Orders of the Day — Police Reform Bill [Lords] — [1st allotted day]

House of Commons, 9 July 2002.

Clause 33 — Removal etc. of senior officers at the instance of the Secretary of State

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 35, line 45, at end insert "a notice in writing".

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The Government have tabled these amendments in response to a point made in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), so I shall deal with them as a group.

Subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State proposes to require a police authority to exercise its power to call upon the chief officer to retire or resign, he must give the chief officer concerned notice of his intention to do so and an explanation of his reasons.

The point raised in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend was that the provisions under new subsection (2A) to section 42 of the Police Act 1996, as inserted by clause 33(2) of the Bill, place a requirement on the Secretary of State to give a copy of the notice to the police authority while not explicitly requiring that the notice include his grounds for acting.

Theoretically, a situation could arise in which the police authority was not notified of the grounds on which the Secretary of State wished to proceed, while the chief officer had received both notice of the Secretary of State's intention and the grounds for acting. That situation would obviously be undesirable, and these amendments will ensure that the notice given to the chief officer includes the Secretary of State's reasons for acting, so when a copy of the notice is sent to the police authority it will be aware of those reasons.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I note that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who raised these issues in Committee, is not present. I am not sure whether she is on the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I welcome the Minister's introduction to the amendments, but I want to press him a little, especially on the question of what is in writing and what is not.

At column 182 of the Committee's deliberations, the Minister clearly said that the Secretary of State would have to give reasons if he wished to remove senior officers. That was during the discussion on what was then clause 29. He later resisted the Opposition's attempts to introduce further rights for inquiries to be held and for the chief officer in question to make personal representations to the Secretary of State, accompanied by a professional adviser, if the Secretary of State intended to use his powers to remove a senior officer or require his resignation or retirement. The Minister also said at that time that he would seek to make regulations under what was then clause 33, now clause 34, which would lay down the procedures to be followed.

Clause 42 of the 1996 Act, as amended by this Bill, gives chief officers the right to make representations in person if they are to be forcibly retired or required to resign. That right to make representations in person does not extend to the new part of section 11 of the 1996 Act, introduced by clause 32(2) of the Bill, which relates to suspension of chief officers.

The Chief Police Officers Staff Association, CPOSA, is extremely concerned that, in effect, suspension from duty is tantamount to a requirement to resign. It is extremely difficult for any chief officer who has been suspended—whatever the outcome of the case—to be reinstated with the credibility necessary to carry out their very important duty, and almost every case of suspension will end in resignation. The association is therefore concerned that the right to make representations in person does not extend to the issue of suspension.

The amendments appear not to extend the inquiry system to suspension, nor do they appear to require the Secretary of State to give notice in writing of where suspension is to take place. They are limited to the specific circumstances in which resignation and retirement are required, but not to the stage of suspension.

That brings me to the draft protocol, which has been sent to CPOSA. The association is now considering the procedures relating to suspension of chief officers. I will not detain the House by going through the protocol, with which the Minister is obviously familiar; at least, I sincerely hope so. [Interruption.] He is laughing, obviously to inform us that he is familiar with it. He will know, therefore, that nowhere does the protocol refer to an inquiry, to the chief officer being given the reasons for their suspension, or to the opportunity for the chief officer to make representations either in writing or in person if they are to be suspended.

My challenge to the Minister concerns the very narrow sense of the amendments. From his opening remarks, I understand the specific reason raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that gave rise to the amendments, but behind that is a much bigger issue. The Government are consulting on a protocol that does nothing whatever to fulfil what at least was the understanding of Committee members: that a number of these issues would be addressed in regulations or in guidance.

I stress again that it is widely believed—Members of this House will accept it—that if a chief officer has been suspended, as with any other profession, it is very difficult ever to regain the credibility that was held before, regardless of the outcome of the case that led to the suspension. Resignation may be the only sensible way forward, regardless of the outcome. That is why I would argue that the opportunity for the chief officer in question to be given reasons why he is to be suspended, the opportunity to make representations in writing and in person, and the opportunity for an inquiry, are important adjuncts to the power that the Secretary of State is taking in the Bill to provide for suspension.

I challenge the Minister, even at this late stage, to respond to the real concerns of chief officers, expressed through CPOSA to me today, that the protocol is wholly inadequate, and if he is not prepared to alter the Bill, at least to amend the protocol.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The amendments seem uncontroversial and improve the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I want to refer to the protocol. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has the advantage of me, in that I have not seen the protocol. It is a pity that it has not been circulated to all members of the Committee. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified what he intends to do to make the protocol available to Members of this House. Even if the protocol is not available in its final form, it would be helpful to have the draft circulated, as that would inform discussion.

That point has particular validity, given that paragraph 49 of the Home Affairs Committee's report states:

"We recommend that the proposed protocol on the operation of the powers to remove senior officers be published before the Bill reaches report stage."

Paragraph 43 of the Government's response states:

"As these discussions are ongoing it will not, in the event, be possible to publish a protocol in advance of Report Stage, but we will do so as soon as possible thereafter."

Will the Minister please circulate the draft protocol that he has put out for consultation, or make it available by putting a copy in the Library? In addition, what is the time scale for reaching agreement on the protocol? I hope that such agreement will be reached before the Lords consider any further matters relating to the Bill.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I rise to support some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). My hon. Friend is right to say that, under the Bill as drafted, the power to suspend does not require the giving of reasons. Furthermore, the power to suspend in no way triggers an inquiry, which will probably do a grave injustice to the senior officers concerned. My hon. Friend made the sensible point that once a police officer has been suspended, it is extraordinarily difficult to recover their credibility. It is very difficult for them to obtain employment, whether in another force or with an alternative employer. In the absence of the giving of reasons, it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to challenge the justification for the suspension. I ask the Minister to explain why provision is not made for the giving of written reasons, or for the holding of an inquiry.

Suspension, by definition, is not a final state. What provision will be made for finally determining whether a chief officer is to remain in the force? So far as I can tell, the Bill provides no such procedure. There is no obvious procedure through which a police authority can ask that a chief officer be no longer suspended; nor does the Bill provide for the officer concerned to submit that the suspension be done away with. We have a state of limbo that is entirely dependent on the Home Secretary's discretion. I am always against giving Home Secretaries such discretion, regardless of their political complexion.

I ask myself another question. Under clause 33, the Secretary of State can choose between suspending, requiring retirement or requiring resignation. What obligation is there on the Secretary of State to consult a police authority in advance on which of those alternatives might be desirable? The answer is: none at all. As far as I can see, the views of the police authority are not necessarily to be sought; it is for the Secretary of State to determine which of the three options is the most attractive. I am against giving Secretaries of State—particularly the Secretary of State in question—such power. Why is provision not made for pre-action consultation between the Secretary of State and the police authority concerned?

It is clear that there are financial distinctions to be drawn between the consequences of retirement and of resignation. When somebody retires, they normally trigger pension entitlements. As we well know, such entitlements constitute a substantial burden on police authorities; however, the same is not necessarily true in respect of resignation. What consultation will take place between the Secretary of State and police authorities about the preferred route? Nothing in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to undertake such consultation.

The criteria in question are "efficiency or effectiveness". I realise that that phrase appears in the Police Act 1996—legislation for which the Government of whom I was a member were responsible. However, the question of what is efficient or effective is as long as the Home Secretary's foot; in other words, the power is completely discretionary. We are reinforcing a provision in the 1996 Act that enables the Secretary of State to get rid of a police officer on the subjective judgment that they are not effective or efficient. I am very sceptical about giving any Home Secretary—particularly the present one—that power, and I hope that the House shares my inhibition.

I am personally in favour of fixed-term contracts for senior police officers, which would mean little need for these provisions. The re-engagement of chief police officers would be considered on a rolling basis every three to five years. The disadvantages of that policy are not so great as to displace the advantages.

I am very cautious about these amendments. They would give the Executive yet more discretionary power—and I do not value the discretion of the present Home Secretary—in the important policy area of the police service.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I have one query for my right hon. Friend the Minister. The Home Secretary may issue a written notice of removal to senior officers if he feels that they have been inefficient or ineffective. Does that phrase relate to their performance on operational matters or on non-operational matters? Is there any definition of what an operational matter is? I ask because some years ago, when I had some responsibility for the subject, operational matters were tightly defined, but now they appear to be anything that a chief constable decides is in his remit. That is an important, albeit detailed, issue and I would be happy for my right hon. Friend to undertake to write to me if that is more appropriate.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

I share the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and I am very uneasy about the powers that the Government will take to remove senior officers. I am pleased to take part in the debate. I sit on the Home Affairs Committee; as other hon. Members have pointed out, its members are in Brussels. I had to stay in the country for personal reasons, not because of any antipathy to Brussels. I do not wish to be governed from that city, but it is a pleasant place to visit and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee are having an interesting time.

I support the Committee's report and what it said about the protocol. I shall return to that issue because it is germane to the amendments. First, however, I must make the point that we are today debating further centralisation. The Home Secretary will have the power to sack every chief constable in the land. I ask the Minister to contrast that situation with that pertaining to the rest of the police organisation. In the Witney or Banbury police station, the chief inspector or superintendent does not have the power to remove ineffective officers in his own force. Power in the police force is going in the wrong direction—towards the centre and the Home Secretary—instead of being devolved throughout the organisation, and the amendments will not improve the situation.

I accept that the Government have made some concessions and have started to talk about consulting police authorities on the removal of chief constables. However, because of those concessions, the Bill now contains some very tortuous language. The question of the sacking of a chief constable should be a matter for the police authorities. That point was made in evidence to the Committee by Mr. Kevin Morris of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, when I asked him whether he thought that the real responsibility for hiring and firing chief constables should rest with the police authority. He replied:

"Yes, I do. We do have this tripartite structure which gives the police authorities quite a lot of discretion and a role to play within policing."

The Bill should reinforce the powers of police authorities, and its failure to do so concerns me most of all.

The Committee made two recommendations in its report that are germane to the amendments:

"if the Home Office has concluded that strengthened powers are needed for the suspension and removal of chief constables, it should be able to give a fuller explanation of how they might be used. We would expect these powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances."

Can the Minister, even at this late stage, give us some more assurances and perhaps even some examples of circumstances in which those powers would be used?

Our second point had to do with the protocol being discussed by the Home Office and senior officers. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) have both referred to it. The Select Committee stated:

"We recommend that the proposed protocol on the operation of the powers to remove senior officers be published before the Bill reaches report stage. We hope the House, before agreeing to these clauses, will press Ministers for a fuller explanation of why they are necessary and why the matter cannot be left to police authorities."

We are asking a vital question—when can the Home Secretary exercise the powers, and when can he not? 5.15 pm

Above all, where is the protocol? My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is ingenious and seems to have got hold of a copy. The first people I know to have got hold of a copy of the protocol work for The Times. Yesterday, in an article with the wonderful subheading "Crunch week for Blunkett on crime, cannabis and asylum", the newspaper stated:

"The new Bill includes an extra power to suspend a chief constable or his deputy or assistants where public confidence is undermined.

Details of the regulations under which such intervention would happen have not been included in the Bill. The framework for such powers is set out . . . in a protocol produced by the Home Office, a copy of which has been seen by The Times."

It may be a naive question, but if The Times could see the protocol, why could not it be seen by hon. Members before the Bill reached Report stage? If The Times had it, why did paragraph 43 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report state:

"As these discussions are ongoing, it will not, in the event, be possible to publish the protocol in advance of Report Stage".

I echo what the hon. Member for Lewes said. Given that my ingenious hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has got hold of a copy of the protocol, perhaps one could be given to all hon. Members, even at this very late stage.

Why does this matter? Yesterday's article in The Times quoted an adviser—an "aide to Mr. Blunkett", according to the newspaper—who explained why the power might be necessary:

"We want to consult chief constables about this, but if a police area is completely failing, there is a very strong argument that the Home Secretary should be able to intervene."

The arguments may be strong, but they should be presented to the House, with copies of the protocol for hon. Members to look at. It seems odd that the Government are still consulting on the matter. Normally, one consults before legislating, but the two processes seem to be going on at once.

I am unhappy about the proposed centralisation, as we could end up with chief constables looking over their shoulders at the Home Office rather than at local circumstances or their local police authorities. A good example of that was reported by The Times, which has been assiduous recently. We were assured yesterday that Ministers, not all of them Home Office Ministers, are not overseeing individual police forces, but The Times reported that those Ministers were looking at police areas and at the operation of the street crime initiative.

In an article by Mr. Tom Baldwin—who is known for his close connections with Downing street and for his assiduity in getting stories—The Times reported that it had learned

"that the police forces, covering areas where 80 per cent. of street crimes are committed, are each submitting weekly crime figures to their own minister from Downing Street's special "Cobra" emergency committee. This committee was set up in February under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister."

The article states that my own Thames Valley police force is being overseen by the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, who does not even live in that force's area.

It is clear that the new powers in the Bill will cause chief constables to look over their shoulders at the Home Office, to divine the thinking there and to determine the central initiatives that the Government are driving through. They will not be as worried as they should be about local policing matters.

In my area of Witney, there has been a spate of bad rural burglaries. I am meeting the Thames Valley area's chief constable tomorrow, and I want to know that he is focused on local issues such as that. I want to be sure that he is not always worrying about whether the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women is satisfied with what he is doing about street crime, or that he is not always looking to the Home Office to see whether he is going to be fired. The power to sack chief constables should reside with the police authorities.

I shall end with a quotation from the evidence of Sir John Stevens to the Select Committee, as it relates directly to the amendments. I put it to Sir John—not too brutally, I hope—that

"the Secretary of State may require the Metropolitan Police Authority to exercise its power . . . in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or resign. And he can just sack you?"

Sir John Stevens said:

"I think there has to be a very, very detailed debate on what is operational independence"—

the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—

"and what might affect operational independence. I am not talking about this Home Secretary, or Mr. Straw, or anybody else. I believe that, the worst case scenario, you should look at someone who might be the Home Secretary who may well want to exercise control over Chief Constables, and it is a golden thread of British justice that the police are independent."

That golden thread is being unravelled by the powers in the Bill. Those powers will mean that chief constables will consider only the Home Office and how they are doing with Ministers—not even Home Office Ministers in the case of the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women—and they will forget about the importance of local policing.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

I support the Government amendments which will be extremely important in delivering better crime prevention to all areas of the United Kingdom.

I shall set my remarks in context by quoting from "Policing a New Century: a Blueprint for Reform", which included a statement from the Audit Commission. The commission noted:

"There remain, however, significant variations in performance between police forces. These variations cannot simply be explained by differences in workload or by the varying circumstances forces face . . . There is no consistent link between increases in spending and improvements in performance. Of those forces that increased spending the most between 1994/95 and 1998/99, some registered improvements across a number of key indicators, others did not."

The report continued:

"The performance variations at force level are striking. The recorded crime detection rate for burglaries varies between 43.5 per cent. and 7.9 per cent., for vehicle crime between 28.3 per cent. and 4.7 per cent., and for robbery between 50.8 per cent. and 14.4 per cent."

Few people would find such variation remotely acceptable. I represent an area where the amount spent on policing is significantly higher than in many other areas, yet our detection rates are consistently low. I have great difficulty in explaining that to my constituents.

Contrary to some of the views expressed in the debate, police officers or chief constables will not be dismissed on a whim. They will be dismissed, or asked to resign or retire following a period during which they will have failed to come to terms with the difficulties that they experience in their community and to deliver good policing services.

We must find ways of removing from post people who are inefficient and ineffective. The notion that the tripartite system of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, police authorities and the Home Office achieved that in the past is farcical. There have been few cases of dismissal of chief constables in the UK.

Chief constables should be looking to the Home Office. After all, the Home Office is called to account for the failure of police authorities throughout the country, yet it has little impact on the performance of those authorities.

I welcome the Government's proposals on the removal of chief constables who are failing. Many areas of the country would benefit—as they would have done if we had introduced such a measure many years ago.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We have held a useful debate on a set of amendments on which we agree—I look forward to the debates on amendments on which we disagree.

I shall take in turn the points that were raised. It is worth reminding the House that for almost 40 years Governments have had the power to initiate the retirement of chief police officers. There is nothing new in that. Some contributors have spoken as though the Home Secretary was taking some new centralising power.

The new elements in these provisions are, first, the ability to require a chief officer to resign rather than to retire. As we discussed in Committee, the provision is based primarily on the fact that chief constables reach that rank substantially earlier than they used to. Police officers always appear to be getting younger, but chief officers genuinely are younger than they were 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to require someone who might be in their early 40s to retire and receive the benefits of a pension.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the financial issues. We undertook in Committee to work them through with the staff associations, because appropriate provision will obviously have to be made for those who have to resign.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the Minister accept that the course of action chosen will have substantial financial implications for the police authority? Therefore, there is a good case for discussing with the authority which of the two courses should be taken.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am not sure that a decision about the appropriate action should be taken on financial grounds. However, the nature of the provision to be made in such circumstances will, of course, be discussed with the CPOSA, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

The new elements include the Bill having procedural safeguards on retirement and resignation that did not exist before. We have also discussed suspension, and it has been suggested that the Home Secretary will have an untrammelled power to suspend a chief officer on a whim. I shall not go through the legislation in great detail, but it makes very clear the circumstances in which a chief officer can be suspended. First, he can be suspended by a police authority when it has considered—or has decided to take—action leading to resignation or retirement. There is an important initial stage in the process. The same is true when the Secretary of State initiates action. The possibility of suspension comes into the frame only when a decision has already been made to take measures leading to retirement or resignation, when serious consideration has been given to such measures or when they have been implemented but the chief officer has not yet resigned or retired.

The Bill makes it clear that the test to be used by the police authority or the Home Secretary is the maintenance of police confidence. Action will be taken to suspend a chief officer if that is necessary to maintain public confidence. Although the wording is slightly different, that is essentially true whether the police authority or the Home Secretary takes action. Therefore, it is not an arbitrary power. The suggestion that it was such a power was made not by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but by other Members who have spoken in the debate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

To return to the point about public confidence that was discussed in Committee, does the Minister not recognise that if a Home Secretary or Minister rightly or wrongly publicly decried a chief constable, that could lead to a loss of public confidence in that officer who would automatically then be suspended by the police authority because public confidence had been eroded? If confidence had been eroded, it would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in which it would be restored so that the officer could return to duty.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I recognise something in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the possibility of an officer's career being damaged by action initiated by the Secretary of State has existed ever since the 1964 or 1966 Act first gave the Home Secretary the ability to act with regard to a chief officer. If the Home Secretary is considering action, a danger must be present, and I do not believe that we have introduced something significantly new in principle.

Members have reasonably asked about the protocol. The Select Committee on Home Affairs had hoped that the negotiations on the protocol would have been completed before Report—in an ideal world, I would have shared that hope—so that we could discuss them. Discussions are continuing this week between my officials and the CPOSA. If it is possible to conclude those discussions in time for Lords consideration of the Bill, we will make every effort to do so. However, I cannot promise that. It is important that negotiations take place between the Government, the CPOSA and organisations such as the Association of Police Authorities rather than occurring in the pages of the national press.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister is right. He has introduced safeguards when chief officers are required to retire, but he has not addressed the problem of safeguards when someone is suspended. There is nothing on such safeguards in the Bill; and the draft protocol, which I have been fortunate to see, makes no reference to them. Many hon. Members said that suspension is extremely damaging, whatever the outcome. The Secretary of State can require suspension and there is no option of a third-party appeal to him. What safeguards will the Minister introduce on suspension?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The suspension power comes into effect when circumstances are moving towards action to require a chief officer to retire or resign on either the Home Secretary's or the police authority's initiative. Suspension in those circumstances is seen as an immediate action and response to maintain public confidence. If all the procedural safeguards that are in place for a resignation or retirement are applied to the suspension process, the danger is that that process becomes the hearing on resignation or retirement. The power becomes unusable and the ability to get the right balance between maintaining public confidence and fair treatment of the chief officer is upset. How we handle that process needs to be the subject of discussion on the protocol, and I am sure we have some way to go before that is in a satisfactory form.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

If the protocol is a work in progress, why was a copy of it shown to a journalist from The Times before it was shown to some hon. Members, including specialists who serve on the Home Affairs Committee?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I have no idea. I am reasonably confident that it did not come from any source within the Home Office or any Minister associated with the Department. I believe that copies of the draft protocol are fairly widely available in the police service. Chief constables have told me that they have had sight of it, although I have no reason to believe that any of them shared it with The Times. The matter will have to remain a mystery.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) asked whether there is a legal definition of efficiency or effectiveness in this context. The answer is no. It has not been defined in law, nor has there been a definition in law—certainly not in primary legislation—of operational matters, although the noble Lord Denning referred to a description of operational matters in a judgment 20 years ago. Other parts of the Bill exclude certain decisions from the powers of direction that may be made by the Home Secretary or a police authority, as set out in a new clause.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Given that "operational" is an elastic term, will my right hon. Friend consider defining it so that the operational creep in the police service, which allows just about everything to be seconded to the powers of the chief constable, is limited? I realise that it might be too late to do that for this Bill.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

My hon. Friend will see that we have approached the matter in a slightly different way in the Bill. It is much easier, in law and in practice, to define those matters that must be solely the responsibility of the chief constable rather than to define all those that might be called "operational" in a broader sense. In the clauses that deal with what are currently called powers of direction, we have sought to exclude certain types of activity from those that could be the subject of a direction.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

My right hon. Friend knows that I am interested in a particular problem. The chief constable in Nottinghamshire has effectively been able to do away with the beat bobby service in the city of Nottingham by ending what we would all term "community policing". Is my right hon. Friend telling me that nothing in the amendment, the clause or indeed the Bill would have prevented the chief constable from doing something that he can do now with impunity? He can disregard the rhetoric that Ministers dispense at the Dispatch Box; is my right hon. Friend telling me that he will still be able to do so in future?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but the answer is yes. It is clear from the discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and in the other place that the powers of intervention will not allow us to say to a chief constable, "You must do things our way." They apply only where the quality of service and the results achieved for the public are not satisfactory. The Bill makes provision for codes of practice to which chief constables would have to have regard. That could cover several different areas of policing, but I would not like to speculate today on whether it would cover the issue raised in such detail by my hon. Friend. He has inadvertently given me the opportunity to make it clear that this is not the prescriptive, centralising Bill to run the city of Nottingham from Whitehall that Opposition Members make it out to be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made valuable points about variation. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that we bring the standard of all police forces up to that of the best.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I apologise for coming slightly late to the debate. Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of the representations that senior officers may make? He will know that under the rules of natural justice a person is entitled to a fair hearing. Given the seriousness of retirement or enforced resignation to an individual, surely it is acceptable and wholly reasonable that he is able to make representations in person as well as in writing.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Certainly we intend that the chief officer will be able to make such representations during the appropriate part of the proceedings, and I shall write to the hon. Lady with details about that. We do not intend to make available a full hearing at every stage in the proceedings, but it is obviously right that the rules of natural justice are followed if measures are taken to require a chief officer to retire or resign.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 35, line 46, leave out "a notice" and insert "informing him".

No. 22, in page 36, line 1, leave out—

'an explanation in writing of'

and insert "explaining".

No. 23, in page 36, line 5, leave out—

'of his intention to require the exercise of any power'.—[Mr. Ainger.]

New Clause 2 — Scottish sex offender orders

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3—Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 4—Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 5—Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 6—Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland.

Government amendments Nos. 48, 50, 60 and 61.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

In Committee we introduced amendments to sex offender orders made in England and Wales to bring more flexibility to the application process, to introduce interim orders and to extend the jurisdiction of sex offender orders to the UK as a whole. The five new clauses in this group provide parallel provisions for sex offender orders made in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Parliament passed a Sewel motion on the 27 June allowing the UK Parliament to legislate on its behalf.

New clauses 2 and 4 make three changes to the application process. First, when police forces know that an offender intends to come to their area, they will be able to apply for an order prior to the offender's arrival. Secondly, police forces will be able to make an application to any court in their police area, rather than only to a court in the area in which some of the risky behaviour took place. Thirdly, police forces will be able to vary orders at courts in their own police area without having to go back to the original court that made the order. That is not necessary in Northern Ireland because there, there is no limitation on which court may hear a variation. New clauses 2 and 4 also make it possible for the prohibitions in Northern Ireland and Scottish orders to extend to the UK as a whole by amplifying the definition of "the public" to

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

New clause 5 introduces interim sex offender orders in Northern Ireland, allowing police forces immediately to put into place preventive measures whenever necessary. Interim orders will have the same effect as full orders. Interim sex offender orders already exist in Scotland. New clauses 3 and 6 make breach of an order, whichever jurisdiction created it, an offence in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The other amendments are consequential.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Opposition are pleased that a Sewel motion was passed by the Scottish Parliament enabling the new provisions to be introduced in line with the Government's proposals in Committee. We agreed with the Government's action in Committee, but it is fair to say that although we welcome the Government's having taken the opportunity to use the Bill to expand the operation of sex offender orders and make them more flexible, the Government might need to do more. From discussions with Ministers, I know that the Government recognise the need to keep the issue under review; that, too, is welcome.

I pay a personal tribute to another Home Office Minister, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who assisted me on an especially difficult constituency case that is relevant to the new clauses. In that case, a person who had committed serious offences was about to try to move from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. The Minister was extremely helpful. There is no doubt that the provisions relating to England and Wales that the Government introduced in Committee, and the new clauses and consequential amendments that introduce those provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland, will help the police.

None the less, we ask the Minister to repeat on the record the assurance that the Government have not closed their mind to making further changes if it transpires that there are other loopholes. The case with which I dealt, and the not dissimilar cases with which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have dealt, have exposed potential difficulties in the law as it stands.

We all want there to be a really effective set of provisions in statute to control dangerous sex offenders and prevent their committing further offences. After the tragic Sarah Payne case, we are all especially conscious of the need for the law to be very tough and not to allow any loopholes to remain. Having said that, I welcome the Government's action, but ask the Minister to reassure us that if we propose further changes, the Government will consider our proposals seriously.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am happy to express full support for the Government's proposals. We also supported the amendments made in Committee. The provisions are sensible and they will close one or two of the loopholes that all of us recognise need to be closed.

Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I am aware of at least one relevant case. After becoming the subject of an order, an offender in a Welsh force's area moved to Scotland. The relevant Scottish force was informed of the order, the man's behaviour was monitored, and I understand that risky behaviour was observed. An additional order had to be sought because the prohibitions of the first order were not legally binding in Scotland. That is not satisfactory. The loophole must be closed, the Government are right to close it, and they have our full support.

I welcome too the heightened commitment from Ministers to deal with sex offences generally—a small straw in the wind, but welcome none the less. The Home Secretary personally answered a question about rape at Home Office questions, which did not go unnoticed. He has also said that he intends to introduce legislation to update sex offences legislation, which is overdue. I am therefore pleased with the Government's response in this regard, both this afternoon and more generally.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am afraid that I do not share the enthusiasm that some hon. Members have expressed for the amendments. When I look back at section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, I am struck by its draconian nature. One must therefore ask oneself whether one should extend it even further.

Under section 20(2)(b) of that Act, the power to make an order is exercised on a standard of proof less than that required under the criminal code. Under section 21(7)(a), the order can be made indefinitely. Under section 20(5), the prohibitions imposed

"are those necessary to protect the public from serious harm from the person in respect of whom the order is made."

Someone who satisfies the criteria—I accept that they have to have been a sex offender in the past—can have an indefinite prohibition imposed on them on a standard of evidence that falls far short of that required in the criminal courts. The order may require them to desist from a particular occupation, living in a particular place or pursuing certain conduct—all on a standard of proof below that used in the criminal courts and for an indefinite period.

We are extending that provision, and I view that process with considerable suspicion. I am a little surprised, as clause 20 is a Scottish clause, that we have not had the privilege of hearing from a Scotland Office Minister. As other matters refer to Northern Ireland, I am a little surprised that we have not had the privilege of hearing from Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office, but so be it—those are small points. At the end of the day, we are extending draconian powers, and we need to be jolly careful about doing so.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am sorry that we have not had input from a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will grant me the courtesy of accepting that as someone who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, my views may carry just as much weight as those of a Minister from that Department.

We in Northern Ireland are particularly in favour of the extension of the orders, as our position has become increasingly difficult—when sex offenders moved into an area, we could not impose interim sex offender orders. A number of my constituents are exceedingly concerned about that problem, so I wish to compliment the Minister, rather than criticise him, on introducing the new clauses. However, I should be grateful for clarification of two matters. First, new clause 4(2) will change the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 so that it reads,

"If it appears to the Chief Constable that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to . . . any person"—

meaning a sex offender—

"who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, Northern Ireland"

Will the Minister clarify what is meant by a person who

"intends to come to . . . Northern Ireland"?

Does that extend to people coming form the Republic of Ireland, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom?

Secondly, the Minister will know that under section 21 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a chief constable in England and Wales

"shall consult the local authority"

before a sex offender order is made. In Northern Ireland, we do not have a similar procedure. The Chief Constable has no obligation to consult a local authority. Bearing in mind the impact of the Patten report and reform of policing in Northern Ireland—the central element of which is to bring policing closer to the community—was any consideration given to consultation with the new district policing partnerships which will mirror district council areas in Northern Ireland, or was the matter overlooked when the new clauses were tabled?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I, too, place on record my regret that no Scotland Office Minister has seen fit to be present during the debate on these clauses, which will of course apply to Scotland. Perhaps that is symptomatic of their somewhat cavalier attitude to the treatment of Scots law matters in this Parliament.

On behalf of the Scottish national party, I welcome the closing of loopholes in the sex offender order system and in the enforceability of such orders throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that that will help to ensure public confidence in the way in which we deal with sex offenders.

Reference has been made to the debate in the Scots Parliament on 27 June this year on the Sewel motion passing jurisdiction on this matter to Westminster. During that debate, my SNP colleagues raised some concerns, motivated by the need to proceed as urgently as possible. At that time, it was not clear whether the Bill would complete its legislative passage through this place before the House rose for the summer recess. During the debate in the Scots Parliament, we in the SNP were arguing for the passage by the Scots Parliament of emergency legislation to ensure that this vital matter was dealt with urgently. Of course, the Scots Parliament retains jurisdiction over criminal justice matters and on several occasions has passed emergency legislation in the criminal justice field.

During that debate—I mention this on the off-chance that the legislative completion of the Bill does not proceed in the way it appears to be heading—my SNP colleagues sought a guarantee from the Scottish Executive Minister that, if the passage of the Bill in Westminster was delayed for any reason, the issue of sex offender orders would be brought back to the Scots Parliament when it reconvenes at the beginning of September after its shorter summer recess, to ensure that emergency legislation would be forthcoming.

We support the principles of the new clauses and the consequential amendments. I hope that the introduction into Scots law of such important new provisions will not be delayed simply because they have been tagged on to Westminster legislation which, for the most part, has no application in Scotland.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall deal with the points in turn. I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the new clauses and amendments. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that it is the Government's intention to respond in the autumn to the conclusions of the consultations on the "Setting the Boundaries" report on sex offences generally. In due course, we will look for legislative slots to take forward our proposals in that regard. As we discussed in Committee, we have used the Bill to introduce necessary and urgent measures, but this is by no means the end of the issues that need to be addressed. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). He is right to notice the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to these issues.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that the powers were draconian; they are. They are powerful measures, which the House has judged necessary to protect our children from people who have a record of sexual offences and who may be displaying behaviour—for example, hanging round children's swimming baths or playgrounds—from which the public wish to be protected, and the public do not understand why there is no preventive measure. The House and other Parliaments having decided to introduce such measures, it is appropriate that we make sure that they work as effectively and flexibly as possible.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about a couple of points. Yes, the power can potentially be used against a convicted sex offender from abroad. It could obviously also be used in circumstances where somebody convicted in this country had travelled abroad and was coming back. Precisely because situations have arisen where police have become aware that a convicted offender is moving to their area, whether from within the country or from abroad, the power is necessary. Somebody may, for example, be relocated or housed upon release through a registered social landlord. It may become quite widely known that that person is moving to a particular area, but at present the police cannot act until the person has taken up residence in the area. Clearly, that has been a matter for public concern.

On the comments of the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), let us hope that because of the utmost reasonableness of the Government and our accommodating approach to the Report stage, any questions of legislative delay need not entertain us.

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 3 — Sex offender orders made in England, Wales or Northern Ireland

New Clause 4 — Sex offender orders: Northern Ireland

New Clause 5 — Interim orders for sex offenders: Northern Ireland

New Clause 6 — Sex offender orders made in England and Wales or Scotland

Clause 57 — Specimens taken from Persons Incapable of Consenting

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 55, line 6, after "patient" insert—

'no specimen of blood shall be taken from him under section 7A of this Act and'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 40 to 46.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The amendments seek to protect a person unconscious after an accident by providing that a constable cannot ask for a blood specimen to be taken if the medical practitioner with clinical care of the person objects. The amendments meet an undertaking that I gave in Committee to consider an amendment covering the same ground moved by the hon. Member for South–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).

The amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 introduced by clause 50(1) make it lawful, but not compulsory, for a medical practitioner to take a specimen when requested, if he thinks fit. The Bill already prevents the request being made to the practitioner with clinical care of the person concerned. Clearly, it would not be fitting if the practitioner with clinical care objected or if it were against his own medical judgment.

The Road Traffic Act already protects hospital patients by providing that a patient cannot be required to give a specimen if the clinician objects. Clause 50(2) further amends the Act to provide additional protection in that, when he recovers capacity, the person from whom the specimen was taken cannot be required to consent to its analysis if the clinician objects.

It has never been our intention to allow a specimen to be taken without consent where the clinician objects. However, we need to ensure as far as possible the equality of treatment between conscious and unconscious patients, at whom the measures in the Bill are aimed.

At present, a clinician can object to, and so prevent, a conscious patient from being required to provide a specimen. Under the Bill as it stands, the clinician can object to, and so prevent, an unconscious patient being required to consent to analysis of a specimen, but he cannot object to, and so prevent, the specimen from being taken in the first place. In practice, that is highly unlikely to happen: a medical practitioner would not take a specimen if the clinician objected, for reasons of medical ethics and professional etiquette. It remains, however, a theoretical possibility. The amendments would remove that possibility. Parallel amendments are made to the Transport and Works Act 1992.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister knows that the Opposition strongly support this cluster of amendments, which puts right a legal anomaly that has allowed some people to escape prosecution for their crimes because they were unconscious at the relevant moment. We support that, but, as he said, we raised in Committee the issue of the responsibility of the clinician in charge of a patient and his right to refuse to allow a sample to be taken. The issue arose in the British Medical Association's representations to me and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response, which I welcome. He did not say whether he had spoken to the BMA about the amendments. Will he confirm that he has done so and that it is happy and content that they achieve the objectives about which it expressed the concern from which the original amendments arose?

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

I speak for myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) in welcoming the amendments. It was especially pleasing to see the Minister responding to the very good points that were made, and we all appreciate his taking them away and incorporating them into the Bill.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Before I can give my consent to the amendments, I should like the Minister to answer one or two questions, both general and particular. First, new section 7A(1)(d) to the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:

"it appears to that constable that that person's incapacity is attributable to medical reasons."

I need to know a little more about the meaning of the phrase "medical reasons". I cannot find any illumination in the definitions section of the Bill, but such reasons may be defined in other legislation. In that case, it would be helpful to know which legislation is involved.

My anxiety is that the incapacity in question could arise from a mental disability. On the face of it, such disability could well be attributable to medical reasons. The Minister spoke about somebody being unconscious, and such circumstances will clearly fall within the definition, but what happens if an individual is suffering from a severe disease or abnormality of mind? Does the phrase "medical reasons" prevent the clause from applying to such a person? I require clarification on that question. If the clause can apply to such a person, we are considering giving somebody who is suffering from a mental abnormality or disease a warning about the consequences of not supplying a specimen, which is a pretty pointless activity.

We need to be clear that the classification of individual for which the clause provides does not extend to the mentally ill or abnormal, otherwise, we have got a problem. Of course, one resolution would be to provide that the warning should not be given unless the medical practitioner certifies that the person is capable of understanding it. If the medical practitioner made such a statement, one might assume that the position of the patient was safeguarded.

My question is this: does the provision cover those who are mentally ill, and if so, what protection will be given to such people? They would not understand the warning and a prosecution might well flow in respect of an offence that they did not fully comprehend.

Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)

My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have been much exercised by the issue with which the amendment deals because of the case of the late Sarah Kettle in my constituency and the campaign that her mother, Mary Kettle, has run to obtain justice for families who find themselves in similar circumstances in future. Will he assure me that blood can be taken by a medical practitioner when somebody has been involved in a serious accident such as that which occurred in the Kettle case and ensure that, in similar circumstances, justice can be seen to be done in future?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Certainly, it is very much the intention of the clause to ensure that justice is done in future. There has been extensive discussion with the British Medical Association about trying to get the legislation right and to ensure that it has the right checks and balances. The underlying problem is that of somebody who has been involved in a road accident and was drunk at the time, but can escape prosecution purely by virtue of being unconscious. That is the loophole that we are trying to close. It is only fair to the House and to everyone else to say that we are seeking generally and in the amendment to ensure that the proper clinical duties of doctors and their ethical position are also respected. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) would not expect anything different.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked about the BMA. In answer to his question, I have to confess that I have not spoken to the BMA. I have every reason to believe that the amendment deals with the issue that it raised, but he asked me a direct question and I must give him a direct answer: I have not spoken to the BMA, but I would be mortified if I found out that the amendment did not address the issues about which it was concerned.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about people who are mentally ill. Perhaps I have missed his point, but I am not sure whether he has entirely understood the gist of the provision. Clearly, the person's incapacity must be attributable to medical reasons. Given the essence of that safeguard, I do not think that there is any question of a sample being taken if either the medical practitioner making the request or the clinician who is responsible for the person's care objects. That is the purpose of the amendment: it builds into the system the clinical protection of the judgment of the clinicians who are responsible for dealing with the matter. I do not think that the difficulty to which he alluded will arise in practice. If there is a problem of definition, the provisions will place clinical responsibility on the clinician who is responsible for the individual patient's care to object if he does not think that the procedure is in the patient's clinical interests.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I should like to press the Minister a little further. Two circumstances trouble me. First, a prosecution can follow from a failure to supply a specimen. For that to happen, a warning must be given, but in order to accord with the rules of natural justice, the warning must be tendered in such a way and to such a person as to ensure that it can be understood. A mental patient may not be able to understand the warning, which is given by the constable and not the doctor.

Secondly, and rather differently, if a person who has had an accident was rendered unconscious and is in a pretty woozy state on coming round, the constable may well set about giving a warning prematurely, when the patient may not fully understand what is going on. Surely, there should be some requirement to ensure that if there is any doubt about the patient's ability to comprehend the warning, the medical practitioner will be asked to express an opinion.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The legislative approach is that, under existing road traffic legislation, it is conceivable that somebody who is asked to provide a sample will be unable to comprehend the warning, although one might query why such a person was driving a car. None the less, that is possible under existing legislation, so there is nothing new here.

We are introducing a protection that attempts to put the unconscious person from whom the sample is taken in the same position as that of somebody from whom a sample is taken under existing legislation. If a sample is taken and the person decides on regaining consciousness that they do not wish it to be analysed, they can refuse to allow that to happen. They will therefore have put themselves in the same position as that of somebody who is competent to refuse to allow the taking of a sample and decides to take the consequences of being taken to court in relation to that refusal. We have carefully structured the provisions so that a person from whom a sample is taken while they are unconscious can, if they like, put themselves in exactly the same position as somebody who refused a sample in the first place.

With regard to the circumstances to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred, in which somebody with a mental incapacity was unable to understand the question, unless such a person was unconscious at the time, which would mean that they were dealt with under the provision, the situation would be unchanged from that which applies under existing road traffic legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 55, line 8, leave out—

'section 7A of this Act'

and insert 'that section'

No. 41, in page 55, line 10, after "proposal" insert—

'to take the specimen or'.

No. 42, in page 55, line 17, after "that" insert—

'the taking of the specimen,'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 59 — Equivalent provision for offences connected with transport systems

Clause 60 — Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 60, line 28, after "occasion", insert—

'within the last six months'.

When I raised the issue of the seizure of motor vehicles in Committee, I came away from our relatively short discussion a little concerned about the Minister's reply, so I hope that he will forgive me for raising it again today. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendment tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friends the Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke).

I want to outline a theoretical case which I hope will interest the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Clause 60 allows for the following scenario. A constable who has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a way that causes or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance has the power, if the vehicle is moving, to order the person who is driving it to stop, and the power to seize and remove the vehicle, using reasonable force to do so. So far, so good. The constable is required to warn the person that that will be the consequence if the vehicle's use is continued or repeated, or if the use has continued or has been repeated after the warning. Equally, I see no problem there. The clause includes the reasonable provision that a warning is not required if the circumstances would make it impracticable for the warning to be given. It also includes certain other let-outs that make good common sense. Again, so far, so good.

What worries me is subsection (2), which states:

"A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set in subsection (3)"—

that is, the power to stop and seize—

"where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion"—

I repeat, on any occasion—

"in a manner falling within subsection (1)."

That worries me for two reasons. The immediate problem that would cause the constable to wish to seize or stop the vehicle has gone, because the vehicle is no longer causing any problem. Therefore, the necessity to stop the vehicle has completely gone, and the necessity to seize it is perhaps limited to the constable's fear or suspicion that the intimidatory behaviour may be repeated. That may be justifiable if it turns out that the person who owns the vehicle has a history of behaving in a way that leads the constable reasonably to conclude that they will again use their vehicle in a way that will cause alarm, distress and annoyance to members of the public.

The problem is that there is no time limit on such a seizure. Moreover, the constable may not have been able to give a warning to the person driving the vehicle. That means that it is possible that some months or years later—I accept that it is a remote possibility, but it is what the clause allows—a constable could come along and seize a vehicle, saying, "I wanted to give you a warning at the time, but I could not stop you. This vehicle was involved in an incident, so I am exercising my powers to seize it." The Minister may think that that is rather far-fetched, but it is a possibility, as he admitted himself. I remind him of what he said in Committee:

"The hon. Gentleman conjures up the possibility of the seizure without warning of a vehicle many months after an event. As the clause is constructed, that is a theoretical possibility, although whether it is likely to happen is a matter for speculation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 June 2002; c. 365.]

The Minister is rightly keen on removing theoretical possibilities—indeed, he did so about 10 minutes ago when he dealt with a matter to do with blood specimens, saying, "It remains a theoretical possibility, so we are acting to remove it." I therefore hope that he will apply that logic to the matter that I have drawn to the House's attention and remove the theoretical possibility that is conjured up by the clause.

The six-month limit that my colleagues and I are trying to insert is reasonable. Surely, the Minister can envisage no circumstances in which a constable would wish to seize a vehicle after six months. If he does not wish to have a time limit, he must accept that the theoretical possibility that I have outlined could happen, which would be a gross distortion of justice. After all, there can be no certainty that the vehicle seized was driven by the person who owned it. A person could have a vehicle stolen and because it is subsequently found three streets away, that person does not bother to tell the police that it happened. During the time that it was missing, the vehicle could have been used for purposes to cause alarm, distress or noise to members of the public. Some months later, the law-abiding citizen who retrieved his or her missing car could be confronted by a constable who says, "On one occasion this vehicle was driven in such a way that I am now going to seize it, because I was not able to give a warning to the person driving it." If the person then says, "It went missing but I didn't report it because it turned up three hours later", the constable will say, "That's a likely story, sir—I'm seizing your vehicle."

Although that is obviously not the intention of the clause, I suggest to the Minister that it is drafted in such a way as to allow the possibility to occur, and he therefore needs to insert some safeguards. The safeguard that I propose is a six-month time restriction. That is a normal time restriction which is applied by the police in all sorts of cases, and it would not be unreasonable to include it in the clause. Given that the Minister recognises that theoretical possibilities need to be removed, as he said 10 minutes ago in respect of blood samples, I am sure that he will support the amendment.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Although I am not sure that I support the amendment, the hon. Gentleman identifies a point of some substance. There are two issues here, because clauses 60 and 61 have to be read together. Clause 60(2) enables the police to stop an individual who was not responsible for the antisocial behaviour set out in subsection (1), and to do so on the basis of hearsay—that is, information that is neither known to him personally nor within his ability to check. So a driver can be stopped and have his vehicle seized for behaviour that was not carried out by himself, in a situation where the constable has less than adequate knowledge on which to base his decision.

Yet more problematic is what happens where the owner is perfectly innocent. Under clause 61, the regulations to enable the owner to recover the seized vehicle are couched in permissive terms only, so the Secretary of State is not obliged to lay regulations enabling an innocent owner to recover it, but only "may" do so. Together, the two clauses represent an undesirable curtailment of liberty.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief in dealing with this. On 25 June there was a short debate in Committee, which is recorded at columns 364 to 366 of Hansard. We understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has raised, but we anticipate that the Minister may say that an artificial time constraint of only six months might be rather too restrictive. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) spoke in Committee to express his view that the measures were very widely framed. Although we do not support what the hon. Member for Lewes says, we recognise, as did the Minister in Committee, that he raises a theoretical possibility.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. Gentleman correctly anticipates that I am going to ask the House to resist the amendment on the grounds that I am not sure that an arbitrary time limit is a good idea in this context. It is worth noting clause 60's reliance—not exclusively, but for the most part—on circumstances in which a constable has already given a warning to those indulging in the antisocial use of a motor car. I have some discomfort with the idea that a warning that has been given might lapse because of some arbitrary time limit. I will therefore ask hon. Members to resist the amendment.

On late seizure and the effects on an innocent person, the Bill makes it mandatory that people who did not know about the vehicle's use should get it back without charge. That is a provision in the Bill, although there are details about charging through regulations.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I wonder whether the Minister is right. I presume that the power to reclaim the vehicle will be made under the regulations. Clause 61(1) provides:

"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to . . . the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner . . . may seek to have it released".

Why is not the provision to lay the regulations mandatory rather than permissive?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Draftsmen have different views about whether "may" means "shall" and vice versa in legislation, and we are in one of those terrible debates. However, the Secretary of State intends to make regulations. He will thus fulfil the requirements of clause 61(3), which states:

"Regulations . . . must provide that a person . . . shall not be liable to pay . . . if . . . the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and . . . he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure".

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand why the Minister does not want an arbitrary time limit. However, clause 60 is loosely worded or widely drawn. Will he recognise that there is at least the potential for injustice? What further safeguards does he propose? Does he acknowledge that clause 60(5) provides that a warning is not necessary?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I made a point of saying that the clause relies largely but not exclusively on warnings. Subsection (5) allows for circumstances under which a warning is not practicable. I do not agree that the clause is loosely worded. It allows necessary operational flexibility. We should not forget the severe disruption that many of our constituents suffer through the irresponsible and unauthorised use of off-road vehicles, such as motor cycles, and people who joyride repeatedly around the same residential estates and roads. That causes great distress. I believe that clauses 60 and 61 reflect the mood in Committee and respond to a genuine environmental nuisance caused by irresponsible people against which action must be taken. Seizing vehicles will often be the best method of tackling that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister is right that vehicles that are used in a

"manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance"

create severe disruption. Nobody disagrees with that, and the Committee's mood was to support the clause's intention. My colleagues and I fully support its purpose. It is sensible that steps are available to the police to deal with vehicles that are used in the manner described by the clause. My constituents, like others, are subject to such unwelcome use of vehicles, and we support measures to give the police powers to tackle that. However, we do not support provisions, the drafting of which allows injustice to occur. The Minister has failed to deal with that.

The Minister accepted that a warning will not necessarily be given and that a vehicle could be subsequently seized without warning. He has not explained why subsequent seizure, rather than seizure during an alarming incident, is appropriate. The alarm has, by definition, passed if the vehicle is not seized or stopped during the incident. He did not state that a vehicle may not seized from an owner who has no knowledge of the vehicle's use. The potential for injustice cannot be justified by the Government's proper attempts to deal with the nuisance caused by vehicles used in the manner that clause 60 describes.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen to draw up a clause that deals with the "alarm, distress or annoyance", which hon. Members of all parties want to tackle, while ensuring that injustice does not occur. I am disappointed that the Minister has failed to deal with that aspect of my argument.

However, we have a timetable motion and there are other matters to discuss, and I shall therefore not try to divide the House. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 — Antisocial behaviour orders

Julia Drown (Labour, South Swindon)

I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 63, line 20, at end insert—

'(6A) At the end of subsection (3) there is inserted "; save that, where the behaviour giving rise to the complaint involves prostitution, the complaint may alternatively be made to a county court."

(6B) In subsection (4), after the words "magistrates court" there is inserted (or, as the case may be, county court)".'.

The amendment would allow antisocial behaviour orders involving prostitutes to be considered in the county courts as an addition to current powers that permit them to be considered in magistrates courts.

Residents in central Swindon suffer severely from the prostitutes and pimps who frequent the area. A recent survey of residents found that most men had been propositioned. Only last week, a gentleman told me that he was driving normally and safely from the community centre and was shocked when someone jumped into the back of his car. If that can happen when someone is simply leaving a community centre, hon. Members can imagine the problems that many men in the area are experiencing.

Many women are also propositioned, causing offence and distress. Prostitution has an impact not only on people's social and family lives but on businesses in the area.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I understand the problem that the hon. Lady is outlining, and I am not against her. However, why does she want the application to be made to the county court, not the justices?

Julia Drown (Labour, South Swindon)

I shall deal with that shortly.

First, I want to explain the disruption that prostitution is causing. I know of a child minder who is obviously embarrassed about the situation when the people whom she helps come to her door. Even 10-year-olds have been propositioned by prostitutes. That is clearly unacceptable. Condoms are discarded in people's gardens and in alley-ways, and there is harassment from pimps and prostitutes. We have got to the point of telephone lines being pulled out of people's homes.

I congratulate the police on their work on the problem. They have put extra resources into the area. Councillors, especially local Labour councillors, have been trying to tackle the problem. The community council has also been supportive. However, those are temporary solutions, and the community welcomed the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders. Great faith was placed in taking prostitutes to our magistrates court.

When the four prostitutes were identified, much work was put into ensuring that there was a strong case, especially as it was the first use of antisocial behaviour orders. I am attracted to the orders because they can be used to tackle other issues, such as the drug problems that many prostitutes in the area experience.

There was a co-ordinated effort to get an antisocial behaviour order through our magistrates court. The community experienced extra frustration when there was a delay. As hon. Members know, magistrates are voluntary, and the court worked hard to get the three magistrates together for a three-day hearing. The delay caused problems; once again, I congratulate the community council, which kept threats of vigilante action at bay. Hon. Members can imagine the community's frustration when a defence solicitor in the magistrates court described antisocial behaviour orders as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is not the case, and that the orders are appropriate for dealing with the genuine problems that prostitution causes.

The magistrates did not believe that the case was strong enough or that it fulfilled the requisite conditions. Hon. Members can imagine the huge disappointment in the community after that decision. A lot of work went into analysing the case, and into assessing whether it had been strong enough and whether the conditions had been fulfilled. The local borough council and the police strongly believe that the conditions were fulfilled, and that the problem was caused by having to deal with the case in a magistrates court. There was a real feeling that if it had gone to the county court, the application for an antisocial behaviour order would not have failed.

The reasons for that were, first, that county court judges are used to drawing inferences. In Swindon, the magistrates refused the antisocial behaviour orders because they did not have the evidence to link the individual prostitutes to the antisocial behaviour that they admitted was being caused by the soliciting. There was also no question but that those particular people were prostitutes. County court judges are much more used to drawing such inferences. Secondly, they are much more used to weighing up hearsay evidence, which is particularly prevalent in cases involving prostitution. That greater experience would really help in assessing such evidence.

Thirdly, county court judges are used to applying a civil burden of proof. Just as they have greater experience of hearsay evidence, they also have greater experience of applying such a burden of proof, and are better informed as to how much evidence is needed to balance the probabilities in such cases. The other advantage of allowing cases to be taken in either a magistrates court or a county court is that the more possibilities there are for bringing antisocial behaviour orders, the more likely a case is to be heard quickly. When we are dealing with real frustration in communities, it is important to try to get the orders in place as soon as possible.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am following the hon. Lady's argument carefully, but I have to say, with great respect, that the delay involved in finding three whole days for a county court hearing would be immense. In most county courts, that process can take three or even six months.

Julia Drown (Labour, South Swindon)

I appreciate that comment. It took that long in Swindon, too, to get this whole process running. The amendment would allow more possibilities and flexibility. The time scale varies up and down the country, and I would hope that most of these cases would not need three days. The proposal would provide a sensible way for the Government to improve the quality of life for many of my constituents in central Swindon, and I urge the Minister to consider accepting the amendment.

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

Antisocial behaviour orders are multi-purpose tools—sometimes rather blunt ones—and because they are applied in many different circumstances, I can follow the argument of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). Indeed, I listened to her speak on the matter in an Adjournment debate which I found very interesting. I had not really thought about the prostitution side of the argument at all; I was hooked into the argument relating to young persons.

I would remind the Minister that I was very concerned about one use of antisocial behaviour orders, which involved attaching them to a person moving from one area to another. That could have dreadful consequences for a young person. I have also pointed out a use for the orders that had considerable appeal in my area, certainly over the last few weeks. We have to think quite broadly about the orders, and we need a degree of flexibility.

I am no expert on the different kinds of court, so I do not know what the best solution is to this problem, but I support the hon. Lady's amendment. When we need to address a particular problem, we may need extra flexibility to make the provisions work and, I imagine, to let lots of other measures kick in so that that can be achieved.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I, too, support the amendment. I think that all hon. Members want these orders to be more effective than they are, as I mentioned at Home Office questions yesterday. The argument that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) put forward in support of taking this particular route—namely, that county courts would be better equipped to draw inference, to handle hearsay evidence and to judge the burden of proof—might well apply to other categories of offence as well as to prostitution. I am afraid that this brings us back to the question of whether the orders are still sledgehammers, blunt tools, or however we want to describe them. We need to look again at how the orders are processed, taking the time delay into consideration as well.

It would nevertheless be churlish of me not to recognise that the Minister is trying to improve the way in which the orders work. I certainly welcome the extension of the relevant authorities, and the inclusion of housing associations, which will make a big difference in my particular part of Kent. I hope, however, that when he replies to this short debate, he will recognise with some humility that the orders have been cumbersome to operate and that, three years on, cases such as the one brought before us by the hon. Member for South Swindon show that they are still not working as effectively as they should be. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for raising this matter. She has raised it in the House before, and I understand her concerns. No one would deny the real nuisance caused by prostitution and also by kerb-crawlers—an issue on which the Government have recently taken action by making kerb-crawling an arrestable offence.

I have some concerns about the amendment, however. One, touched on by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), was the difficulty that we might set up an anomalous treatment of antisocial behaviour orders as between one type of offence and another. One of the Government's reasons for routing antisocial behaviour orders through magistrates courts was the perception of the difficulty of accessing county courts through a more traditional type of injunction. I fear that a consequence of accepting the amendment would be a great deal of pressure to put a lot of other antisocial behaviour orders into the county court, much of which might come from defence lawyers seeking to prevent orders being put in place, rather than from those who wish—as do all hon. Members—to make them more effective. For that reason, I must resist the amendment.

The Government have recognised that there are ways in which antisocial behaviour orders can be improved, and part of the Bill deals with the interim ASBO to that end. We also recognise that a county court dealing with an eviction matter, for example, could impose an ASBO—as, indeed, could a criminal court dealing with a prostitution- related matter. Those measures will be helpful.

Research that we published earlier this year suggests that some of the time taken in getting ASBOs has, in my view, reflected the way in which people have gone about collecting evidence, the expectation of the courts, and so on, rather than anything in the primary legislation. Part of that stems from our own guidance about ASBOs, which we shall aim to slim down when it is revised once the Bill has completed its passage. There have certainly been cases in which the weight of evidence collected has been greater than anyone would have thought necessary for a criminal case, let alone for a civil injunction of this kind.

I have travelled round the country talking to people about antisocial behaviour orders, and there is no doubt that magistrates must, of course, consider each individual case on its merits. When local authorities, the police, and others have sat down with the magistracy, however, and explained the context in which ASBOs are being used, their purpose, and the types of problems being tackled, there has been greater consistency by magistrates in supporting applications for the orders. I do not know whether that is relevant to my hon. Friend's constituency, but it may be an issue that needs to be looked at there.

After this debate, I would, of course, be happy to consider whether we need to address any of the specific issues of inference, evidence, and so on, that my hon. Friend has raised, or whether we need to ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to address them in the context of his role as president of the Magistrates Association.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

rose—

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to you, because I spoke with such haste last time that I forgot to thank you for calling me to speak.

Will the Minister please have a quiet word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, just to put on record with him the fact that we in Northern Ireland would very much like to see antisocial behaviour orders made available to the magistrates courts? We do not have the orders in Northern Ireland at all; perhaps the Secretary of State could give some thought to that gap at another juncture.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Julia Drown (Labour, South Swindon)

I do not want to detain the House, so I shall not push the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that the Minister will continue to review the matter, which is important to improving the quality of life of my constituents in central Swindon. I am reassured by his commitment to continue to tackle the issue, and I look forward to continuing our correspondence about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 — Orders on conviction in criminal proceedings

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 65, line 37, after "(6)" insert—

'for the discharge of an order'.

The amendment will make a minor drafting change to the clause. Under the legislation, we will enable an ASBO to be made on criminal proceedings. As the Bill stands, however, the ASBO could not be varied in the flexible way that all other ASBOs may be varied. The amendment makes it clear that the application can be made to vary an order at any time by the relevant authority or by the offender. The amendment will achieve consistency between all the orders, and a fair and proportionate system will be established.

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

The Minister will not be surprised that I want to pursue the matter, as I did in Committee although we were rushed, and I am sure he agrees that we did not have time for a proper answer. In Committee, I raised the point that if we are attempting to change as well as stop certain behaviour, which I hope we are, people should not have to go through an absolute two-year period before they can apply, or even have the opportunity to apply, for an order to be rescinded. That would confirm such behaviour rather than give an incentive to reform and to use a new approach.

Such orders may have an effect, perhaps by shaking up young people and their families, but we are condemning them to a two-year wait with that label on them. Would it not be better to provide the opportunity to get rid of the label and to tackle the behavioural problems rather than just put a stop to them temporarily? Will the Minister consider the fact that although six months might not be enough, two years is a long time for somebody to carry a label if they are determined to change their behaviour?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Indeed, the purpose of our amendment is to bring into line the flexibility on other ASBOs and that on those for criminal convictions. I agree with the hon. Lady that, when an ASBO is in place, we must always consider how we can change the underlying offending behaviour.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 — Sex offender orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland

New Clause 7 — Duties under Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 108.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

This is an important new clause, which has, I accept, been introduced relatively late in the day. It will make amendments to deem police authorities and, in Scotland, police boards to be employers of police officers for the purposes of health and safety legislation. In the case of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, the service authority for each will be deemed to be the employer of police officers for that purpose.

Currently, health and safety legislation treats chief officers as the employer of police officers. That has led to the anomaly that chief officers are personally liable when prosecuted as employer for criminal offences alleged to have been committed by their forces under health and safety legislation. That is because forces are not legal entities and cannot therefore be prosecuted as organisations. A chief officer may find himself or herself in the invidious position of being prosecuted as an individual, rather than in a representational capacity, and incurring a criminal record. That could damage the image of policing for no good reason.

Of course, where a health and safety offence has been committed with the consent of, or through neglect by, an individual, that person should be personally liable, and that will not be altered by these changes.

The measures will replicate for police officers the position that already exists for police support staff, and the position that will exist under the Bill in relation to designated support staff. In both cases, police authorities are employer.

Police authorities are well able to discharge the employers' duties and liabilities set out in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. They already fulfil that role in relation to civilians, and the Home Office will negotiate detailed arrangements with all the relevant parties in relation to police officers, in the framework of police authority responsibilities and powers set out in the Police Act 1996.

Those arrangements will be enshrined in a statutory code of practice. We have consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers and other relevant bodies, and we believe that arrangements can be arrived at which will not undermine the operational independence of chief officers.

We will give priority to producing the code. It will provide that police authorities are responsible for ensuring that chief officers have in place a suitable regime for dealing with health and safety issues, and that police authorities can call for reports if they are not satisfied that chief officers are carrying out their responsibilities in that area. The code will make it clear that police authorities are not responsible for carrying out health and safety risk assessments, which will continue to be a matter for chief officers.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, I can be brief. Although we understand entirely what the Government propose—we see a great deal of sense in it—we raised in Committee our concerns about the growth of the so-called compensation culture and the fact that, as the Minister is well aware and as he fairly accepted in Committee, on many occasions police authorities have been severely hit by compensation claims of various kinds. Taxpayers' money, instead of going on front-line policing, pays for compensation or the increased cost of police pensions, which is a matter of grave concern to many people, both inside and well beyond the House.

In the winding-up speech to what I hope is a fairly brief debate, I hope that the Minister says that the Government will keep under review the question of the compensation culture in relation to the police and police authorities. We certainly do not oppose the Government bringing the position in respect of chief officers in line with that relating to civilian staff—as the Minister said, that seems eminently sensible—but one would not want a chief officer to be regarded and treated in the courts as personally liable when the matter should properly be dealt with as one of corporate responsibility, if I may put it that way.

We understand entirely what the Government are doing, but we remain concerned. We hope that the Minister confirms that he will keep the compensation culture and its effect on police authority funds for front-line policing under review.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I can be even briefer. I recognise the reason for introducing the new clause, which I welcome as an entirely sensible measure. I hope that I can continue to welcome Government measures as sensible. If I show such generosity, the Government may reciprocate one day.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I have but one reservation. I accept that there is a good case for transferring responsibility to the police authorities, but if they are to perform the various duties under the legislation, they may, in certain circumstances, find themselves making decisions of an operational kind; otherwise, they will be unable to comply with the obligations under the health and safety legislation.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have a request for clarification, which arises out of a briefing that right hon. and hon. Members were invited to attend last week with the Deputy Metropolitan Police Commissioner. During those discussions it became clear that the new community support officers will be equipped with only a radio: they will not have handcuffs or a truncheon. The new clause makes it clear that the relevant authority means members of a police force, a special constable or a police cadet. Does that cover the duty of care that is owed to the new community support officers?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that this new clause does not directly address that issue, because CSOs as support staff are already direct employees of the police authority, so they are covered by health and safety legislation. Constables or sworn officers are being brought into line with the responsibilities of the police authority. There is no change in the position of CSOs, as in our view they are already appropriately covered.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to operational issues. He may have noticed that I read out my speaking note with more than the usual care. I set out our proposals for a code of practice to govern the way in which police authorities exercise their responsibilities, and said that the position of the chief constable would be protected. After discussion with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, we are confident that police authorities will be able to accept the responsibilities that they are given under this new clause and that the proper independence of chief officers will be protected. We must give priority to producing the statutory code of practice.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for his support for this measure, and for his recognition of the Government's generosity. We always seek opportunities to reciprocate, although we have not found many yet.

The compensation culture is of concern across a huge area of public life, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I would not suggest that there is a particular problem with the police service. However, we need to take a number of steps. Proper attention needs to be paid to health and safety, especially occupational health matters. That is certainly part of the answer. We should minimise the situations in which officers feel that compensation claims should be made. The hon. Gentleman, being a lawyer, will understand better than I the difficulty of denying someone access to the courts for proper protection.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Clause 100 — Powers of Secretary of State to make orders and regulations

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 100, line 13, leave out "40(7)".

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 45, page 46, line 16, leave out Clause 45.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Is it not amazing that within a matter of seconds of my being invited to be incredibly generous, an opportunity comes along? The hon. Member for Lewes can be well satisfied.

This clause was debated at some length in Committee. We see it as a perfectly reasonable and proportionate mechanism, which requires the affirmative resolution procedure. It gives this and future Governments the flexibility to add limited powers to and to take limited powers out of schedules 4 and 5. Essentially, it enables the Government to give limited powers to community support officers and accredited community safety officers, or in the light of experience to remove those powers from the menu available.

It is worth mentioning that the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform in the other place saw nothing wrong with the procedure in the clause. A precedent has been set by the Bill, because my understanding is that up until this Bill it had been a matter of course for Governments and Oppositions to respect, pretty much without question, the conclusions of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. A precedent has now been set in the other place for not respecting the decisions of that Committee, although I am not sure that that will serve us well in the long run.

None the less, we are moving into the closing stages of our proceedings on the Bill. It is perfectly clear to me that the opposition that this clause has faced is likely to arise again in the House of Lords, where the Government do not have a majority. For that reason we have added our names to the consequential amendment No. 2. What we will lose by doing that is flexibility. Should it in future be shown that existing legislation should apply to community support officers or to accredited community safety officers, that will be much more difficult. Equally, should it appear in the light of experience that a power has been made available to chief constables that should not have been made available, it will be a much more laborious and lengthy process for Parliament to remove it. That is the cost attached to the amendment, but I recognise the parliamentary arithmetic.

I hope that in later discussions there will be support for the measures that we have introduced to enable local authority traffic wardens and others to have additional powers to help with the escort of abnormal loads and to take part in traffic checks. We intended to extend powers in that area, so we have brought that measure forward as soon as possible, because we believe that those powers would rapidly have been seen to be necessary.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I respect the Minister for moving the amendment, but I feel sure that he would rather not have done so. He explained his move by saying that he recognised the parliamentary arithmetic. Obviously, I would have preferred it if he had recognised the power of oratory that some of us used in Committee. Whatever the reasons for the Government's decision to add their name to amendment No. 2 tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, we are grateful to them for doing so.

In accepting the situation and speaking to amendment No. 2, the Minister expressed concern about the problem of altering the position should experience in the next few months or few years show that there are too many powers or too few. Without wishing to pre-empt any future debate, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the official Opposition will not oppose the point that he made about traffic powers. I recognise the logic of that: indeed, some of it fits neatly with proposals presented by my noble Friend Lord Attlee in the other place.

On the question whether schedules 4 and 5 will in time prove to be defective—providing either too many or too few powers—I remind the Minister that over the years we have discovered that the Home Office has a propensity for legislation. We know that there is a substantial amount of legislation in the Home Office pipeline. I feel sure that, should the Government at any stage discover that they need to amend the powers given to civilians, to civilian officers employed by the police or to accredited community safety officers, they will find a suitable vehicle within weeks, if not minutes, to which to append the changes that they need or wish to make. I cannot believe that it will be long before they find a suitable mechanism.

It is odd that the Government have come to this point so late in the proceedings. At some stage—I have forgotten when exactly—the Minister said that this was not a Henry VIII clause, which is at odds with what his noble Friend Lord Rooker said in the other place. He stated categorically that it is a Henry VIII clause.

The House of Lords threw the clause out, and the Government reinserted it in Committee, against the advice of my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats. Then, at about 6 o'clock last night, the Government tabled an amendment that had the effect of adding Ministers' names to our amendment. We welcome the Government's conversion, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in understanding the argument, notwithstanding the arithmetic of the other place. We shall of course support the Government if they seek to divide the House on the issue.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It is an odd experience to have a Minister add his name to an amendment that carries my name, but I suppose that all of us in the House have to get used to things. I look forward to similar experiences in the future. It is also instructive that when the two main Opposition parties have stuck together and shown determination to remove the proposal, the Government have recognised the arithmetic, as the Minister put it. I am not sure whether that drives the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives closer together; that is a worrying prospect, but it is the logic of tonight's developments.

I recognise the Minister's admission that this measure would continue to be unpopular with the Opposition in this House and in the House of Lords. It is sensible for him to pull the plug now, rather than suffer a further defeat in the Lords on the matter. To give credit to the Minister, we started off by saying that there was agreement on a large proportion of the Bill and disagreement on only three or four key issues, one of which the Minister has now dealt with. He has lanced the boil on that issue. If he wishes to lance the boil on one or two other issues tomorrow, we can all leave early and I can go to the parliamentary beer group dinner to which I referred earlier. I should like the Minister to consider overnight whether there are further concessions that he might make tomorrow.

The Minister complained that we were removing flexibility from the Bill; indeed, that was the purpose of the amendment. The serious point is that there is a balance to be struck between what is the proper subject of primary legislation and what is the proper subject of subsequent regulations. It is our view that matters dealing with CSOs are controversial. The Government are bringing in a new concept, and we do not know how it will work. The Government think it will work well; others have more suspicions about how things will turn out.

It would be wrong to give the Government the power to add powers to CSOs when we do not even know how they will work in practice. It is right that if the Government want to come back—at least for the first time—to add powers, we should be able to have a debate on how CSOs have worked in practice on our streets. That is what the amendment achieves, and I am grateful that the Government have signed up to it. It is useful and allows for a sort of review.

The Minister said in a letter to the hon. Member for South–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and me that another result would be that the Government could not remove powers from CSOs. Equally, that power has now been taken from the Government by the addition of Ministers' signatures to the amendment. That is not a worry for me. I suspect that if a particular power turned out to be hugely controversial or unworkable, chief constables would be reluctant to use it and it would wither on the vine. We are talking about adding powers to CSOs and, under the circumstances, it is right that that matter should be brought back before the House for discussion.

Incidentally, I have no objection to the proposal to help in the guiding of heavy loads and so on. That seems to be eminently sensible. I am grateful that we are reaching agreement on such a major matter. I am happy to welcome the Government's admission and I assume that there will not be a Division on this matter.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I rise to support the removal of clause 45 from the Bill. The clause seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to add to, amend or repeal the powers and duties specified in schedules 4 and 5. Schedule 4 relates to powers exercisable by police civilians, most of which I would be quite happy to see repealed; I would not mind that element of the Bill staying in. However, the idea of enabling the Secretary of State to add to or amend those powers fills me with horror.

I hope to speak in more detail tomorrow on CSOs when part 1 of the Bill is debated. I have grave reservations about giving the powers of a constable in uniform to anyone other than a fully trained constable. For that reason alone, I support the omission of clause 45.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

It would be a shame to let this moment pass so quickly and not to dwell on the fact that we have persuaded the Government to climb down on this matter, which the Minister did with considerable eloquence and style. I have been trawling through the Committee reports and, unfortunately, there is no "killer quote"; that is unlike the "killer quotes" made by the Prime Minister while speaking on the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994. I pay tribute to the Minister for that.

I also pay tribute to the House of Lords for raising the issue. The Lords had the power in the Division Lobby, but my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) had the power of oratory to persuade the Government. It would be tempting to divide the House and watch Labour Members who served on the Committee vote for something against which they all voted two weeks ago. Sadly, I am not sure whether there is a single person in the House who would provide a Teller for the other side in a Division.

The serious point made in Committee and in the House of Lords was that, after all the controversy about the powers that CSOs would have—and about CSOs themselves—it was wrong for the Home Secretary simply to add to those powers, despite the Government making certain concessions, including on the power of detention and arrest. However, it would have been wrong to give the Home Secretary that power.

There is a division of opinion both in the House and in the police force as to whether CSOs will work or not. We should wait and see, and the removal of the clause will at least give us a safeguard. If there is a feeling that the powers of CSOs need to be increased, the Government must come back to the House for a proper debate and not use the unsatisfactory statutory instrument procedure; they must use primary legislation.

The point has been made that the Home Office always has so many Bills going through at any one time that there will not be a problem in finding parliamentary time. It is not as if the Minister comes from one of those obscure Departments that are always desperately looking for a slot in the Queen's Speech. No doubt there will be many slots for the Minister and the Home Secretary.

I welcome the climbdown, and I hope it is a foretaste of things to come tomorrow. We will wait and see.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I would like to spend a few moments dwelling on tonight's enjoyable occurrence—the withdrawal of clause 45. It is particularly appropriate to welcome a change of heart by the Government in a week when 13 statutory instruments are being rammed through the House. I am pleased to see that, in a week during which we see such evidence of government by statutory instrument by the Labour party, provisions are being taken out of this Bill that would have allowed the Government to use statutory instruments to widen the powers of community support officers. There is a delightful irony there, if I might put it like that.

Among rank-and-file officers, there was more concern about the new institution of CSOs than about almost any other element in the Bill. To put it at its bluntest, there was concern among regular police officers that they might have to spend a lot of their time protecting the CSOs as they attempted to carry out their duties, thus diverting regular police officers from carrying out other important tasks.

My personal view is that, rather than pushing the CSO agenda, it would have been better to have provisions in the Bill to boost the position of special constables, with whom the regular police are used to working. Special constables are volunteers whose hearts are fully in the job and who do a tremendous service to all members of the public. The numbers of special constables have declined considerably under this Government. There were about 20,000 special constables in 1993; there were some 19,000 in 1997, when Labour took office; now, there are fractionally over 12,000. That is a gigantic drop. Many are leaving because they are demoralised by the way in which their service is being run by a Labour Government. Surely it would have been better to reinforce the special constabulary in a proactive and helpful manner, and to let it work with the police, rather than bringing in an entirely new type of officer.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) ably pointed out, we will have to wait and see whether this experiment works. Like many other Opposition Members, I have reservations about it—as, indeed, do many professional police officers. I am delighted that the Government have given way on this aspect of the Bill, at least, but would that they had not come up with this idea in the first place.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Somewhat ironically, the Conservatives' comments reveal the true nature of their opposition. As two such contributions have shown, they are against community support officers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) nods, but in my constituency CSOs will be welcomed. In Stanley, our experiment with community safety wardens has proved very popular, and I am sure that CSOs will prove likewise.

The Government have taken a very practical approach to ensure that the Bill is enacted. It is clear that an alliance has been forged between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on this issue, but the public should take note of the fact that this Government are not simply talking about making communities much safer; they are putting in place provisions to achieve that end. The Opposition have nitpicked and gloated, both today and in Committee.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the Minister acknowledged, the reality is that agreement was reached on 98 per cent. of the Bill. There were only one or two contentious points—points of substance—one of which the Government conceded, so it is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to speak of Opposition nitpicking.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I would be happy if the Conservatives had made it clear in Committee and on the Floor of the House that they are against CSOs—the hon. Member for Upminster did so a moment ago—but instead they are trying to neuter them. It is clear that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is not convinced that CSOs will be effective, but I am and so are the Government, who want to ensure that communities are made safer. The Opposition should have the courage of their convictions and say that they are against CSOs, rather than trying to neuter them.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

Rank-and-file police officers are unable to speak in this House, but we are. We are not nitpicking; we are simply articulating the concerns expressed to us by several such officers in our constituencies. They earn their living as police officers, and they are seriously concerned about whether this idea will work. We are representing—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. This debate is moving outside the strict terms of the amendment that we are discussing. As we have another group of amendments to discuss and a limited amount of time, it would help the House if we could focus exactly on the amendment before us.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I find it strange that Conservatives are now acting as the trade union officials of police authorities. I welcome CSOs and so will my community. This Government should get a lot of credit for their introduction, but the Opposition will claim that credit, or—once they prove popular—they will say that they thought that they would work. We shall also see the usual double standards from the Liberal Democrats. I support the amendment, in the sense that we need to get the Bill passed.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. I regret the sentiments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who accuses Conservatives of gloating: this subject is wholly above such pettiness.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Absolutely.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I also resent the idea that the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) suggest that he is acting as some sort of trade union official. The hon. Member for North Durham, the Minister and others—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not heeding my advice.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall stick rigidly to the subject.

I should like to add my support for the withdrawal of clause 45, and to point out that Nottinghamshire constabulary has broadly welcomed its withdrawal. I should also point out that I spoke to those policemen not as a trade union official, but as their Member of Parliament. Despite what was said in Committee, all of them—

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Has the hon. Gentleman asked those of his constituents who are ordinary members of the public whether they are in favour of CSOs and safer communities?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Yes, I have, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point out my assiduousness in doing so. Naturally, my constituents are concerned about safety, but they are somewhat concerned and confused about the nature of CSOs. The policemen to whom I have spoken welcome the withdrawal of the clause. They view this as an opportunity for CSOs to take to the streets and, if they prove successful, perhaps to grow into the sort of institution—I am thinking of traffic wardens—that we all know and may not like, but which we certainly respect. It is not a question of gloating; they regard this as a common-sense measure, which I like to think Opposition Members have persuaded the Government to adopt.

I am grateful to the Minister for showing enormous common sense in respect of this clause, and I add my support to the amendment.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I support the amendment, but I am disappointed that we have reached this compromise. It is clear that the amendment is necessary simply to ensure that the Bill is enacted. Much of the antisocial behaviour legislation that we pass gives rise to problems with flexibility. We repeatedly have to return to such issues, saying that we need to enact primary legislation. The point of the clause was to give flexibility, so that, if necessary, the Secretary of State could regulate and change community support officers' powers to tackle antisocial behaviour.

If the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and others do not want CSOs in their areas because they believe that they will not work, I am happy to have them in mine. CSOs will provide a further option in the range available in tackling antisocial behaviour. It is important to note that, because the legislation will work in an unprecedented way, CSOs to some extent will not prove as effective as we would like.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

We will therefore have to return to the matter and make the necessary changes through primary legislation. Our constituents will say, "Why hasn't the House allowed CSOs the flexibility to use their powers on the street in such a way that they can tackle antisocial behaviour?"

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The hon. Gentleman may be missing the point somewhat. It is not so much that people oppose CSOs but that—in my experience of my constituents and members of the police force—they are cautious about the proposals. We do not understand them fully, and that is why we welcome the withdrawal of the clause.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The hon. Gentleman will have to defend that position. It is a reasonable position to take, and Conservative Front Benchers also take a reasonable position, although they seek to decry the position that I take. My point is that because the Home Secretary will not have the flexibility that the original provisions provided, the CSOs will be introduced with curtailed powers. With the amendment, if we wish to change that, we will need primary legislation to do so. That is wrong and we will unnecessarily deny CSOs the flexibility that they should have.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am pleased to receive such support for a Government amendment. My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for North Durham (Mr. Jones) have made excellent contributions to the debate. It is a matter of sadness that some of the opposition to the provisions has stemmed from opposition to the whole concept of CSOs, rather than the merits of clause 100. The provisions were examined by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not find them offensive in procedural terms. It was always the case that the flexibility we sought would have been exercised subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring positive votes in both Houses of Parliament.

It is a great shame that the drive to undermine the concept of CSOs, which has been so common among the Opposition, has led to opposition to the provisions. None the less, I want the Bill to make progress so that we see real CSOs out there in communities, including some exercising the full powers that they will have.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I wish to reaffirm on the record, so that no one is under any illusion, the fact that the official Opposition do not oppose CSOs. It is true that with a blank sheet of paper we would have made different proposals for providing extra help for the police. However, we have never and will never oppose the use of civilians in assisting the police. The only debate has been about the range of their powers, and that will be the subject of tomorrow's debate. We do not oppose CSOs, nor giving them some powers: we are concerned about the range of their powers, and that is why we have opposed these provisions.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

In tomorrow's debate, we will see just how many Opposition Members support their Front Benchers in that position. The tone of many contributions has not been in line with those remarks. However, for practical reasons, we have agreed to remove these provisions from the Bill and perhaps we could now move on to the last group of amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 103 — Short title, commencement and extent

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 101, line 40, leave out "96(3)" and insert "96".

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Continued deployment of traffic wardens—

'Police authorities shall continue to appoint persons to discharge, in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of, or enforcement of the law relating to, traffic or stationary vehicles unless—

(a) notwithstanding regulations under Part VIII of the Road Traffic Regulations Act, the police authority passes a resolution by 1st January 2004 not to continue deploying traffic wardens; and

(b) that police authority informs the chief officer of police for that police force and the Secretary of State of its decision.'.

Government amendments Nos. 35 and 58.

Amendment No. 100, in schedule 4, page 148, line 41, at end insert—'Traffic warden powers—

(14) Where a designation in this paragraph applies to any person that person shall have all the powers of traffic wardens under—

(a) the Traffic Wardens Order 1970 (SI 1958);

(b) the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

(c) the Road Traffic Act 1991; and

(d) the Traffic Wardens Amendment Order 1993 (SI 1334).'.

Government amendment No. 59.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I mentioned this group of amendments earlier. Under current legislation, only the police have a general power to stop vehicles and only the police and traffic wardens—in this sense, traffic wardens means those employed by police authorities—have a power to direct traffic. That means that police have to be employed for such purposes as stopping vehicles for emissions tests and escorting abnormal loads, even though their other powers are not required. That is not the best use of police time.

Traffic wardens already have a power to direct traffic. Clause 44 removes restrictions on their power to stop, which will enable them to undertake escorting duties. The amendments clarify the fact that their power to stop includes a power to stop vehicles for tests of their roadworthiness and compliance with construction and use regulations. We will also, by these amendments, give CSOs and accredited persons a limited power to stop vehicles and direct traffic. The power will be solely for the same escorting and testing purposes. The amendments will allow local authority traffic wardens to be given the power to stop traffic for those specific purposes. For the avoidance of doubt, I should emphasise that it will not be necessary to confer on any such local authority traffic wardens any of the other powers that may or may not be conferred on other accredited persons within the force area. They could be accredited and trained only in the use of the power to stop traffic.

The amendments will reduce the number of occasions on which the police have to be diverted from other important tasks to help other agencies and road hauliers, and to carry out work unrelated to crime and public order. That will also benefit the other agencies and hauliers, since they will no longer have to wait on the availability of police, who might then be withdrawn at short notice for more urgent operational duties. That is much less likely to happen with traffic wardens, CSOs and accredited persons. The accredited persons may in fact be the employees of another interested party—for example, the Vehicle Inspectorate—if they have been so accredited by a chief officer of police under the provisions of the Bill. The amendments will free up police time for crime reduction, facilitate the enforcement of other legislation and promote road safety.

Amendment No. 100 would extend all traffic wardens' powers to CSOs. The Government amendments will give certain, tightly defined traffic powers to CSOs such as the power to stop vehicles to help other agencies in particular circumstances. That is not the same as giving all traffic wardens' powers to CSOs. However, if it were desirable locally to ensure that CSOs exercised the full powers of traffic wardens, that could be achieved without amendment No. 100, either by designating someone who is already a traffic warden as a CSO, or appointing a CSO as a traffic warden. We have preferred to add some limited specific powers for traffic wardens to those available to CSOs.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We think that it is sensible for the Government to provide the opportunity for such tasks as the escorting of exceptional loads to be performed by people other than the police. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance about the level of extra training for those undertaking those tasks. We are conscious that those who perform the specialist role of traffic police, many of whom I have worked with in my previous career at the Bar, have particular experience. The issue has been raised on several occasions, especially in the other place by Earl Attlee, who has particular expertise on the matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the extra training that may be available.

With great respect to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his colleagues, we agree with the Minister that the proposals in the Liberal Democrats' amendment can be achieved without amending the Bill. We would be slightly concerned by the suggestion that anybody who is appointed as a CSO will automatically have all the powers that are currently given to traffic wardens, because that might lead to a confusion of roles. We do not intend that the Bill should create a new category of traffic wardens, and while I understand the sensible motivation behind new clause 8 and amendment No. 100, it is not necessarily the right approach.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Confusion is the issue, and we have tabled new clause 8 and amendment No. 100 to try to avoid it. The reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) can be found at paragraph 49 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which states:

"It is, of course, important that the public are not confused by the introduction of CSOs and community safety accreditation schemes. For this reason we want the public to be able to distinguish between police officers, CSOs and members of accredited community safety schemes. The uniform worn by CSOs will make it clear that they are members of the police service, whilst, as is the case with many neighbourhood or street warden schemes, accredited people will probably wear a more casual uniform. In any case, accredited people will be required to wear a badge . . . which identifies them as members of an accredited scheme." 7.30 pm

Confused? I am. The Government are going to put on our streets special constables who will look like police officers. There is no problem with that, but there will also be CSOs, whose powers will vary from area to area, and they might not even exist in some areas. There will also be accredited officers, who may wear a badge, in addition to their Tesco badges or whatever else they happen to wear. Their powers will also vary from area to area. There will also be local authority traffic wardens, with different powers in different areas.

I drew attention to that confusion on Second Reading, as that is what we want to avoid. Respect for this country's policing system requires that that system commands respect among the public. People must be clear about the powers of officers, and be able to recognise immediately what sort of officer a person is.

At the moment, there is a clear distinction between police officers and traffic wardens, but that clarity will be lost if many new categories of officer are introduced. That will lead to confusion, given that CSOs in different parts of the country will have different powers, if they have them at all. New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 would remove that uncertainty.

Furthermore, we must ensure that the people on our streets are deployed to maximum effect. The Government's intention is to ensure that police officers are not wasted, and that they are not called to deal with trivial matters that could be dealt with by others.

How could it be wrong for traffic wardens on the street to be able to deal with relatively low-grade matters that could be dealt with by a CSO? We suggest that traffic wardens ought to be able to deal with such matters as if they were CSOs. If they are not going to be able to deal with abandoned vehicles or youngsters with alcohol, for example, they will presumably have to call out a CSO. The Government have stated that they want to avoid that duplication of effort, which is a consequence of the proposals in the Bill.

New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 would allow police authorities to decide whether they wanted to rationalise the problem, or whether they wanted to make their employees more effective by giving them the same powers as CSOs. That would also ensure greater understanding of those powers among the public.

I suspect that the Minister will not accept new clause 8 and amendment No. 100. If so, he will be saying that he wants a plethora of people with different powers and that he wants duplication, with the result that people on the street will not be allowed to deal with offences with which they are capable of dealing. I hope that he will reflect on the matter.

I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should like, at the appropriate juncture, to have a vote on new clause 8, as Liberal Democrat Members consider the matter to be important.

The Government amendments seem eminently sensible. I have no problem with them. I am happy to support them.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I am somewhat perplexed by his determination to divide the House on new clause 8, as it attempts to give to police authorities a discretion that they already enjoy. Perhaps the intention was different, but it seems the oddest thing to divide the House on. However, that is the hon. Gentleman's privilege, of course.

I turn now to the questions of training. It is the responsibility of the chief officer to ensure that people such as accredited officers and CSOs have had the necessary levels of training. As I explained in general terms to the Committee, the training authority Centrex will help to advise on the necessary levels of training, taking into account the competencies required for each of the CSO skills.

The Committee debated the question of standardisation. I have made it clear that the Government recognise that there is a choice to be made. It is undeniable that we are introducing a new element into the policing of our communities and streets. The question is this: do we attempt, before a single CSO has been employed or a single organisation accredited, to predict exactly which set of powers and responsibilities will be right, or do we allow the greater flexibility—what is essentially a menu approach—represented by schedules 4 and 5?

Both options can be argued, but I believe that we shall do better to allow that flexibility at the start. We should allow chief officers, after the necessary consultations, to design schemes that meet the problems of policing, antisocial behaviour and traffic management in their areas.

I believe that, over time, the tendency will be towards some consensus on how best to meet the needs of particular communities. I am sure that professional best practice will take us in that direction. The hon. Member for Lewes raises an important point, but he wants us to leap ahead to a time in the future when there is no doubt about the most appropriate menu of powers. I honestly do not think that we have reached that point yet, and I believe that we will have to live with a little variation between areas until we have been able to establish how best to deploy and use CSOs and accredited community safety officers.

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

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. If the hon. Lady is seeking to catch my eye, I advise her that perhaps it would have been more orderly for her to have done so earlier. I can of course call her, but the Minister has already replied to the debate.

Amendment agreed to

Schedule 7 — Minor and Consequential Amendments

Schedule 8 — Repeal