'' for the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

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

New clause 16 - Protected disclosures by police officers

New clause 17 - Sex offender orders

New clause 18 - Interim orders: sex offenders

New clause 19 - Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland

New clause 2 - Riot damages

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

Like many members of the Committee, I had not heard of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 until the Yarl's Wood fire. Along with other MPs, I was horrified to learn that in the aftermath, the private company that runs Yarl's Wood had hit taxpayers with a bill of £97 million for the riots in February, lodged by a Lloyd's syndicate against Bedfordshire policy authority. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—the local MP—branded the claim ''Complete and utter nonsense'' and urged the Government to resolve the issue because it was stifling the policy on asylum.

It is clear that it is inappropriate that the police authority or the Government should be held responsible for a bill along the lines of that which was submitted under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. I wonder whether such an incident was in the mind of the legislators who drafted that Act more than 115 years ago. The Minister may say that other provisions may be worth keeping, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to comment on the claim to which I referred. Does he accept why hon. Members are uncomfortable with a situation in which the public is faced with a big bill as a consequence of activities that are beyond their responsibility?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I do not blame the hon. Member for Lewes for tabling the new clause, although I shall be asking the Committee to reject it. I shall not discuss individual cases because, as yet, no claims under the Riot (Damages) Act in respect of the events of the past 12 months have been accepted by the police authorities. It would be wrong to anticipate such claims.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a technical point, I appreciate that the Minister is saying that no claims have been accepted, but does he acknowledge the reports in the press of claims being made under the Act?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Yes, I am absolutely certain that that is right. My ministerial responsibility covered the disturbances in the north of England last summer more than it did the Yarl's Wood case. Claims were certainly made, but to the best of my knowledge, there has been no admission of liability in any of those cases. None the less, the issue was clearly brought to the fore by those events.

As the Government said in another place, we are pursuing a review of the Riot (Damages) Act, and I said as much to the Home Affairs Committee in its hearings on the Police Reform Bill. We will be examining several issues as part of the review, such

as the pattern of claims that have been received. With the Association of British Insurers, we shall be considering the implications of appeals for insurance costs. We shall be considering the approach to the matter in Scotland, where local authorities are liable for riot damages under the Riotous Assemblies Act 1822. When we have completed the review, we shall report back.

It is fairly obvious that a simple repeal of the Act is not as straightforward as it might at first appear. The review is addressing some complex issues. I do not blame the hon. Member for Lewes, but the new clause does not suggest alternative arrangements for those who may be left without their home or their business as a consequence of riot or those who were unable to afford insurance cover. Issues such as that and how people will be provided for should be examined.

We accept that there is usually no case for public compensation for criminal damage. Historically, riots have been considered a special case. Compensation has provided a safety net for businesses and households in areas that might be most prone to public disorder. Equally, however, those are areas in which affordable insurance might be most difficult to obtain.

Simply trying to repeal the Act to meet one criticism of it could result in other problems that would not have been dealt with. It is right for the Government to consider such issues in the round before deciding whether there is an alternative way forward.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments. To what time scale is he operating? When does he expect to reach a conclusion on the review?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am not in a position to be definite about that. We are anxious not to do anything that might be regarded or interpreted as prejudicing current issues and outstanding claims.

We said when we launched the review that it was urgent. Subject to those wider considerations, I hope that we shall make good progress.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I sympathise with the hon. Member for Lewes in tabling the new clause, because the issue has hit the headlines as a result of the case of Yarl's Wood. Despite what the Minister said to the Select Committee, its view was that the legislation should be repealed. However, I am more inclined to support the Minister's view that a straightforward repeal seems inadequate. Like a lot of legislation that has been on the statute book for more than 100 years, the legislation could do with updating and modernising—not that I necessarily believe that everything should be modernised for the sake of it.

The Minister is right. Serious problems need to be tackled. Many of us are aware of insurance policies for which riot is an exclusion. It seems unfair on people who lose property or have property damaged as a result of riot that neither their insurers nor anyone else will pay up, even though they are entirely blameless, whereas if someone had set fire to their property for another reason, such as arson, it would have been covered.

The issue should be dealt with urgently. I endorse what the hon. Member for Lewes effectively implied in his intervention—for goodness' sake, hurry up. The matter needs to be dealt with before another dreadful situation such as that at Yarl's Wood. I realise that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, but I hope that he will take on board the fact that concern about the matter is widespread and that it is time that the legislation was updated.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In light of the Minister's response, which related to what he told the Home Affairs Committee, I looked back to confirm my memory that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) who wisely raised the matter in her role as a member of that Committee when it cross-examined the Minister. I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire in light of the Yarl's Wood fire. I recognise that a review may be necessary and the Minister said that that is now under way. That development has happened since he gave evidence, as at the time he could not say as much as he has said today.

I appreciate that the Minister must be cautious in what he says even today, but it would help if that review were to be urgent, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Lewes said. We should not risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It may be necessary to introduce a measure that amends the 1886 Act but does not entirely get rid of the principle. We hope that the Minister will expedite the review. We shall have other opportunities to examine its results.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I can say candidly that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I did not have absolute conviction that the new clause was definitely the right road to go down, but we wanted to remind the Minister and the Committee about a serious issue that needs examining quickly.

The Minister is right to say that all ramifications and implications must be considered. This serious issue has been raised on more than one occasion and it cannot be ignore. I hope that the Minister has received a further wake-up call today and that he will soon bring forward proposals to deal with this current problem in law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5 - Police pensions

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

On Second Reading, one or two hon. Members referred to the pensions issue as the unspoken time bomb. Although that was not much of a metaphor, it conveyed the feeling of many hon. Members. It is a serious issue that affects how much is spent on pensions, and whether a police authority's allocation is fair. The new clause is an attempt to address the issue.

Pensions are essential. Everybody is entitled to a pension on retirement. We must ensure that the payment of pensions does not unnecessarily affect the money available for front-line policing and cause a specific police authority to pay more than it should. That geographical argument applies to Sussex—my part of the world—and doubtless other police authorities. At present, the police authority from which an officer retires must pick up responsibility for his pension. It is possible, and indeed usual, for officers to work in the Metropolitan police area or in greater Manchester but to decide to spend the last years of their employment in a shire force. It is unfair that shire authorities are asked to pay such amounts when officers have not worked there for long. Such authorities pay disproportionately high amounts for pensions because officers choose to move to them before retiring. We must find an equitable way to spread the burden, which is the intention of the new clause.

The estimate for the national expenditure on pensions in 2000–01 was 13.26 per cent. In Sussex, the figure was 15.99 per cent, and those figures are not dissimilar for 2001–02. Consequently, Sussex is paying 2.5 per cent. over the odds due to the way in which the system currently works, while other authorities pay less than their share.

If we examine the overall pensions problem—it is a problem in terms of the expenditure faced by police authorities—the cost of pensions rises dramatically year on year. In 1998–99, the total national cost of pensions was £841 million. In 1999–2000 it was £898 million. The estimate for 2000–01 is £974 million and that rises to £1,056 million in 2001–02. Those increases are way above inflation, yet police authorities must absorb them.

In a written answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 19 March the Minister said:

''we are also aware of the need of police authorities and chief officers for a system which brings greater clarity about pensions obligations on individual police forces. The Home Office and Treasury are reviewing the options for a revised system of funding which would bring this about.''—[Official Report, 19 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 289W.]

It is disappointing that neither the Bill nor any Government amendments address the problem. The Bill could be used to deal with a serious issue that the Minister recognises must be dealt with. The amendment attempts to deal with the issue—by having money paid into the consolidated fund by the authority and then redistributed—and to address the geographical imbalance. In new clause 5, subsection (2)(b) it states:

''ensure funding of pension payments shall be made by each police authority for whom the officer has worked in proportion to the length of service with each respective authority.''

The Minister should agree with the point in principle. If he says that the new clause does not work or that he does not like the wording, we will live with that. However, I hope that he will recognise that we must have some proposals on pensions before long because the expenditure increases are getting out of hand. We also need a system that recognises the present geographical imbalance. I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Lewes said—everyone on the Committee and in the House is aware that the issue is major and that something must be done about it very soon. I will also listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

Those outside the House often forget that many hon. Members have expertise in particular professional fields arising from what they did before becoming Members of Parliament. Their expertise can often be used when relevant matters are reviewed—it is not only down to experts outside the House. I mention in particular the all-party group on insurance and financial services—of which several pensions experts are members—as well as the all-party group on pensions.

Having been involved with those groups during my 10 years in the House, I am aware that it was as a result of initiatives taken by the all-party group on insurance and financial services that the Pool Re insurance arrangements prevented many major Japanese banks from moving from the City of London to elsewhere in Europe—they were persuaded to stay because of it. Pool Re would not have come into existence without an initiative from that group. That is only one example, and will not prolong the analogue because it would be outside the terms of our debate.

In the same way, the people who came up with that idea, which was tremendously helpful to the UK, should also be consulted on the question of pension provision. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, when the matter is reviewed, in addition to all the outside experts that Governments tend to consult, the all-party group will have its expertise tapped into. The group tends to examine things in a constructive rather than a party political, partisan manner, and is in the best traditions of active all-party groups in the House. I especially mention the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who has particular expertise in the area.

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

My police authority is also in the position of being above average—15 per cent. of total expenditure is taken up with pensions. That has accelerated over a five-year period from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.

I wish to raise the issue of the uncertainty that currently exists. A review is said to be underway, and we have heard that the Government are aware of the

problem and will do something, but meanwhile, prudent police authorities such as my own feel that they must put money aside to make provision for the escalating expenditure. For example, approximately £1 million this year was set aside into balances. We are the second lowest funded police authority, so that cuts into front-line policing. Something needs to be done sooner rather than later , and it is appropriate to bring that in with this Bill, so that next year's budgets can be set with certainty, and can concentrate on front-line policing, because we want our police authorities to be able to afford not only more police—as the Minister wishes—but, maybe, some CSOs, too.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I support the comments of my hon. Friends, and of Liberal Democrat Members. Police pensions are also a big problem in Cheshire—as are fire service pensions, but I do not know which Department deals with that these days.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the fire service.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

That does not fill me with confidence—but we will wait and see what happens.

One of the disappointing aspects of the police reform process—this Bill, and the pay and rations negotiations with the police—is that pensions, and some of the perverse incentives for police officers that exist in their pensions system, have not been tackled in the past year. When the Home Secretary announced, after the last general election, that he was going to take on the police, and someone speaking on his behalf, at least, raised the issue of Spanish practices, pensions were often discussed.

In my area, as in others, many police officers take medical retirement. In Greater Manchester police, which is next door to my police area, the figure is astonishingly high—or, certainly, it has been. I want the Minister to tell us what is being done to tackle some of the perverse incentives in the pension system. The pensions time bomb, which other hon. Members have mentioned, should be tackled, as should the incentives that encourage people to take medical retirement, if they can find a general practitioner who will sign them off, or simply retire after 30 years, so that, if they joined the police service when they were 18, they retire at 48.

Throughout the Committee's proceedings, we have talked about the need for greater support for the police family, and all the different jobs that are done in the police service, yet many highly trained police officers with great experience retire at 48. I had a conversation with a police officer in my constituency who said that it makes sense to do that, and that there is no point in carrying on. However, there are many jobs that could be done in the police service—and, in my county, semi-retired police officers are used for duties such as checking up on gun and shotgun licences.

I want the Minister to tell us where we have got to in tackling some of the problems with the pension process, as this new clause gives us the opportunity to raise these issues.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We are debating an important issue, but I cannot accept the new clause.

On ill-health retirement, one of the gains from the past year's negotiations with the Police Federation on pay and conditions was an agreement on a new system of dealing with medical issues within the police service, which allows us a consistent approach to the way in which medical issues are dealt with, and appeals applications for early retirement, and so forth, are heard. That should help to bring about greater consistency in dealing with ill-health retirements, compared with the current situation.

One of the dilemmas that the Committee must accept is that the number of ill-health retirements as a proportion of the total number of retirements varies: in some forces it is less than 10 per cent. and in others it is more than 63 per cent. Those with high levels of ill-health retirement will pay a price through the pensions bill, which will not be paid by those with low levels. There would not be much popularity for a system for funding pensions that transferred the costs incurred by forces that have managed ill-health retirement badly to forces that have managed it well. That would be unfair, and a perverse incentive.

Whatever we do in future must not create incentives for poor management or poor human resource practices within forces. We also cannot be expected to undo, in a significant way, past practice. While we look for better ways of carrying that out, it is important not to conjure up the idea that there will be vast extra inflows of money into the system to meet the liabilities. The liabilities must be met within the system. As we said in the White Paper, we can look for a system that gives greater certainty to police authorities, but I do not want to encourage the idea that a huge, new pot of money will suddenly appear from nowhere to meet the challenge.

I may have slightly misunderstood what the hon. Member for Lewes meant by the first part of the new clause. I took it that he was proposing a move towards a funded—or invested—police pension scheme rather than the traditional taxpayer pay-as-you-go system that they currently have. If that were the intention, we would be talking about investing £35 billion of public money in capital for a funded scheme. That would require diverting the money from other current expenditure. Despite what is going on in the world stock market and the performance of funded schemes, however much we look over our shoulders or wish that a funded scheme had been set up in the past, to reverse history and start up such a scheme now would involve enormous expense and huge opportunity cost.

We are looking at ways of bringing greater certainty into the system. We considered the proposal of the hon. Member for Lewes, which would allocate to each police authority the pension liabilities that related to an officer's service during the relevant period. Because the accrual rate increases dramatically in the last decade of an officer's career, someone who moves to a different police force after 20 years of service becomes more expensive pension terms than he was in early in his career. There are similar structures in the fire service and other public sector pension schemes.

The hon. Gentleman's approach would add an enormous layer of bureaucracy and calculation to the system. There would be a need to track an individual's career possibly across two, three or four police forces, and calculate the pension liabilities that accrued from that period of service. The costs that would fall on the system to track such details would be prohibitive, compared with the gains or sense of fairness that might be achieved.

The hon. Member for Tatton drew attention to a related point about police officers at the end of their 30 years' service. He was right that the present system provides an incentive to retire—in particular, to retire and enter alternative employment, such as the private security industry or wholly unrelated work. The Bill, which I am confident will complete its passage through both Houses, provides a range of civilians with some police powers, especially investigating officers. That will open up an option for a police officer who may have done his full 30 years, but did not want to carry out the full duties of a constable. He could be re-employed by the police service and have the limited police powers of an investigating officer or some other function. I do not want to underplay the extent that that may come into force in the future.

Part of the PNB package—albeit one that is subject to Treasury agreement—was to pilot various ways in which officers could take some of their pension benefits but continue to work for a police force beyond 30 years. That would avoid the perverse incentive that exists at present, which is to take a full pension package and work anywhere but in the police service, because that would be seen as the least financially advantageous option. That is part of the PNB agreement, but it is currently subject to discussion with the Treasury.

I hope that I have responded to most of the issues that have been raised. We acknowledge the pressures on some police authorities. We want to find ways of dealing with them and other pension matters. However, it would not be right to encourage the idea that enormous new flows of money will come into the system from outside.

As for the question from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, we have no particular plans to consult the all-party group on insurance or financial services, although I was formerly an active member alongside the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). However, we would be delighted to receive any proposals that members of all-party groups or their advisors wanted to send us.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I thank the Minister for his considered response. He explained his doubts about the new clause as drafted, which is perfectly fair. With respect, however, I have not heard much by way of alternative, other than confirmation that he recognises the problem. I had hoped to hear about his route map for dealing with the problem, if not by the means that we set out in the new clause.

I do not accept that subsection (2)(b) of the new clause would involve what the Minister referred to as an enormous layer of bureaucracy, but there are other ways of achieving the same end. For example, it would

be possible for police grants to be increased or decreased for particular authorities depending on how far adrift they were from the average percentage of their expenditure paid on pensions. That would be one option. Alternatively, it could operate in the same way as business rates—an amount is collected and then redistributed on a per capita basis. There are other methods that the Minister could examine.

Clearly, the present system is running way ahead of inflation and is therefore affecting front-line policing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said. It is also significantly disadvantaging police authorities. Turning to Sussex, the area that I know best, Sussex police authority spends 16 per cent. of its annual budget—about £30 million a year—on pensions. I have calculated that, if Sussex paid the national average for pensions—which nobody has denied is increasing—it would save £4 million a year. It is paying an extra £4 million because of officers who have transferred down to the coast. That is a penalty that people in my part of the country should not be paying—I do not see why we should.

Before very long, if not this afternoon, the Government must provide a means by which more money is found, although it would not have to be the whole lot. I did not intend that the Government should suddenly find £35 billion or whatever figure the Minister mentioned, and I apologise if the new clause is badly worded and the Minister misunderstood. I imagine that the money could be found by redirecting the police authority grant or by reclaiming money from police authorities. That is what I had in mind in subsection (2)(a) of the new clause. He needs to find a way of dealing with the injustice faced by authorities such as Sussex and with the overall increase.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I do not want to prolong the issue, but it is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. First, in terms of swings and roundabouts, if Sussex were £4 million worse off compared with the average, somebody somewhere is £4 million better off. I do not see them coming forward in a rush volunteering to cut their services by £4 million, so we have a real problem.

Secondly, once one begins to unpick the costs of an officer, it does not stop at pensions. Unofficially, I have heard people in London say that the Metropolitan police trains officers for police forces across England and Wales. They question why the Met cannot reclaim the cost of training officers who work in the Met for five years and then go and work for 25 years somewhere else. I caution the hon. Gentleman about the idea that it would be simple to go down the road of working out the real costs of employing a police officer. Many others would like to leap into that debate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I agree with the Minister that it is not simple. There are no simple solutions. I have tried to raise issues and suggest a way forward, and the Minister has rightly replied. The idea of taking from one and giving to another is not unusual for the Government, however, it has applied to council

funding throughout the past 10 or 20 years, on which there has been transitional rate relief—when the Government decided to re-allocate the local government funding formula, for example. It is an established practice.

I do not wish to prolong the debate. I have raised the issues that I think are important. In conclusion, I tell the Minister that doing nothing is not an option, even though doing something might be difficult and could throw up problems. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Special constables

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this we may discuss the following: New clause 7—Bounty payments to special constables—

'.—(1) Special constables appointed by a chief officer of a police force in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996 shall receive an annual cash bounty based on the number of hours operationally deployed as a special constable.

(2) Police authorities shall be responsible for the arrangements for making bounty payments to special constables.

(3) Payments to special constables shall be calculated and made by the police authority which is responsible for the special constable.

(4) Payment shall be at the end of the each financial year.'.

New clause 21—Special constables (No. 2)—

'(1) The chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area shall take all reasonable steps to appoint special constables in accordance with section 27 of the 1996 Act (special constables) in the proportion of one special police officer for each four regular police officers serving in that force area.

(2) The chief officer shall submit to the police authority for that area a draft scheme which shall include his proposals for—

(a) the recruitment, appointment and retention of special police officers;

(b) the arrangements for the provision of training for special police officers, such arrangements being in accordance with the requirements of any code of practice issued under subsection (6);

(c) the arrangements for the provision of equipment for special police officers; and

(d) an estimate of the costs to the police fund maintained by that police authority of the scheme as a whole and each of the elements set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) above and the cost of remuneration of special police officers provided for in subsection (5) below.

(3) Before approving any such scheme the police authority may, after consulting the chief officer, revise or amend it.

(4) The chief officer may from time to time submit draft proposals for a revised or modified scheme to the police authority for its approval.

(5) After consultation with the Police Negotiating Board, the Secretary of State shall determine an amount of remuneration to be paid to special police officers and other conditions of service, provided that a special police officer may elect to serve without being remunerated.

(6) After consultation with the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales and such other persons as he thinks fit, the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice specifying national standards for the training of special police officers and the competences which they are to acquire.'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Special constables have been the great unspoken in our debates. The Government have identified a need to get more people in uniform on the beat and onto our streets to help generally with the fight against crime. Under the Bill, they have chosen to do so by introducing CSOs and accredited community safety officers. They have also set a figure for an increased number of police officers across the country and, of course, we support that. However, unless I have missed something of dramatic importance, the Government do not have a strategy for increasing—or even stabilising—the number of special constables.

The beauty of special constables is that they are properly trained, genuine, 100 per cent. police officers. To the public, they seem no different to an ordinary police officer; indeed, they are no different, as they have the same powers. We have every confidence in special constables and the work that they do. They are well respected by the community for voluntarily giving their time to help tackle crime in that key way. I am surprised that, given the Government's intention to get more police and people in uniform on the beat, they have not addressed how to increase, or even arrest the rapid decline in the numbers of special constables.

A parliamentary answer that I received—at least, I think that it was me who received it; if not, I apologise to the hon. Member who did—stated that in 1971, there were 29,992 special constables. By 1981, the figure had halved to 14,604. There was an increase in the next 10 years, and by December 1991 there were 18,072. By March 1997, two months before the Government came into power, the figure had crept up marginally to 19,874. Since then, there has been quite a dramatic fall. In September 2001, there were 12,068 special constables. That is a drop of more than 7,000, and the fewest that there have ever been.

I do not understand why there has been such a drop in numbers of special constables in the past four years;

perhaps the Minister can tell me. Perhaps they feel devalued, or think that there are insurance issues or that they are not being supported in other ways. That drop means that there are 7,000 fewer properly trained people in uniform out on the streets. That is a serious issue. In my area of Sussex, the figure has dropped from 465 special constables in 1997 to 301. That is a significant change.

We need to address that, both under the Bill and as part of the Government's general strategy. We must ensure that special constables are and consider themselves properly valued, and we should have a method of increasing their numbers. Whatever the arguments about CSOs and others, I am sure that if police forces across the country could get hold of lots of special constables to help them, it would take the pressure off the need for the entirely new system of CSOs and ACSOs that the Government want to bring in.

Special constables are one part of the police family the Minister talks about that appear to have been neglected, for reasons that are not entirely clear. New clause 6 would require each authority and force to develop a clear strategy for the employment and deployment of special constables, including how they are equipped and trained.

New clause 7 provides for bounty payments to be made to special constables. I do not pretend that special constables could, or should, make a living out of those because they have other duties and occupations during the week. However, such payments would be a recognition of the value that the police, the public and Members of Parliament—if we accepted the new clause—place on special constables. It would also make a difference for those on the edge who wish to contribute by being special constables but who cannot afford to do so owing to the time that they have available. Consequently, our special constable numbers might be increased. Most importantly, recognition of the valuable work done by special constables would assist recruitment.

Returning to new clause 6, it is important to have a system through which police authorities and forces have a coherent strategy for the use and deployment of specials. Such people should not wander in off the streets to be told, ''Thanks very much for turning up. What can you do tonight?'' They should be part of the integral strategy of how the police cover an area. That is not the case at present. If the system of specials is to be more structured, the other side of the coin is that there must be recognition of the inconvenience to which specials might be put by guaranteeing that they will turn up on a specific occasion.

I do not believe that the proposals would represent a new financial burden for the police, in case the Minister wishes to deploy that as an argument against them. Indeed, if we managed to attract many more special constables, we might make a saving because it would obviate the need to employ extra CSOs. We could save on public expenditure. Has the Minister considered that point?

I hope that the Minister will examine new clauses 6 and 7 carefully. If he does not like them, I hope that he

will not simply point out their deficiencies, but present his strategy for ensuring that the number of specials increases and that they are properly valued by this House and people elsewhere.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Member for Lewes said, new clause 21 has been tabled by Conservative Members and follows the theme of the new clause that he moved.

The office of special constable in this country is extremely old. It can be dated back to 1285 and the statute of Winchester, which brought justices of the peace and the unpaid office of constable into existence. Soon after the formation of what became the regular police force in 1831, the Special Constables Act 1831 was passed, so there is a long-established tradition. Admittedly, special constables were brought under individual force operations only more recently, but they had been present in substantial numbers until the past decade. I shall not rehearse all the figures that the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, but over the past five years, the number of special constables has dropped by 7,500 to 12,000, or by more than a third since the Government took office.

I make a comparison with the Territorial Army. I do not suggest for a moment that the organisations are equivalent, although there are similarities. Some 40,000 people are members of the Territorial Army at present, so there is a significant distinction between the numbers of people involved in two voluntary activities within the world of security and peacekeeping.

We can all speculate about why the fall in numbers has occurred, although that is probably not a constructive exercise. I suspect that reasons include lifestyle and the way in which specials have been deployed. Many specials have told me that they get fed up with being called in only on bank holidays or for football matches because they want to do something a bit more serious. Some forces have shown a tendency not to use specials as serious police officers. Whatever the reasons for the decline, it has happened, and there is a need to tackle the problem.

My concern is, perhaps, slightly more sinister than that of the hon. Member for Lewes. I get the feeling from the Government that by developing CSOs and ACSOs we can forget about special constables. That is completely the wrong way round. Special constables are much more important and should have been involved in the Government's plans to increase the police family. That was the message that my noble Friends initially advanced in the other place. I do not necessarily have in mind purely the traditional use of special constables. We need to do some radical thinking about them in a context that is perhaps more akin to the Territorials, the retained fire service, or various other possibilities. It would have been far better to go down that avenue than to establish other forms of uniformed people with much lesser powers, the subject of which has caused sore debate several times in Committee.

In the White Paper on which virtually the entire Bill is predicated, ''Policing a new century: a blueprint for reform'', paragraph 4.32 on page 71 states:

''Following on from the recommendations in the Home Office funded research in 2000, these''—

the options that the Government are considering—

''are focusing on improvements in the management and deployment of Specials. We are also exploring the case for paying an allowance to recognise levels of commitment.''

That is fine. It is a pretty bland statement, and we could all agree with it. However, that is many months ago. We have the Bill—we have nearly had the Bill—and still we are no further forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and I tabled the amendment because we want to urge the Government to do something and to tell us what they plan to do to revitalise specials.

Committee members may have noticed that new clause 21 is almost identical to a provision proposed by the Police Federation, which I assume was sent to all Committee members. It is not identical. I substituted the word ''auxiliaries'' with ''special constables'' in our version, as I am not convinced that the word ''auxiliaries'' is the right one or even that it necessarily has a particular meaning that should be included in legislation. However, the idea of an extra force is essential. There are a couple of minor points, or criteria, at the end of the Police Federation's proposal that we have not included in ours. Nevertheless, it is substantially the same.

A major aspect of new clause 21 is subsection (5), which states that the Secretary of State should, after consultation with the police negotiating board, determine an amount of remuneration, which can take any form. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the issue of a bounty. I understand that a working group report in 1996 found that there is legal discretion to pay a bounty to specials but it is effectively in abeyance.

I am not 100 per cent. certain that I know exactly what a bounty is. That may simply be due to my ignorance. Please do not say, ''Hear, hear.'' [Interruption.] Yes, it is slightly bigger than a Twix and smaller than a Mars bar, I think. It also conjures up visions of the wild west and people hunting renegades.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The concept is entirely that of the Territorial Army. Territorial soldiers receive a bounty that is paid every year and relates to the efficiency of their performance. It is borrowed from that. That motivates the poor and severely slashed Territorial Army to even greater efficiency.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but that only serves to underline the confusion, because the bounty system for retained firefighters is totally different. Their system is about long service. That is why I am confused about what we mean when we refer to bounty. In the proposed legislation, we have used the word remuneration, to cover all possible aspects.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to our new clause 7(1). It says that special constables

''shall receive an annual cash bounty based on the number of hours operationally deployed as a special constable.''

Therefore, we are tying that directly to service.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. My comments about bounty were not intended to be a criticism of him, particularly. In my opinion, if what someone is being paid is based on the number of hours that they serve, that is called pay. I do not see why that should be called bounty. It is straightforward payment, as far as I am concerned—a wage or a salary.

Colin Challen (Labour, Morley and Rothwell)

Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that that remuneration would be above the national minimum wage?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It all depends. It might not even be related to that. I am not addressing the issue of an hourly rate that is paid. I am simply saying that we need to thrash out a system of remuneration. If that is based on hours served, I presume that, legally, it must be above the minimum wage. However, it might not be related to the hours that are served. It might be related to the number of occasions when people go on duty, or it might be simply a flat retainer—a per annum retainer that is not related to how many hours have been served. There are so many possible permutations that the hon. Gentleman's point is fairly peripheral—and the minimum wage legislation is in place, in any case.

I want to get across that we need to address the whole issue of remuneration, so that we can revitalise the special constabulary, alongside the CSOs and ACSOs, and so that it can regain its former numbers. It is unreasonable to expect that simply spending money on a recruitment exercise will redress the dramatic drop in numbers that has occurred over the past few years—although the Government have spent a lot on local and national recruitment campaigns, and I am not descrying that. We need to be more radical in our thinking about the special constabulary. That is why we have tabled this amendment.

The Government have consistently referred to the importance of the specials. That is referred to in the White Paper, and the Secretary of State, this Minister and other Ministers have all referred to it on the Floor of the House. They have said, ''We want as many specials as possible, and we are going to increase numbers,'' and so forth, but little is happening.

During the passage of this Bill, the Minister has claimed on several occasions that we need to do something now, because there will not be any legislative time available to take action on it in the future. Therefore, everything that the Minister is considering—the proposals that are in the White Paper that I have referred to, and the suggestions that I and the hon. Member for Lewes have put forward—must come to fruition. I do not know whether primary legislation will be required, but I am worried about the Minister's claim that things must come to fruition in this Bill or in regulations. If

primary legislation is needed to revitalise the special constabulary, it might take a considerable time before there is a vehicle that the Minister can use to do that.

I hope that the Minister can satisfy my considerable concerns. If he cannot do that, the Committee must think carefully about whether this Bill should include something to create the drive that will increase numbers in the special constabulary.

Colin Challen (Labour, Morley and Rothwell)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again just before his concluding remarks. On the issue of numbers, his new clause refers to one special for each four constables, which by March of next year would lead to 32,500 specials. Is that realistic, and is it not rather prescriptive for chief constables to be expected to reach that level? Is it not just setting them up to fail?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the hon. Member for Lewes said, 30 years ago there were 29,500 specials, so we have almost been there. The purpose of including a figure is not only because it is the Police Federation's proposal, but to provide a target. Should somebody come forward with an alternative, I would be happy to consider it, but it is essential to have a target. Bearing in mind that we have almost been there in the past, it is not unachievable. There are 40,000 Territorial Army soldiers, so such things are achievable. The most important thing is that the Government's mind is concentrated on dealing with the issue.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I very much agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. When everyone is calling for more police on the streets, greater visibility in policing and the gap between the police and the community to be reduced, it is strange that the Government have not initiated a serious debate on how we increase the number of specials.

The figures given by the hon. Member for Lewes are striking. The long-term decline in the number of specials has sharply accelerated in the past five years and, by my reckoning, is down by more than a third since 1997. I have heard no good reason for that dramatic fall. It may be due to a change in the pattern of people's behaviour—in the changing way in which people take part in voluntary activity and so forth. If so, that is all the more reason to consider some form of payment—if that is what it takes to recruit specials.

Specials have many advantages over the CSOs that we have spent hours debating in this Committee. Although the Government's aspiration for revitalising or increasing the number of specials is mentioned in the White Paper, it is clear that nothing like the amount of time, imagination and energy has gone into that idea that has gone into creating CSOs.

I remind the Committee that, unlike CSOs, specials have all the police powers, so there is no need for the endless debate that we had about what type of powers to give them. They wear the same uniform as police, have similar training and are subject to the same complaints and disciplinary procedures. They are publicly accountable. They fit into the day-to-day work of the police in the best police forces, although I accept that some forces are not so good at using them.

John MacDougall (Labour, Central Fife)

The suggestion is that the loss of special constables has happened overnight and is not regressive. That is mistaken. The loss of special constables has not taken place in the past four or five years. The proposals do not stop chief constables from employing staff in whatever way they think best. Does the hon. Gentleman think that chief constables would not make that judgment?

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I am guessing, but there are a couple of reasons for the sharp decline in the number of specials. The first is the changing way in which people do voluntary work. All voluntary organisations, such as churches, charities and, dare I say, political parties, find it increasingly difficult to attract volunteers—although some parties may find it more difficult than others. Secondly, policing appears to have become more difficult in recent years—there is more bureaucracy and it is more litigious, and so forth. People are put off going onto the street as volunteers.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would be interested in hearing the Minister's response. Would he agree that a factor may also be the increase in recruitment? Specials have traditionally been seen as an avenue into the police and the 250 extra policemen in the South Wales force may well have come from the specials.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

That is probably unlikely. First, for most of the past five years there has been a fall in the number of police, although the number has gone up now. The number of regular police officers, and specials, has been falling. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to hear the Minister, not least because his new clause is next. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) that chief constables can already come up with forms of payment, but as the Bill is all about central prescription, I am asking the Home Office if there is a national drive behind the national plans, three-year strategies and so on, which might make it work? I am extremely attracted to the idea of an auxiliary force of the size mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)—I take note of his comments on the term ''auxiliary''—of 25 per cent. of the regular force, which would do a tremendous amount to increase public confidence in the police service. It would address our constituents' fears about the visibility of policing on the street, bobbies on the beat, and so on. There is a complete lack of imagination or thinking from the Government about how to use the specials, in contrast to the imagination and thinking that has gone into creating the CSOs.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am glad to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. One or two sensible points were also made by Opposition Members.

I have spent some time with constables, as have other hon. Members, and the reasons numbers have been dropping are manifold and varied. First, the regular force recruits from the special force. I have no difficulty with that as it is extremely helpful and sensible, but the problem comes in topping up the loss of those who go on to serve with the regular force.

Secondly, as the hon. Member for Tatton said, specials' duties are becoming mundane. With the regular force increasingly under pressure, there is a tendency, even among the most enlightened regular officers, to try to use the specials to do the less attractive, more tedious tasks.

Thirdly, on the other side of the coin, every member of the Committee knows that the problem of police numbers is aired at town council, parish council, district council and other meetings. In my constituency, which is more rural than many, every audience that I address, or that addresses me, brings that point up, to which I say, ''How many of you will volunteer to be special constables?'' Not a single hand goes up. I ask, ''How many of you are retained firemen?'' A few hands go up. When I ask, ''How many of you are Territorial Army soldiers?'' even fewer hands go up. The simple reason is that there is no remuneration to offset the difficulties of being a special constable. It is as blunt as that. The cons outweigh the pros of the service.

The regular force regards its special constables very highly. It uses them thoroughly proficiently, for front-line duties, and it likes having specials around. Before I go any further, I beg the Government not, on any account, to use the word ''auxiliary'', whatever happens to the proposal. The Northern Ireland police force would recoil very hard indeed should that term come anywhere near them and I ask the Government to think carefully about it. [Hon. Members: ''A B-special''.] Or even a Black and Tan.

The main point is that the regular policeman is entirely happy with the special constables; he understands them and he knows and understands the parameters within which they work. He understands their training, their uniform, their badges and their powers. To the regular officer, the special constable is a completely understood creature. Minds are not closed to CSOs or ACSOs, certainly not in the constabulary of Nottinghamshire, but special constables already exist and are thoroughly accepted. I beg the Minister to think carefully about their future use. I sincerely applaud the efforts that have already been made to recruit them, but I echo comments from all hon. Members about the energy and thought that need to be given to producing extra measures to provide more special constables. If we can afford a Territorial Army and a retained fire service, surely we can afford a special constabulary, even at the expense of CSOs or ACSOs.

I would encourage the Minister to avoid the moribund thinking that goes into recruiting for the armed services, which has turned it into such a difficult problem to solve. With a little thought, energy and redirection of funds, this problem can be solved much more clearly, quickly and effectively than by increasing the numbers of CSOs or ACSOs.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall reply as briefly as I can, as I am aware that my hon. Friends have been waiting for six weeks for the opportunity to speak in the last few minutes. This is a crucial debate. We will not ask the Committee to accept the motion and the new clause.

However, I will set out what we are doing about recruiting specials, and how we will take the spirit of the new clause to ensure that every police authority is required to address the local strategy for the recruitment and retention of specials. There is no contradiction between having CSOs and specials, and it is right to say that we must invest considerable energy into reversing the decline in the special constabulary and into expanding it, as we will in other areas of police reform.

As hon. Members have rightly said, there are many reasons for the decline in police numbers. Undoubtedly, specials have been heavily recruited into the regular force, especially in the past two years, not least because over the long period when police numbers were declining, people who were keen on becoming police officers were often directed into the specials to get some experience. None the less, we need to improve the recruitment, management, deployment and welfare of specials. In recent weeks, we set out a new headline role for specials that emphasises their role in intelligence-led patrolling and crime-reduction initiatives. Last week, I had the privilege of presenting the Ferrers trophy. I was interested to see how many of the specials who were nominated had been enormously effective in dealing with youth nuisance problems in local communities. I am pleased by what the hon. Member for Newark said and how he promotes that initiative locally. We need to develop it as part of the community solution to such problems.

Last month, we issued a new foundation training package for specials, and are working on revised conditions of service regulations. A crucial area is liaison with employers, on which I agree that we have only just started work. As an employer, there can be little better than using the public purse to train an employee in the skills of a special constable. They will exercise those skills in their own time, but will inevitably bring them to work. We have completely undersold that aspect.

Last week, we briefly discussed the Connex initiative in supporting specials, and we need to explore more such initiatives. If an employee is in the Territorial Army, the employer will be invited to award ceremonies, given certificates to hang on the boardroom wall, or perhaps be invited to drive a tank round Salisbury plain. If an employee is a special constable, no one takes any notice of the employer. We need to address the question of employer support with the CBI and other organisations.

We also want to get more drive into those parts of the police service that are already keen to expand the use of specials. We have provided money to work with 10 police forces who want to champion the reversal of the trend in specials and to determine the best practice. We have also provided money for people to employ co-ordinators for their local work. I am delighted that ACC Peter Fahy from Surrey police has agreed to be the person with whom I will work closely. He will liaise between the Home Office and those police forces. We hope that that will demonstrate on the ground what can be done to increase the number of specials.

There has been quite a bit of debate about payment. We are in no doubt that the specials should remain

essentially a voluntary force. There is a debate about whether some payment or bounty should be made available. There are regulations that would enable police authorities to do that at the moment. Later this year my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary will publish a joint discussion paper on fiscal and other changes that can be made to promote community service, including service as a special constable.

Hon. Members will understand that at present many of the types of payment that could be made could fall foul of tax and other regimes, which would make them unattractive. I recently had discussions with a senior Member of the House whose local town and parish councils wish to support the specials. We are in discussions about whether local schemes could be piloted, whether through individual remuneration or the provision of equipment such as a car to be used by the specials on their duties. We want to explore many things as part of working with the 10 forces that we want to champion for recruitment.

How do we get police authorities and forces to look at this on a regular basis? The best way would be to have a strong statement about specials in the national policing plan, which, in line with our earlier discussion, would require local policing plans to set out that they intend to address the matter at local level. It would achieve much of the spirit, if not the letter, of the new clauses. I will not go into detail about what is wrong with them, but they could lead to a fragmentation of approaches to the use of specials across different police forces and we need a consistent national drive. I hope that I have replied to the new clauses in the spirit in which they were moved. We must get behind the expansion of specials. We must not let it drop off the police reform agenda. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that I take the matter very seriously.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister's comments are reassuring. It is the first time that we have heard unequivocally from a Minister of the Government's full support for specials, which some of us were beginning to doubt. I do not say that in a churlish way. I tabled the new clause to test the Minister's opinion and he has given satisfactory answers. He did not quite say that he thought it was okay but that the Committee should not vote for it, although at the end he chucked in one or two reasons why the Committee should not vote for it. It is the fate of Opposition Members to table amendments with which the Government agree but which they advise their hon. Friends to reject. That is the way of life. The Minister has put on the record his strong support for specials and the steps he intends to take. It seems a good way to proceed. It would be churlish to try to push this matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14 - Recovery of the cost of policing

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

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

I cannot believe that it is six weeks since we tabled the new clause. This is the first time that I have moved an amendment from the Government Back Benches, so it is particularly exciting. It will be even more exciting if the Minister agrees to accept it. [Interruption.] Well, he may do so for old times' sake.

First, I am a football fan. I have a share in a season ticket to Glasgow Celtic. This is not an anti-football amendment. It is not just about football, but about a number of commercial activities that cost the police resources. The issue was raised with the Home Affairs Committee by the Met, although it also gave examples of other police forces having similar problems. The Met recovers about £300 for policing what it calls a low-level Chelsea game—I make no comment about the standard of games at Stamford bridge—but the cost of such a game can be up to £28,000. Clearly, the difference is paid for by the community at large. At present, police forces can only recover costs for policing within the grounds. In fairness to the premier league and others, the fact that they have increased the standard of stewardship within the grounds means that there is less policing within the grounds. In fact, some grounds can be police free or have a low level of policing. However, a great deal of policing still happens outside football grounds, in nightclubs and at other big venues where many people gather.

Premier clubs that are opposed to the principle of the new clause would argue that they already pay their precept. That precept covers everyday policing. I have consulted the Metropolitan police on the matter. If there were no football ground in a particular part of a borough or a town, there would be no need for extra policing on a Saturday. In London, about 500 police officers are deployed to cover football grounds on a Saturday afternoon and those police officers could be in the local high street or elsewhere dealing with criminal activities.

I know that the Minister is beginning to deal with the problem, but I hope that the new clause is—in the words of the hon. Member for Lewes—another wake-up call and that the police can have back some of the costs that they are having to take on board when dealing with such events. The Home Affairs Committee asked for the circular 34/2000 to be reviewed. It was put to me by officers from the premier league that the National Audit Commission looked at the matter 10 years ago and that some of the issues that it raised then need to be reviewed, too.

Football clubs would argue that they already invest more than £1 billion in making their grounds safer.

Much as we welcome that, it should not be set against the cost of policing. Football clubs should be increasing safety at their grounds; they should be improving them. In the past, I have visited grounds that have horrible facilities. I give them credit for improving the grounds, but let us not say that that is where they should stop. Football clubs would also say that they put a great deal of money into local communities to help social inclusion projects.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Would the new clause cover the cost of policing trains in which fans travel to and from football matches? I have often travelled on the west coast main line in trains that are full of Manchester United supporters. It is not a great experience.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

The hon. Gentleman made a good point. Deciding where policing begins and where it ends is complicated. We would not want to put all the costs on Old Trafford of sending Manchester United fans to Manchester although I can see that there would be some benefit in doing that—[Laughter.]—given the few Manchester United fans who live in Manchester.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

What about Celtic fans living in Lewisham?

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

Actually, there are quite a few. There are probably more Celtic fans living in Lewisham than Manchester United fans living in Manchester.

The clubs would say that they contribute to the local community through the after-school clubs, football schemes and so on. That is excellent. They have put some £50 million a year into such schemes. However, that is £2.5 million for each of the 20 premier league clubs, which is not enough to buy a half-decent fullback. Although we are grateful for the fact that they are being more community-responsible, that, in itself, is not enough.

Finally, I should like to make two points. First, what I have said should apply to not just football, but to other major commercial events. There is an inconsistency in charging, and that could be rectified if the Home Secretary ordered a report. Secondly, I agree with what the premier league says; the measures must be fair, proportional and accountable. Matters have not changed since the Taylor report on Hillsborough, and it is time that we changed them.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am always interested to hear contributions from Labour Members, both in Committee and elsewhere, particularly when they are unauthorised, as this one may well have been. We will find out. If the Minister, who has found reasons to reject every new clause and amendment tabled by Opposition Members in the debate, accepts the only Labour new clause, he will not be a popular man—[Interruption.] He will at least be a partisan man, so he might be popular in some quarters.

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), I do not think that the measures will work. It is dangerous to go down the road of saying that someone who undertakes an illegal activity should be charged for it. That is what the new clause says. It is like Yarl's Wood in reverse; although I am keen not to have the police authority landed with

the bill, I am equally keen that we should not land external people with bills. What about the cost of policing for those who legitimately hold a demonstration? Are they to be charged for that? If a demonstration is controversial and more police are required, will the price go up?

What about those who export animals through ports? I am totally against live exports, but I respect the right of people to carry on their activities legitimately. The cost of policing those activities is enormous. Should those who legitimately export animals be charged? What about those who legitimately wanted to hold miners strikes? Should they have been charged for the police that were necessary? I do not think so. It is dangerous to say that people should be charged.

On proposed new subsection (1)(b), if those who run public houses and nightclubs do so responsibly, as I am sure most do, they cannot be held responsible for what happens when people leave their premises and go out on a public highway. The provision would be very unfair on nightclubs and public houses. I am sorry to put a dampener on the hon. Lady's proposals. It would have been nice to agree with her, especially as there are only 10 minutes to go before we pack up. Also, if my pensions proposal was a bureaucratic nightmare, to use the Minister's phrase, the provision is even more so.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am happy to support the new clause. I have only a couple of minutes, so I shall be brief.

I have a story about a policeman in Gilfach Goch, which is in one of my valleys. It is a remote community that has suffered over the years from the withdrawal of a visible police presence. We were pleased to see the return of a community bobby there. He was welcome in the community, but two days out of five he would disappear, as if abducted from the streets. When I met him, I said how well he had been received in the community, and asked him the reasons for his disappearance. He gave one simple reason. He was being diverted from his normal duties to the policing of major events in the Millennium stadium in Cardiff and elsewhere. Such events include not only premier football matches, but pop concerts, the rugby world cup and so on.

I pay tribute to the Millennium stadium and other stadiums; they are a fantastic growth area in the tourism and events industry. However, there is the question of how much we should disaggregate their costs. Should there be normal policing costs, or should the South Wales police be expected to subsidise such events? I pay tribute to the Home Office, which has stepped in this year and recognised the problem in our valley communities by giving additional funds, although that is a one off as far as I know. Day by day and week by week, we are losing community bobby visibility throughout south Wales because of these events.

I am not a great football supporter, but I am a big fan of rock music. I support the Manic Street Preachers, the Super Furry Animals and other excellent bands that have come out of the valleys of

Wales. However, to what extent should we lose police presence at the top end of the valleys for the benefit of people who travel to an event and have a very enjoyable time?

Mention has been made of red herrings such as the miners strike. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewes was making. However, the issue of whether a union can be charged for policing was dealt with in the middle of the 19th century after the Taff Vale incident. We are trying to go beyond the precept and identify when events make a profit. Let us again consider the Millennium stadium. The stadium does not make profit at the moment. It hosts fantastic events and does wonders in boosting Wales' image. However, events that visit the stadium and make a profit should be able to contribute toward additional policing costs.

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

Would the hon. Gentleman care to extend his comments to political party conferences? I understand that whatever party is in government makes a profit on its conference. The cost of policing is enormous. Although my local authority is welcoming to all parties that visit, we really suffer as a result. The answer is to have central funding to support democracy at party conferences—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. The hon. Lady is making a long intervention. I do not think that party conferences are covered by the new clause.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I suspect that that was another red herring.

The Minister will be able to respond and tell me whether the six-week wait that I have enjoyed in Committee has been worth it. The new clause is tiny. It would seem like nothing in the Bill, but its impact on the streets of our communities would be massive.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Members for Lewisham, East and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) might have waited six weeks to move their new clause, but I have certainly been waiting six weeks to comment on it. I shall not have much time because it is important to hear the Minister's response.

I received a detailed briefing from my friends at the FA premier league, but I also have a constituency interest. We are talking about charging for the cost of policing outside events. Outside events have affected my constituency. I know that you, Mr. Stevenson, will rule me out of order if I mention this in more than one sentence, but Surrey police suffered hugely from the additional cost imposed on them by the previous Home Secretary's decision to keep Senator Pinochet under house arrest. We did not receive money back for that.

I return to the new clause. I shall not have chance to read all the sensible points that my friends at the FA premier league sent to me. They are my friends because I have worked very closely with Philip French in my capacity as a deputy chairman of the all-party sport and leisure group. In the past, I have been involved with the Minister in various sporting matters in the House.

I think that the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman were unwise to include the words

''including Premier League football games''

in the new clause. I know that the point was raised in the Select Committee, and I read the exchanges between the hon. Lady and other hon. Members with the senior leadership of the Met. The hon. Lady provoked the FA premier league into feeling singled out. We recognise that much of the crowd trouble that has been experienced over recent seasons has not been at premier league games, although I know that the new clause refers to other sporting events.

Let us consider the costs of policing. During the Wigan against Queens Park Rangers match on 26 February, the cost of the police within only the ground amounted to more than half the revenue raised through gate receipts. The hon. Lady did not mention something that the Select Committee concluded after the issue was raised. It said:

''We are conscious that the ability of clubs to pay for additional policing costs may well be unrelated to the differing demands their matches put on policing in the vicinity. Such recovery of costs might bankrupt smaller clubs.''

That is an important reason why, in the interests of sport, I hope that the Government will not accept this new clause.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I regret to inform my hon. Friends that we will not accept the new clause—although we acknowledge the importance of the issue—primarily because, in principle, a matter such as this, which involves discussion with many different organisations, should not be curtailed by a particular timetable.

We are concerned about the costs incurred in policing entertainment venues that are open late at night, for example, or major sporting and outdoor entertainment events. In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes, I say that where someone is conducting a business activity that is creating additional policing costs, in principle, it is reasonable to seek some contribution towards them. The key question is how should that be done?

As I acknowledged to the Home Affairs Committee, concerns have been raised that the police service is unable to recover a fair proportion of the costs that arise from football matches. There are occasions when it is clear to any sensible person that incidents that take place outside football grounds are an integral part of the fact that a football match is being played. That is a significant issue. I do not agree with those who say that the matches and such incidents are not connected.

In our discussions with the football authorities we also acknowledge wider issues. The first of them, which has been referred to, is that the highest costs are not always associated with the clubs that are most able to pay them, which raises the question of how to address that. Secondly, football clubs are not merely businesses; they also play a role in the community—and that might be especially the case with regard to less successful clubs. Measures that would put them out of business would probably not serve anybody's interests. Thirdly, the football authorities claim that it is not always easy to relate the bill that they receive

with the level of policing that has been provided. Therefore, there are a series of issues that we must work through.

We must also work through issues with the entertainment industry. Once again, we have good models of voluntary schemes in several city centres, including Manchester and Sheffield, where late-night venues contribute to the cost of having additional police officers on the street. We would like there to be an extension of such schemes, and more formal arrangements might be explored.

My hon. Friends have raised issues that are important and complex. The Government will not ignore them. We wish to discuss them with the football authorities. I have been working closely on them with the Minister responsible for sport, and the interests of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been acknowledged. I hope that we can find a satisfactory way forward, which enables us not only to deal with the police and cost issues, but to find ways of working with the football authorities so that those clubs that attract a violent following are encouraged to deal with that more effectively. That would reduce costs in the first place, which would be valuable. Football clubs support community cohesion and youth sporting events. If we can continue to support them in their contributions to their communities, that would also be valuable.

However, I must resist the new clause, because it does not offer the right way forward.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

We understand the difference between the premier league and the smaller clubs, which is why the smaller clubs were left out. I accept what the Minister has said. I know that ACPO, the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the FA premier league are involved in discussions. I hope that we will get something that is consistent out of that, because this is a complex area. We do not want clubs to suffer any more than we want local communities to suffer. We hope that we will have a fair and accountable system at the end of the day. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 269, in title, line 5, after 'orders;', insert 'to amend the law relating to sex offender orders;'.—[Mr. Denham.]

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

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, for the way that you have conducted the Committee's proceedings, and Committee members for their contributions. I believe in parliamentary scrutiny, and this Bill is better now than it was when it was first laid before Parliament. The contributions of hon. Members of all parties, both here and in another place, have helped to achieve that.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I wish to associate myself with the Minister's remarks—which surprised me, as he made them, although they should not have done. I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and Miss Widdecombe, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Griffiths, for chairing our sittings, and I thank Committee members. I especially thank

both the Ministers for the way that they have responded to our concerns. We have had differences, and we will continue to do so. We believe that the Bill is better than the original version that was presented to the other place, although, as it emerges from the Committee, there are aspects of it that have been re-inserted that we wish were not in it. That is an issue for another day and another place.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson, and to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Committee's proceedings.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

It is now 5 o'clock. Before I formally bring the proceedings to a close, I thank my co-Chairs, the Clerk, Hansard and all the staff of the House of Commons who have been so diligent in supporting and helping us in our work. Most of all I thank Committee members for their patience and forbearance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at Five o'clock.