Police Reform Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 10 July 2002.

New Clause 9 — Police powers for local authority employees

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 67, in clause 9, in page 10, line 34, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

'(d) he is a person in relation to whom a designation under section (police powers for local authority employees) is in force.'

Amendment No. 64, in clause 38, in page 39, line 6, after "force", insert—

', after consulting the principal local authority for that area,'.

Amendment No. 63, in page 39, line 14, at end insert—

'(2A) At the end of the first year the police authority maintaining that police force shall give its approval for the continued designation of persons under section 38.

(2B) If a police authority maintaining that force does not give its approval, it shall inform—

(a) the Secretary of State; and

(b) the chief officer of police for that area who shall withdraw all designations under section 38 and make no further designations for a period of not less than one year.'.

Amendment No. 65, in page 41, line 37, leave out Clause 40.

Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29

Amendment No. 66, in page 42, leave out Clause 41.

Amendment No. 69, in clause 42, page 43, line 38, after second "or", insert—

'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.

Amendment No. 68, in page 43, line 38, leave out—

'his accreditation under section 41'.

Amendment No. 70, in page 43, line 39, leave out from "or accreditation".

Amendment No. 72, in page 43, line 42, after second "or", insert—

'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.

Amendment No. 71, in page 43, line 42, leave out—

'his accreditation under section 41'.

Amendment No. 73, in page 43, line 45, leave out "or accreditation".

Amendment No. 74, in page 43, line 46, leave out "or accreditation".

Amendment No. 75, in page 44, leave out lines 1 to 4.

Amendment No. 76, in page 44, line 5, leave out "or accreditation".

Amendment No. 78, in page 44, line 6, after "or", insert—

'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.

Amendment No. 77, in page 44, line 6, leave out "41".

Amendment No. 79, in page 44, line 7, leave out "or accredited person".

Amendment No. 80, in page 44, line 7, leave out "or accreditation".

Amendment No. 81, in page 44, line 15, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 82, in line 37, leave out subsection (10).

Amendment No. 83, in page 44, line 44 leave out Clause 43.

Government amendment No. 33

Amendment No. 84, in clause 45, in page 46, line 17, leave out "or 5".

Amendment No. 85, in page 46, line 18, leave out from "in" to the end of line 19 and insert "that Schedule".

Amendment No. 86, in page 46, line 20, leave out from first "of" to end of line 21 and insert "that Schedule".

Amendment No. 88, in page 46, line 34, after "or", insert—

'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.

Amendment No. 87, in page 46, line 34, leave out "41".

Amendment No. 89, in page 46, line 35, leave out—

'or, as the case may be, 5'.

Government amendments Nos. 36 to 38

Amendment No. 90, in clause 47, in page 47, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 91, in page 48, line 1, leave out "or accredited".

Amendment No. 92, in page 48, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 93, in page 48, line 15, leave out "or an accredited person".

Amendment No. 94, in page 48, line 17, leave out—

'or that he is an accredited person'.

Amendment No. 95, in page 48, line 19, leave out "or accredited".

Amendment No. 96, in page 48, line 24, leave out "or accredited person".

Amendment No. 97, in page 48, line 26, leave out "or accreditation".

Amendment No. 98, in clause 48, page 48, leave out lines 29 to 33.

Amendment No. 99, in page 157, line 38, leave out Schedule 5.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I promise not to address each amendment in this group; otherwise we would be here for some considerable time. Indeed, I shall be reasonably brief, as I am conscious of the hour, and also of the following groups of amendments, which we want to reach tonight. I do not want to repeat last night's debate, except to remind hon. Members that our vision for policing is not—unfortunately, from our point of view—the vision set out in the Bill.

Our vision is based on simplicity, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and having in post people who are properly trained. We are not convinced that the configuration proposed by the Government achieves those ends. Our vision is to have both police officers as we have at present, full-time, part-time or specials, and community support officers—an idea that, I might remind the Minister, we suggested in our manifesto and have always supported in principle.

We believe that for the purposes of simplicity and effectiveness, and of ensuring that as many people as possible are used to tackle the issues that we have been discussing under the Bill, the category of community support officers should include traffic wardens, and vice versa, because of their powers. That was the point that we were making when we voted on new clause 8.

That would provide a simplicity and an accountability that I believe are lacking in the Government proposals. Last night the Minister said he thought that we might get there in the long run, but that the question was whether we should try to create that structure from the start. There is a genuine disagreement across the Floor of the House on how we should approach that matter. We are clear that the Government proposals will provide not simplicity, but a plethora of different people with different powers, according to where they are in the country. Indeed, the powers could be different on different sides of the street when people crossed from one borough or district to another.

Accountability will be missing, especially from accredited officers who are not even employed by a public authority. There is also a question mark over whether they will be efficient and effective—two of the Government's key tests—if people do not even know what powers they have, and there is no clear relationship, in the public's mind at least, between the various bodies created and the people who staff them.

With that in mind, we have tried to address some of the issues. New clause 9 is an attempt to ensure that community support officers, as well as being employed by the police, could also be employed by local authorities. That would ensure accountability, because local authorities are democratically elected. It would also build on the Government's welcome initiative of crime and disorder partnerships, which are clearly working. 7.30 pm

The sorts of powers that we, and the Government, wish to give to CSOs would fit in well with those partnerships, and it is proper that local authorities should play a role in them. I speak as a former council leader, and I see another, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), in his place on the Treasury Bench. Such measures would be simpler and more understandable, not to mention closer to the community—to pick up the point made in the last debate about ensuring accountability and community involvement. We already have a precedent, because traffic warden powers have been exercised locally. That Government initiative is working well in those areas in which it has been deployed. The Government have conceded that principle: we seek to extend it to CSOs. That is the gist of new clause 9.

I hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving local authorities a clearer role in the sorts of powers that they wish to give to CSOs. That appears to me to be an uncontroversial suggestion. The CSOs would, of course, have to be approved by the local chief constable, and they would have to be properly trained. The chief constable would also need an input into what the CSOs were doing. I shall not discuss those caveats at length, but I do recognise the need for some police involvement.

It is impossible to address all these amendments, but I shall turn now to the other main issue of concern, which is the issue of accredited officers. It may not be widely known outside the House, but the Bill presages the suggestion that a whole range of people should be given police powers, without being accountable to the police or to local authorities. That strikes Liberal Democrats as a dangerous precedent. It would mean that companies—including those that are highly regarded, or otherwise—could have employees with police powers. The Government have introduced amendments to include the railway industry, so that could mean that employees of companies such as Jarvis or Tesco could have police powers. That would be dangerous. Without overstating my case, I suggest that it would amount to a part-privatisation of policing, and we would resist that. I am surprised that a Labour Government have made such a suggestion.

The measures would also open the door to policing for profit. Those companies who employ the accredited persons will clearly wish to have them act in the interests of that company rather than of the general public, and those interests are not necessarily the same.

As we discussed in Committee, to make matters worse, those employees of private companies would undertake public police functions without being subject to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which the Bill will rightly set up and of which everybody approves. That body will deal with police officers and with CSOs, but it will not deal with those private sector accredited persons. Not only will they have dubious powers, but they will not even be accountable in the same way. We have tabled an amendment, which appears in the next group, on that point.

I am sorry if I am being hard on the Minister when I say that in Committee he at no stage gave a philosophical justification for giving private sector employees these powers. He explained why it was necessary to have some people who exercised low-level police powers—nobody disagrees with that—but he has not explained why it is acceptable that they will not be democratically accountable in the way that CSOs will be and police officers clearly are at present.

The Minister has also failed to address the point that members of the public may resent being confronted by a private sector employee who wishes to exercise police powers. That will cause further problems for policing at a time when we are trying to make it more acceptable and better rooted in the community. A member of the public who would be prepared to accept a ticket for littering or some other minor offence from a police officer, or even a CSO, may not be prepared to accept it in the same spirit from a Tesco employee. The Government must address the point that they will create problems in understanding the chain of accountability and the possibility that people will resist tickets and other enforcement measures that will form part of the powers that will be given to those accredited officers. The Minister is in danger of undermining respect for the law through allowing private sector employees to exercise those powers.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Connex, the railway company, has shown that it is possible to train staff to be police officers, because some of its staff have been sworn in as special constables. They have proper authority because they have had proper training. If the private sector wants to make a contribution, that is a much more legitimate, acceptable and effective way to do it. We have not heard much about that alternative, which, I suggest, the public would prefer.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful for that intervention. The Connex experiment is an interesting one that perhaps the Government could build on, instead of seeking to create a new tier of accredited persons, who will not have that accountability.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I raised the same point in Committee. I said to the Minister that it was extraordinary that one Minister should suggest that the proposals in this Bill are the right way forward, at the same time as his colleague the Minister for Transport was doing lots of media work about the Connex experiment and claiming that specials were the way forward. I suggested that the Government were all over the shop on that point.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I fear that that is so. In Committee, it also became clear that scant attention has been paid to the opportunity to increase the number of specials, when we should have concentrated on that approach. The number of specials has dropped dramatically in the past five years, and we now have only some 12,000. I put on record the fact that Ministers rejected attempts to improve conditions and provide a bounty payment for specials that my colleagues and I proposed in Committee. We made constructive suggestions in that area, and it is odd that the Government have rejected those suggestions while choosing to employ private sector employees in a quasi-policing role.

I will not develop my arguments further because of the time factor, but this issue is of key importance, both practically and philosophically. It is wrong for private sector employees to be given police powers. Apart from the principle of the issue, they will act in the interests of the private company, not of the public. The measure will not be conducive to good policing, and the fact that the accredited persons will be outside the complaints procedure only underlines our determination to oppose the proposal. I give notice of our intention to divide the House on amendment No. 65, which relates to that proposal.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) places my colleagues and myself in a slightly difficult position. While we agree with much of what he has said, we do not agree with the substantive content of his amendments. We have never made any secret of our concerns about the concept of accredited community support officers. That is not because—as Labour Members have suggested—we oppose the involvement of the voluntary sector. I have seen, as others have, countless examples of street wardens, neighbourhood wardens and ambassadors—there are many different names for them—voluntarily helping the police. Some of them wear uniforms, and some do not. I have spoken to many people who provide that service and, without exception, they are happy to do so, but they do not want the powers envisaged in schedule 5.

We strongly support those schemes, and I want them to be expanded and enlarged. I have no objection to the concept that there should be some form of accreditation to prove that the employees are worthwhile, that they meet certain minimum standards, and that the chief constable of their authority is happy with what they do.

We were very worried about the proposal to give those employees police powers. I shall not repeat the Committee debate, but I have some sympathy with the proposition from the hon. Member for Lewes that schedule 5 should be abolished. I have slightly less sympathy with the proposal that all ACSOs should therefore come under schedule 4, although there is a clear logic in suggesting that only one set of powers should be granted to civilians, regardless of whether they are employed in the police service or outside it.

However, we are concerned that the amendments would allow only local authority employees to become ACSOs. I suspect that, in that respect, I shall find that I am all square with the Minister. As he said in Committee, such a measure would place 35 per cent. of street warden schemes outside the requirements that have to be met by accredited community safety organisations. Ruling out such organisations seems a very short-sighted approach. I have therefore told the hon. Member for Lewes privately that the Opposition cannot support that proposal.

The problem goes deeper, as Conservative Members do not share the Liberal Democrats' philosophical objection to using people who are not employed by local authorities. We would obviously be pleased if social landlords and other charitable organisations were to be involved in the scheme, but we are also happy in principle with the idea that private-sector bodies—car park operators, or the operators of large shopping malls, for instance—should be involved. There is some logic in getting them involved, whether or not their operatives are given powers by the chief constable.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lewes about special constables, however. When the Bill first appeared in the other place, we opposed the proposals on this matter, on the ground that using special constables would avoid all the problems about who had what powers. People know exactly who and what special constables are, and what powers they possess. Although we recognise the reality of the situation—as the Minister did in a different context last night—and accept ACSOs as a concept, I entirely share the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman that, as yet, little seems to have been done to revitalise the special constabulary. However, that is a debate for another time, and the Committee did consider the matter.

I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Member for Lewes that the Opposition will not support him if he presses the new clause to a Division. However, we have immense concerns about how ACSOs will settle down, not least because of the problem of accountability. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in his speech earlier, and the matter arose in Committee.

There are also difficulties with regard to uniforms, and whether the officers will be readily recognisable. Other problems include training, and the way in which organisations that employ street or neighbourhood wardens become accredited. The Minister referred to that matter in Committee, but we are still worried about the transitional process involved before ACSOs can use the powers that their chief constable decides to allocate to them.

Most street wardens get only a day or two of training. They may have some experience, but that is no substitute for training if they are to start using police powers. We expressed our major concerns about ACSOs in Committee: the Minister is well aware of them, and I hope and trust that he will have taken them on board. Our concerns are serious, and they need to be dealt with under the regulatory aspects of this part of the Bill.

We accept that ACSOs will be introduced, and we welcome the concept of accrediting the many existing schemes. We retain reservations about the powers to be given to ACSOs, but we accept the situation in Parliament for what it is.

Therefore, although I have much sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Lewes in moving the amendments, I am afraid that we will not be able to support him in the Lobby.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am ad idem with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on this matter, and believe that he made some important points in his speech.

I do not know why the Government have not expanded the role of special constables over the past few years, or why they have not tried to recruit properly. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other bodies fully support extending the recruitment of special constables, but I suspect that the Government have set their face against that idea because they do not want to pay for extra special constables, or accord them proper employment rights.

I am not holding my breath, therefore, that there will be an expansion in the numbers of special constables in the foreseeable future. I am not alone in that belief. I hope that I am wrong, for the sake of good policing in the future, but I suspect that I may be right.

I also agree that CSOs could cause resentment and confusion. Traffic wardens are very often subjected to abuse nowadays, even though they are not a recent innovation. They have been around a good many years, and are readily recognisable, but they are nevertheless abused constantly for carrying out their lawful duties.

Policing is a highly specialised occupation. It is a tall order just to expect someone to understand the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, yet that legislation is a basic tenet of police practice.

I believe that the police service as a whole will be brought into disrepute when the ACSOs fail, as they unfortunately will. Police officers will be tarred with the same brush. The proposal smacks of policing on the cheap.

Police officers ask who will train these people. Who will be with them out on the beat, training them in the proper practice of policing? It is appalling that such people will not be subject to independent scrutiny. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so.

We do not ask police officers to treat injuries or diagnose illnesses, any more than we ask doctors to be police officers. Both careers are important, and deserve proper respect.

Finally, the notion of hobby bobbies is an awful one.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Will the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) clarify new clause 9(1), which states:

"The chief officer of any police force may designate any person who is a local authority employee as a community support officer"?

It does not say that the employee should be designated as an ACSO. Is that intentional, or is it a drafting error? Is it the intention that the person involved should continue to be employed by the local authority? The Bill makes it clear that CSOs will be employed by the police.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am happy to clarify that we want CSOs to be employed either by local authorities or by the police. We are not in favour of the accredited scheme for the private sector, which is quite different, but I had to deal with both issues in one new clause.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. The reservations that I had before are even greater now.

My local authority is the London borough of Havering. It already employs community wardens, and the scheme is working well. The wardens have good relationships with the local police and with members of the community. Their red jackets make them instantly identifiable, and no one mistakes them for police officers. However, the introduction of another tier of officers employed by local authorities would cause a great deal of confusion.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I know, in general terms, the arrangements that exist in Havering, and other London boroughs have similar schemes. We do not want to undermine those arrangements. However, if a firm such as Sainsbury's wishes to have community support officers or neighbourhood wardens, for example, we propose that, instead of employing those officers itself, the firm should pay money to the police or the local authority. In that way, the police or the local authority would have a contract with the firm, but the officers would be police or local authority employees. We want to determine where the accountability lies, but we do not want to prevent bodies other than the local authority from helping with policing.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

That is several steps too far for me, and I regret that I will be unable to support the new clause.

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

I was rather hoping that more Members would share our vision, particularly as in the previous debate speakers on both sides of the House agreed with our basic premise about giving police authorities more accountability. This proposition is largely about accountability and effectiveness.

There is confusion over all the categories in the Bill. People frequently use the wrong terms—a CSO could mean community support officer in one context, with accreditation in another. Confusion is not the best way to support the police and give the public what they want. The different powers are very confusing. The Government's response to the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs refers to the various uniforms and badges that might be worn and says:

"Both designated and accredited people will be expected to carry with them details of any powers they have been given."

One is tempted to ask whether that is because they need to remember their powers.

I recall a fictitious example in Committee, which was very amusing at the time. A member of the Committee suggested that how he was treated would depend on which side of the road he stood, which would be confusing. If he were on one side, he might feel reassured that he could simply ask the appropriate officer to empty his or her pockets.

The main thing about deterrence is certainty, but these people will not be easily recognised because different uniforms could be worn. I do not think that the different layers will be immediately understood by the public. The resulting uncertainty will mean that the important deterrent effect is lost. If everybody is clear about the role of the people walking around, that will deter people from committing antisocial behaviour.

My local authority has just taken over the powers of traffic wardens from the police. The council wanted to widen the jobs that they might do. If a traffic warden who sees broken glass on the road picks up the phone and tells someone about it, that is sensible. However, there were difficulties with the transfer of powers. I do not think that it will be as easy as the Minister suggested last night to re-engage with a different title. Our amendments would improve matters, giving genuine support to the police and, fundamentally, giving the public the support that they want.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

I welcome the Bill and oppose new clause 9. In common with most Members who represent urban constituencies, I have, over the years, seen the balance of complaints and concerns expressed at my advice bureau change from those of housing to those of quality of life, including neighbour nuisance, vandalism committed by young people and harassment. It has become obvious to me that even with the scheduled increase in police numbers, we need a force out there to deal with the low-level nuisance that can have such an effect on people.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I agree.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's agreement. It is a question of how we set up the organisations to deal with that, and I will come to that shortly.

It has also been obvious to me that whatever we spend on education and health will count for nothing if we cannot address these specific quality of life issues.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Would the hon. Gentleman be opposed to expanding the special constabulary? Would that not deal with the problems that he describes?

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

I welcome that intervention. The short answer is no, but I should like to deal with it in a little more detail later.

All other improvements in public services are meaningless if people are frightened to leave their home in case they are harassed or mugged. That is particularly true of elderly people. The irony is that, statistically, elderly people are far less likely to be involved in a mugging or a burglary than young people, but the fear of crime among them is far greater and has a far greater impact on their quality of life.

I am sure that other Members agree that when we knock on doors and see people at our advice surgeries, the overwhelming demand is for more bobbies on the beat. We have all heard the slogan. However, a highly trained policeman walking around an area is probably the least effective way of combating crime. Professional hardened criminals are hardly likely to carry out their activities within sight of a policeman and they have the means of moving on rather more quickly than a bobby on the beat.

What people really want is a person with authority, in a uniform, to offer reassurance, which is the key. I remember, as a child, playing on a football pitch in the local park when I should not have been. When I saw the park keeper approach in his uniform, I was off, to engage in more licit activities, as it were. That is the sort of reaction that we want from young people who may be engaged in activities that impair quality of life, that are not illegal but need to be countered. The prospect of a person in uniform having a presence in areas where that sort of activity takes place is immensely reassuring and, conversely, acts as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour.

We are recruiting more police, but it is questionable whether in urban areas such as mine, even with a huge increase in police numbers, we would have sufficient numbers to carry out that role or even whether it would be an effective use of officers.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. However, does he believe that the group of people whom we both want could be employed by local authorities as well as the police, as new clause 9 suggests? Secondly, does he believe that it is right for private sector companies to employ people with police powers?

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

I will deal with those points very quickly. The various agencies involved in curbing the problem must work together. That involves local authorities, and I think that accreditation schemes are very worthy because they take partnership working, which has been built up at local level, another step forward. However, I cannot see why that should be confined to local authority employees. In different circumstances, it may be necessary to involve private sector employees. The example of a shopping mall has already been given. The more organisations that have an interest in social supervision, training people and working together with the police, the better it will be.

I shall briefly deal with the issue about the specials raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Yes, I do believe in the specials—they do a grand job—but the hon. Gentleman missed the essential point that most of them already have a full-time occupation and do the job because of their commitment to the community and the ideals of the force that they wish to serve. They do not necessarily want to do that job full-time. To suggest that such problems could be dealt with simply by expanding the special constabulary is to believe a myth.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is exactly why I said that special constables should be paid. There would then be more recruitment and, although part-time, they would be fully trained. They would also accrue employment rights, which is want the Government do not want.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

Whether they should be paid is part of a bigger debate, but the payment issue would not substantially alter the need for community support officers, the thrust of the Bill and our reasons for opposing the new clause.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I want to make a brief point to support the case that my hon. Friends have put in Committee and in the Chamber. One of the reasons why I am disappointed that the Government do not understand the merit of our argument that such people should be accountable is that there will be no common standards and practices if different organisations and private companies employ security officers to do the police's support job in any local authority in the land.

In reality, there will be different codes of conduct and those involved will work in different ways. No one can possibly manage to get them all to work in a similar way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid–Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, various organisations will have different powers, and those organisations will sometimes have to check which powers they have.

However, there is another civics and citizenship point. If we are trying to get youngsters—secondary school children and teenagers—to pay respect to authority, it is far better that they understand that authority resides in people who are publicly accountable and have status in society. I do not know what the experience of colleagues has been, but security guards in shopping centres and car parks are not shown that respect. They are seen not as the representatives of law and order in society, but as looking after the private interests of those with cars in the car parks or shops in the shopping centres.

If we want young people to respect authority, we will mitigate the chances of that by having all sorts of people sharing all sorts of self-defining authority. That will significantly reduce youngsters' respect for the law. I am sad that the Government do not believe that it would be better for the police to police and for them to be accountable only to police authorities or local authorities so that complaints can be raised with properly accountable citizens.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall try to reply briefly because many of the issues were aired in Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asks for a philosophical argument. I think that a Victorian, Edward Whimper, when asked why he climbed mountains, was the first to answer, "Because they are there." That is part of the answer to this question. Neighbourhood wardens, street wardens, security guards and those responsible for co-ordinating security in major shopping centres are playing the role today.

The accreditation scheme is intended to enable those various people to be effectively co-ordinated by and with the police, but Liberal Democrat Members wish to pass up that opportunity. Indeed, they would go further than simply passing it up; they wish to exclude, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, a third of all the neighbourhood and street warden schemes because they are run by registered social landlords or other similar bodies. They would be taken out of accreditation. Ironically, the police would undoubtedly still wish to work with those organisations because they exist, but they would be outside any standards and accreditation framework. It is very difficult to understand how that is an advantage over the system that we propose.

The lines of accountability are clear. For example, chief officers will have responsibilities with regard to the accreditation scheme, including the responsibility to ensure that there are clear lines of accountability, complaint systems and so on. There clearly is flexibility about the powers that can be deployed. We discussed that issue last night, but I merely point out that we are discussing the power to make people give their names and addresses, to issue a fixed-penalty notice for riding on the pavement, or to do the same things as local authority dog wardens. In a sense, it is right to say that those are police powers. They certainly conjure up an image of normal policing powers, although they are pretty low-level, but important, public disorder issues.

The amendments would have a serious consequence: they would exclude a large number of very good schemes and make it quite impossible to co-ordinate effectively and properly with private sector providers. They would have the effect of ensuring that anyone from a local authority had to exercise the full powers of a community support officer. We have taken the view that the higher powers should be exercised only by those who work for the police service and are directly employed and accountable to the chief constable.

The hon. Member for Lewes wishes to give local authority employees—they may well be dog wardens or litter wardens—the full powers of CSOs. Even though they work for a local authority, there would not be the accountability to the chief officer that exists under our proposals. Finally, the hon. Gentleman wants the local authority to approve every single named individual appointed as a CSO by a chief officer. What a recipe for bureaucratic nonsense and disaster that would represent.

I refute the idea that we are not interested in the specials, but the point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that we cannot expect those in what is essentially a volunteer force working in their own time to fulfil the patrolling and reassurance duties carried out by full-time employees during their working week. It would be a mistake to do that.

In Committee, I clearly set out—I shall not do so again now—our commitment to reverse the decline in the number of specials and the measures that we are taking to encourage the further recruitment of specials. Those hon. Members who have sought to say that, somehow, the promotion of CSOs or accredited community safety officers represents an alternative in the Government's view to the promotion of specials are, frankly, wrong, and I say that quite genuinely. The advantage of specials has been undersold for many years and to some degree I regret the perhaps inevitable fact that all the focus on the new issue—CSOs and ACSOs—has overshadowed the importance that the Government give to specials as part of the police reform process.

I briefly want to say a couple of other things. This has not been the subject of debate, but I should point out that the Government amendments will involve the Mayor of London in a limited consultation role in relation to ACSOs. That is in line with the type of consultation powers with other local authority bodies that were introduced in another place. It is limited to ACSOs because that parallels other legislation.

Finally, I want make an important point, which has been only touched on, about police authorities and the appointment of CSOs. Police authorities have been concerned about their right to consultation on the appointment of CSOs. In common with other support staff, the right to engage and dismiss civilians lies with chief officers and has been considered as an operational matter. However, I want to make it clear that the Government will expect chief officers fully to consult police authorities before embarking on the employment and designation of CSOs. I cannot imagine that any chief officer would not wish to do so, but I would certainly cover that issue in the code of practice under clause 46 when it is issued if such problems become apparent.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I certainly welcome the last point that the Minister makes, as the issue was raised in Committee. I also agree with him on consulting the Mayor of London, although I am not sure whether I agree on very much else in his contribution. I shall try to respond very briefly, given the time pressures that we are under.

First, there is nothing wrong with having street wardens. I continually said in Committee that they are a jolly good thing and that they do a very useful job. There is nothing wrong with treating them as we treat bouncers. They should have a code of practice to ensure that they behave in a certain way and that they meet common standards. There is nothing wrong with trying to pull them into the crime and disorder partnership. However, I disagree with the Government because they want to give police powers to such wardens. The essential difference is that we think that they should not have police powers.

The Government view those people as a cheap to produce alternative arm of policing from the private sector. We do not accept that; it is a philosophical difference. Why should I be given a ticket for riding a bike on a pavement by an employee of Jarvis? That is what the Bill will specifically allow. I cited that example in Committee, and the Minister accepted that that will be the case. In fact, he said that it was a good idea that organisations such as Jarvis and those in the railway industry would have the power to issue tickets for cycling on pavements. That is what we face—the Government's proposals do not make sense. The Minister says that he did not say anything of the sort, but the Hansard report of the Committee will show that he did. Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to try to remove those powers from railway accredited persons.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

If ACSOs are not going to stop the hon. Gentleman from riding on a pavement, who is?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Perhaps a community support officer with those powers who is an employee of the police or the local authority—someone who is democratically accountable and properly trained; not an employee of Jarvis or Tesco. That is the answer to that point.

The Minister is right that we want to give all CSOs full powers. We want them to be properly trained, and we want to ensure that a traffic warden, for instance—or someone else who has been properly trained—can deal with an incident on the street. They should not have to ring up someone else because they do not have that power. They should be able to deal with it there and then. We do not want a situation in which people have different powers in their pockets according to which side of the street or which borough they happen to be on or in. That is a recipe for confusion, and the Minister has not addressed that point.

As I am conscious of time, I shall not pursue this matter further. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response, however, and I shall want to divide the House on amendment No. 65 at the appropriate juncture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 — The Independent Police Complaints Commission

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 23, after "Majesty", insert—

'on an address presented by the House of Commons and proposed by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.'.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 12, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

'(d) he is a person accredited under section 41.

(e) he is a person accredited under section 43.'.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

The amendment was tabled by me and colleagues from all parties on the Select Committee. It is a modest little amendment that gives effect to one of the recommendations in our recent report on the Bill. It requires only the tiniest touch of the tiller in the direction of Parliament and away from the Executive.

Clause 9 currently provides for the chairman of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission to be appointed by Her Majesty, which, in effect, means the Secretary of State or on his recommendation. My amendment would make no difference to the selection process, which would continue to be carried out in line with the procedure set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, with the sole exception that once a candidate had been chosen, the Home Secretary would have to secure the agreement of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

We must bear it in mind that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is supposed to be independent—the word is in the title. One of the reasons the Police Complaints Authority has lacked credibility in the past is that in the eyes of many people it was not sufficiently independent of those whose activities it was supposed to scrutinise. With all due respect, it is no good the Minister saying, "We've always done it this way." The very reason we are having to revisit the subject is the widespread recognition—by both police and public—that the body suffered from a credibility problem in its previous incarnation. The purpose of the proposal is to draw a line under the past and to give the Independent Police Complaints Commission some street credibility. My little amendment seeks to enhance that credibility by giving Parliament a say in the final choice of chairman.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, under legislation passed by the House—the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998—a police ombudsman was set up for Northern Ireland. The Act states:

"The Ombudsman shall be appointed by Her Majesty."

I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the independence of the police ombudsman, having been appointed by Her Majesty, is in any way belittled by that appointment procedure.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

No, I am not suggesting that, but there is always room for a little improvement here and there. As I said, I am making a modest suggestion, a tiny touch on the tiller in favour of Parliament and away from the Executive.

There are those who believe that Parliament should take a far closer interest in public appointments made by Ministers. Five years ago, the Treasury Committee went so far as to propose that it should be allowed to conduct confirmation hearings for members of the Monetary Policy Committee. One of those who pressed that view was the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was then a rising Back Bencher. I take comfort, therefore, from knowing that the idea that Parliament should have a say in some public appointments is not entirely without friends in the higher reaches of Government.

There will be those who say that there are no precedents. There is a precedent of sorts, however, although the parallel is not precise. Section 1 of the National Audit Act 1983 provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed by the Queen on an address presented by the House of Commons and proposed by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. All I am suggesting is that an arrangement along those lines be devised for appointing the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

There will be those who see this as the thin end of a wedge. I hope that it is the thin end of at least a small wedge. Clearly, most of the appointments made by the Home Secretary are not suitable for this kind of treatment. When such posts involve executive functions on behalf of the Government, such as the head of the Prison Service or the chief executive of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, there is clearly no case for the involvement of Parliament. However, inspectors, regulators or ombudsmen depend for their credibility on being able to demonstrate their independence of Government. It is, therefore, in the interests of everyone, including the Home Secretary, that Parliament should have a role in their appointment. I am sure that, when the Minister reflects on the matter, he will be overwhelmed by my argument.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief in referring to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and, moving ahead, to amendment No. 3, to which I anticipate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will speak in a moment.

We understand the basis of both amendments. We have added our names to amendment No. 3, although the Liberal Democrat names appear first, and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has added his name. Three Opposition parties therefore support amendment No. 3.

We carefully considered the Select Committee's recommendation. We can see that there is merit in having parliamentary involvement in the appointment, and we will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, South will be aware that we expressed the same kind of concerns in Committee about parliamentary scrutiny of the IPCC. I am sure that he has considered what was said then. We raised similar concerns about the House having a role in the way in which the IPCC should operate. We therefore see much merit in the Select Committee's suggestion of an advise and consent procedure for the appointment of the IPPC's chairman, which would be a further guarantee of the chairman's independence.

On amendment No. 3, we sought to support what the Liberal Democrats had to say. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, however, so I shall let the Liberal Democrat spokesman speak to it.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. I have no doubt that the Minister will give reasons why the amendment should not be accepted. I am more than happy to be disappointed, but I would be most surprised were the answer affirmative, as I would wish.

As my hon. Friend said, there is a strong case for the chairman of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission to be seen as independent in every respect. The difficulty is not that the wrong person would be appointed as the chairman—the choice of chairman is likely to be a good one; I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, the suspicion would be—not necessarily among Members of Parliament but in the outside world—that the Government would choose a person who can be relied upon not to be too independent. In a sense, he would be perceived as the Government's nominee.

I am sure that such suspicions would have no foundation, but it is important that the chairman is seen as independent in every possible way. One way of doing that is to follow the suggestion in the amendment. The person would be appointed in the normal way, but confirmed by, among others, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

An important factor should not be overlooked. The House of Commons or the Select Committee would not make the appointment. They would not put advertisements in the newspapers and would not be responsible for vetting the candidates and drawing up a shortlist. That power will remain with the Home Office. The only difference would be that the person appointed would go through a slightly different procedure. The amendment refers to

"agreement with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee."

In practice, that would mean that the person appointed would appear before the Select Committee, but it is not a question of its Chairman just saying yea or nay.

What is wrong with someone appointed by the Home Office appearing in front of the Select Committee before the appointment is confirmed? I find it difficult to believe that anyone of quality who wants to do the job and recognises its importance would be deterred by the fact that he would have to appear before the Committee. I accept that there is a theoretical possibility that the appointment would not be confirmed, but that is extremely unlikely.

The amendment is a step forward. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I have no doubt that, if the positions were reversed and he were the Minister and not the shadow spokesperson, he would make exactly the same arguments as, I am afraid, my right hon. Friend the Minister will make.

We have yet to recognise the important role that Parliament could play in appointments to important jobs such as chairing the new complaints commission that will examine allegations against the police. Sometimes such allegations are serious, which is all the more reason that the person appointed to head the commission not only has integrity and authority to carry out the work, but is seen as independent. If that person is simply appointed by the Home Office in the usual way, the danger is that his independence will not be recognised outside the House. That would be most unfortunate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

On amendment No. 1, I am always happy for the power of Parliament to be extended at the expense of the Executive. I am therefore content to support the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). His amendment is a modest affair and, like him, I cannot imagine how the Government could find a reason to reject it. I await to hear the Minister's response.

Equally, I cannot see how the Minister could possibly reject the very modest amendment in my name, those of my colleagues and of those on the Conservative Front Bench. It relates to the IPCC and the Minister will know that everyone has supported that aspect of the Bill. Everyone recognises that it is an important innovation. There have been problems with the public believing that investigations into the police have not been carried out properly or independently, and the Minister and his colleagues have acted to remedy such problems in a way that we all support. They have recognised the problem and have found the right solution, so it is difficult to understand why they have decided to exclude from the process the very people who are furthest from democratic accountability, namely those who are employed by the private sector. That makes no sense at all.

The Minister is in danger of re-creating the position that applies now. The Bill wishes to get rid of that by introducing an independent element into the process so that people have confidence in those exercising police powers. He is re-creating the problem in a very unfortunate manner.

The answer that the Minister gave in Committee and in response to the previous debate was, "Well, the chief officer of police sets up the complaints procedure or oversees it." He may set it up, but that is about the end of it. The Minister has said that, when there is a complaint against a person from Tesco, that person will be investigated by Tesco—not by anybody else. Is Mr. Tesco going to say to that person, "You've done something terribly wrong. You are a disgrace to the company. Yes, we'll tell the local newspapers that you've brought our name down in the public mind"? Or will Mr. Tesco say, "That was not very wise. We had better hush it up because it is not in our commercial interest to let people know what has happened"? In other words, those policing the complaints system in such circumstances are judge and jury of their employees and have a direct interest in concluding matters in a way that benefits their companies and not necessarily the public interest.

I honestly do not understand why the Minister resists that argument. Of course, the IPCC will not investigate every single complaint; we do not expect it to investigate every single complaint against a police officer. However, it must have the opportunity to call complaints in, examine processes that are not working and consider what needs to be done. It must have that option. If it does not, the message will go to Tesco, Jarvis and other employers that they can do what they like, because there will be nothing to control them or alter what they do when they consider complaints.

I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter either here or in another place. The Minister is simply wrong on this issue.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I shall briefly respond to the persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I also want to take the opportunity to say how useful members of the Standing Committee found the Select Committee's report. It was an extremely useful guide, and it is a shame that only one member of the Select Committee served on the Standing Committee. Perhaps Parliament should consider that point.

The Executive's powers of patronage and appointment are among their least-scrutinised powers. Those, such as Lord Norton of Louth and the Hansard Society, who have considered reform of this place have drawn attention to way in which the House should scrutinise appointments. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a good one.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and I am aware of the precedents that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As he conceded, the amendment would create a slightly broader precedent. Indeed, it would be the thin end of a very good wedge.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon. Gentleman briefly explain what would happen if there were a disagreement between the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee? Would not the Chairman, in effect, have a veto over an appointment?

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

That probably would be the case. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has a veto over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Such a veto would be a good thing, but its use would be unusual. It would be a check of last resort.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and will put himself in the great tradition of Cromwell and Simon de Montfort and expand the powers of the House of Commons. No one is paying any attention at the moment, so all he has to do is nod the amendment through and put himself in the annals of history.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I have some sympathy with the amendment, although not quite enough.

Leaving aside the constitutional issue, I share the fundamental aim of securing the reputation of the independence of the IPCC, but the case has not been made that an appointment by Her Majesty through Ministers undermines confidence in the independence of the system. By far the greater part of the credibility of the IPCC will come not from the appointment system for the chairman, but from the transparency of the system. Complainants will have many more rights and there will be fewer opportunities for their complaints to disappear out of the system without being addressed. That is the most important proposal in this part of the Bill.

The issue is whether Parliament wants to embark on a wholesale change of the nature of accountability for a great many appointments. I accept that that argument is the thin end of the wedge. The appointment of the chairman of the IPCC cannot be dealt with as a one-off. I refer the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to the conclusions of the Nolan committee in 1995, which no doubt he knows well. It carefully considered whether Select Committees should be given a role and came down firmly against such an alternative concluding:

"We did not feel that any of our witnesses or correspondents has presented a convincing proposal for providing public accountability other than through the established route of Ministerial accountability to Parliament."

The Home Secretary will, of course, have overall accountability to Parliament for all matters relating to the IPCC.

It could be argued that the committee's conclusion was not right or will not last for ever and that a profound change in the relationship between Select Committees and public appointments should take place. I am interested in debating that, but the chairmanship of the IPCC should not be picked out at random and used as the example on which we base that change.

On the complaints system, it is important that the IPCC can concentrate on the vast bulk of its work, which is to deal with complaints against police officers. It is worth remembering that people such as dog wardens, park keepers and environmental health officers have for years been exercising police powers, as described by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I am not aware of anyone arguing that they should be brought within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority or that there have been examples of abuses of those powers that have not been dealt with satisfactorily. The chief constable will have the important responsibility of ensuring that an adequate complaints procedure is in place for anyone who is an accredited organisation. That does not necessarily have to be the internal complaints procedure of the organisation concerned. However, that decision would have to be resolved at local level.

I fear that extending the IPCC's coverage at this stage to a range of new people in accredited organisations who operate low-level disorder and nuisance powers would divert the attention of the IPCC from the business that it has to do for the public to have confidence in the police service. Our measures will ensure that there is adequate public protection and an adequate system for dealing with complaints wherever there is an accredited community safety officer.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I found the Minister's speech unsurprising and not entirely convincing. The Select Committee will take a close interest in the work of the IPCC when it is established and no doubt its chairman will visit us. I hope that Parliament will return from time to time to the general issue of the extent to which it should have a say in some public appointments of regulators. However, I do not intend to press the matter and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 — Handling of Complaints and Conduct matters etc.

Clause 38 — Police powers for police authority employees

Clause 39 — Police powers for contracted-out staff

Clause 40 — Community Safety Accreditation Schemes

Clause 43 — Railway safety accreditation scheme

Clause 44 — Removal of restriction on powers conferred on traffic wardens

Clause 45 — Power to amend Chapter 1

Clause 46 — Code of practice relating to chief officers' powers under Chapter 1

Schedule 4 — Powers exercisable by police civilians

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 145, line 15, leave out paragraph 2.

I do not intend to detain the House long. Those who have followed the proceedings of the Bill know that what the Minister says is more important than the amendment. The House knows that the power of detention to be given to civilians is highly controversial. The other place rejected it; it was re-inserted by the Government in Committee, and the amendment seeks to reverse that and restore the schedule to the state in which it returned to this place.

The heart of the matter is whether we should allow civilians to be so intrusive into civil rights as to detain somebody for 30 minutes. There are many practical issues, such as what happens if a police officer does not arrive within 30 minutes, and what happens if, when he does arrive, he does not agree with the decision to detain the individual. There are issues such as the principle of policing whereby after a person is detained or arrested, he is removed from the street as soon as possible, so that he does not become the focus of further agitation, disruption or disorder. All those are serious problems.

I shall not rehearse the arguments, as they have been thoroughly rehearsed before. When we debated the matter in Committee, I acknowledged that at least one sector of the police force—the Metropolitan police—wants to be able to give the power to some of its civilian officers. We have made a point of listening to the various voices of the police throughout the country. We recognise that there is a demand for the power of detention, but we remain immensely concerned.

I suggested that if the Minister were prepared to consider some sort of pilot arrangements, we would view them favourably. I am anxious to hear whether, after much deliberation, he intends to present such proposals. We remain of the view that the power of detention generally should not be available to civilians, but we are prepared to consider some form of test process.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall not speak long, as a number of Back-Bench Members wish to speak in the debate. It would be helpful to place on the record the intention—indeed, the commitment—of the Government with regard to the introduction of community support officers with the power to detain with reasonable force, and how we will approach the matter of piloting. I do not wish to rehearse the debate about the powers themselves other than to say that I fully recognise that concerns have been expressed about CSOs' power to detain with reasonable force.

In the light of those concerns, the Government have considered how we can ensure that the power is introduced in a controlled manner. We want to allow for it to be tested in practice in a sufficient number of varied forces to gain experience of its operation before it is made available to all police forces in England and Wales. First, we invited Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary—and he agreed—to monitor and to take responsibility for evaluating the use of the power in the first two years after the commencement of this part of the Act. Secondly, during the first two years after the commencement of the Act, the maximum number of forces that will be allowed to deploy CSOs with the power to use detention with reasonable force will be six. We settled on that number following consultation with the chief inspector of constabulary. We will use the commencement powers in clause 103 to enforce that limit. Thirdly, no other forces will be allowed to deploy CSOs with the power of detention until the report of the chief inspector's evaluation has been published and laid before the House, allowing chief officers in particular—as well as others, of course—to consider its conclusions before deciding whether to deploy CSOs with those powers. I should make it clear that that approach would not preclude other police forces from employing CSOs, but without the power of detention with reasonable force.

One of the forces that wishes to deploy CSOs with that power is the Metropolitan police service, which in itself constitutes a significant part of the police service in England and Wales. I have discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis how widely he expects to deploy CSOs with that power over the next two years. Understandably, he does not wish to impose an arbitrary limit, especially given the interest shown by a number of boroughs in working with the MPS to provide additional CSOs. To avoid confusion, the commissioner wishes all CSOs based in the community in London to have the same powers. With the exception of those employed on transport routes in conjunction with Transport for London, CSOs will normally be deployed in one particular borough by agreement with the local authority. It is difficult at the present time to estimate the level of take-up, but there is nothing to suggest that any more than half the boroughs—that is, 16—will take up the option within the next two years, and I believe that the figure may be somewhat lower than that. That is the best indication that I can give of the position in London.

I hope that in the light of such undertakings hon. Members will feel that rather than delete the power entirely from the Bill, this framework will allow the pilots to take place and to be evaluated independently of Ministers, and for the results of that evaluation to be released before the power is made more generally available across the police service, which would itself depend on the outcome of the evaluation.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister will know that there has been considerable disquiet about the suggestion that non-police officers should have the power to detain. That has been expressed not only by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, but by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by police officers around the country. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened. It is welcome that they have removed detention powers from accredited officers. It is also sensible that they have decided not to go hell for leather in going as far as they can with CSOs in the initial stages. It may seem churlish to say that we cannot support what the Government have done because we would like them to go further. We are in favour of a pilot scheme, but one that tries out CSOs without the power of detention, and then allows police forces to say that they have not worked without the power of detention. That would be a safer route than trying them with the power of detention.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) rehearsed some of the arguments as to why there is significant opposition to giving the power of detention to people who are not police officers. There is insufficient time to go through those arguments again, as there is only five minutes to go before the guillotine comes down. However, the fact that neither the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire nor I have rehearsed the objections does not undermine their validity because they are serious and widely held. By giving non-police officers the power to detain, we cross the rubicon, and we are unhappy about that.

The Minister said that there would be some safeguards. I welcome the involvement, as far as it goes, of the chief inspector of constabulary. That is a sensible move. I also welcome the fact that a maximum number of forces will be involved. However, I am bound to say that the opposition to CSOs generally, which chief constables throughout the country have expressed, means that it is unlikely that more than six forces will wish to have them, let alone those with the power to detain. The Minister scrabbles around, mentions the Met and Northamptonshire and subsequently runs out of places that have expressed a wish for CSOs without having their arms twisted. He will be hard pushed to find more than six forces to accept them; he has not therefore made that much of a concession.

The Minister has accepted some of the legitimate arguments against the power to detain. I acknowledge that he has tried to devise a compromise that allays anxieties. I welcome the distance that he has travelled, but I regret that he has not gone far enough for my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me. We cannot accept the principle of giving non-police officers the power to detain.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), although I welcome the pilot scheme and fact that it will be evaluated. However, the possible conflicts that CSOs with the power of detention will face may prove overwhelming. They will often have to deal with antisocial behaviour and drunkenness, from which aggression and violence can emanate. That is a mistake, and I believe that the pilot scheme will show that. However, I give the Government due credit.

Any practitioner in criminal law will say that reasonable force is a difficult concept. There are so many precedents and cases determined on the phrase that it will be difficult for a person with less training than an ordinary police officer to decide when to "balance it to a nicety", in the words of an established case. The power of detention will give rise to court cases, and I believe that it may fall into disrepute. It involves great dangers and I am therefore wary of it. It will not be widely used and it will ultimately die, but I am pleased that the Government are prepared to consider it in pilot form.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said that he believed that the power of detention by non-police officers would prove a mistake, and he may be right. Like the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), we have always maintained that it is not necessary to give CSOs the power to detain. However, I acknowledge that there are those in the Met—and probably only in the Met—who want such powers, and I do not want to deny them the opportunity of at least trying them out.

I welcome the Minister's comments. However, I suspect that we have won what may prove to be a pyrrhic victory. The hon. Member for Lewes is probably right that the Government will not find more than six forces that want the powers. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to the arguments and recognised the genuine anxieties that not only Conservative Members but the Police Federation and almost everyone in the police, apart from the Met, have expressed. I am now placed in something of a quandary, because in my view, the Minister has given me what I wanted to get out of this debate: a very clear pledge for pilot schemes. What he has said is all on record, and I welcome his comments. I also welcome the role of the chief inspector of constabulary.

Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, as the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition have taken the same view on the issue with which the amendment deals. I do not wish my colleagues to support the amendment, as I believe that the Minister has gone far enough, but in deference to its fellow signatories, I shall not ask leave to withdraw it, as I know that they wish to pursue the matter and I would rather not be put into the position of having my request for withdrawal opposed. That may sound pusillanimous, but I am trying to be fair to everybody, and I conclude by thanking the Minister, as I welcome the commitments that he has made.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We are quite close to the end of a process that began for me about a year ago, just after the general election, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I picked up the mantle of police reform. I thank all Members who contributed to debates during the Bill's passage through the House—in particular, the members of the Home Affairs Committee, whose report was extremely useful. The Committee carried out a valuable inquiry, which was perhaps not entirely pre-legislative scrutiny because the Committee did not have the full legislation to scrutinise in the way that it might have liked. None the less, it was very helpful in drawing out the major issues.

From the Opposition Front Benches, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) have contributed fully, particularly during discussions in the main Chamber. I especially want to acknowledge the work of the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who carried the bulk of the debate in Committee—though not all of it, of course—for their respective parties. I am also grateful for the thoughtful and well-informed interventions from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who made a valuable contribution in Committee and, indeed, throughout proceedings.

Several of my colleagues on the Government Benches took part, including, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I am particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who ably took on part 2 of the Bill in Committee.

The Bill arrived in the House much amended from discussions in another place, and it has been further amended here. I have no embarrassment in saying—no Minister ever should—that the Bill is better today than when the Government published it. I am one of those who believes in the role of parliamentary scrutiny. While one or two things that have happened in the closing stages reflect other realities, much change results from careful scrutiny in the House and in another place.

As many Members have said, there is a great deal of agreement on the Bill. I shall outline briefly its main purposes and how we believe that it will work. It is worth acknowledging that, in addition to some initial aims, we have achieved significant changes that will help the police service and others to fight crime. In Committee there was a warm welcome for the provisions on sex offender orders, which will provide better protection for vulnerable people against convicted sex offenders. We have also brought police officers under the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was one of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I feel that the Bill now has much to commend it.

In his introduction to the police reform White Paper published before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said of the police reform process in general:

"Our task is clear. We want to prevent, detect, apprehend and convict the perpetrators of crime. We need and will have a process that enables those undertaking the basic task of protecting our homes, our streets, and our persons, to do the job more effectively. Whether in dramatically slimming down bureaucracy and reassigning tasks in a way that frees up police officers to do their real job more effectively, or in extending what we are calling the 'police family' to engage others in policing, or in adopting more modern techniques: we will bring about change."

My right hon. Friend concluded

"In the end, it will not be the statistics on crime falling, or targets met for burglary or vehicle crime, but rather the difference felt in the neighbourhood and community itself which will be judge and jury of these reforms. It is time to focus on preventing crime and protecting the victims, and to place the weight of society behind this drive to reform the police."

I think the Home Secretary was right to be realistic and honest when identifying the "judge and jury" of the reforms, not all of which require legislation but some of which have been dealt with in the Bill.

We have set out to continue the reduction in crime, to tackle persistent offenders more effectively, to improve detection and conviction rates, to tackle antisocial behaviour, to reduce the fear of crime, to provide support for victims of crime, and to rebuild confidence in key aspects of the police service. The Bill contains a series of measures enabling us to do all that. It gives us a framework for the promotion of best practice through the introduction of a national policing plan setting out—after consultation—the Government's priorities for policing and how they are to be delivered. There is a three-tier approach to good practice with regulations, codes of practice and guidance to ensure that good operational and management policies for policing can be adopted throughout the service.

The Bill meets a long-standing demand from many quarters for an Independent Police Complaints Commission, not to harry the police but to ensure that there is public confidence in them, and to ensure that they themselves feel they are being fairly treated if complaints are made against them. That is another important piece of work.

We have modernised the system for the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers. In a crucial part of the Bill that we have discussed at length, we have set a framework for the extended police family—not just through the creation of community support officers and accredited community safety officers, but by giving other civilians limited police powers so that police officers are free to perform wider duties. I think that in years to come the role of civilians properly designated to perform escort, detention and investigative work will be seen as an important innovation allowing much more flexibility in the deployment of police officers.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Those were wise words from the Home Secretary. The Bill, or the process, will indeed be judged on the basis of its impact on communities and neighbourhoods in terms of their experience of policing.

I hope my right hon. Friend will remember his political roots. I hope that not just the granting of more resources than ever before, and the presence of more police on duty than ever before, but the number of officers visible on the streets and estates of our communities will, at a general election, provide the judge and jury mentioned earlier.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

My hon. Friend raises a significant point. Visibility is enormously important, but so is visibility with a clear purpose. Through the wider police reform programme, we are anxious to encourage the deployment across all police forces of the national intelligence model. Through that model officers can, in addition to being deployed in visible roles, bring method and focus to their work. Combining those two policing elements—good intelligence, information and deployment of officers, together with high visibility—is very important indeed.

Of course, part of the background to the Bill is our substantial investment in police resources. We have reversed the long-term decline in police numbers that was initiated under the previous Conservative Government, and we now have record police numbers, which will rise to 130,000 next spring. Through local authorities, we have also invested substantially in crime and disorder reduction. The work of crime and disorder reduction partnerships—through which local authorities and other agencies work alongside the police—is also essential if we are to prove successful in the fight against crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime.

Party political views have been expressed throughout this debate, but in a constructive way, so I shall mention only in passing that crime doubled under the previous Conservative Government, and that police officer numbers fell steadily at the end of their time in office. That is an important consideration. We have committed ourselves to fighting crime in every way necessary. I am convinced that, by underpinning reform of the police service and ensuring that police officers have the support necessary to do the job, we are taking that fight forward in an effective way through the passage of this Bill.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry that the Minister had to resort to party politics at the end of his otherwise well-thought-out and well-presented Third Reading speech, which, until that point, had followed many of the traditional patterns. I cannot but note that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is sitting on the Bench behind me—unlike the Home Secretary, who is doubtless touring every media studio, defending his drugs policy against the onslaught that he has unleashed from all those who, like us, recognise it as nonsense.

As the Minister said, the Bill has had a very long passage, which is nearly—but not quite—over. It must go to the other place, and it remains to be seen what the Lords will make of the considerable number of amendments to it. Although virtually all of them are non-controversial, they will none the less have to be considered, and we will see what happens.

I am pleased to say that, with a few notable exceptions, the debates on the Bill—at least, those in which I have participated—have been a good example of parliamentary scrutiny, through which we have discussed many issues. That contrasts with other, fairly torrid Bill proceedings in which I have participated in my time, both in opposition and in government. The Police Reform Bill has been much more enjoyable and constructive than many others. It is certainly a very much better Bill now than the one that was introduced in the other place many months ago. It is much better because, to be fair, the Government have made several concessions in the light of arguments that we advanced in both Houses.

I was slightly let down by the Minister's admitting last night that, at least in respect of the Henry VIII clause, he was acknowledging the arithmetic—or mathematics, as he described it—of the other place. I am sorry that he resorted to that admission; we like to believe that he was influenced by our strength of argument on the issues. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good will, I recognise that the Government have made significant compromises on the Henry VIII clause in particular, and on clause 5, which we discussed earlier this evening.

Equally, as the Minister will accept, the Opposition have made significant concessions. It is no secret that had we started with a clean sheet of paper, we would not have invented community support officers. We would have preferred to adopt another route, using the special constabulary. However, we recognise the need for considerable assistance for the police through the civilian route, and we have supported CSOs throughout. The only issue has been what powers they should be given, and there, too, we accepted the inevitability that certain powers would be given. I again welcome the commitment that the Minister made on pilot schemes for detention.

Many of the measures in the Bill have gone through almost without debate. Some hon. Members, and some outsiders too, may say that that shows that Parliament is not working. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is not here today; otherwise he might have something to say on the subject. I contend, however, that the reason why so many issues went through almost, although not totally, undiscussed supports the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that we agreed with 98 per cent. of the Bill from the outset. I am sorry, I should not have called him my hon. Friend, because one of the things that has happened during the passage of the Bill is that he has become my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Entirely unconnected.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I like to believe that the two are connected; my job would not be worth doing if I did not.

I shall remind the House of some of the issues that have gone through almost unnoticed: the plans for regulations on common use of equipment, the codes of practice, the principle of the independent commission, and the measures supplementing police powers, especially in connection with antisocial behaviour orders. We welcome the improvements to ASBOs; so far they have not been the raging success that the Government initially said they would be. We also welcome the changes to the legislation on sex offenders, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said when we discussed the matter last night, we look forward to the Government's further consideration of the whole panoply of issues relating to sex crime.

I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is here tonight, and we also strongly welcome the changes to the law on blood tests for people who are unconscious and unable to give consent.

As the Bill has progressed, the negotiations with the Police Federation on pay and conditions have been going on. The changes were all part of the great reform package that the Home Secretary announced last year, but then he had to go to the Police Federation conference and apologise for the tensions that he had caused with his proposals for alterations to pay and conditions.

The Opposition have consistently accepted the need for, and wanted to see, improvements in police performance in many areas. The introduction to the White Paper that the Minister quoted in his speech was uncontentious. We entirely agree with the gist of it, about the need to detect and drive down crime, and improve police performance. We can never achieve the ultimate perfection; there is always room for improvement.

Yes, we have had differences of opinion about how that can be done. We remain of the view that the independence of individual constabularies and chief officers is paramount, and we have sought to protect that throughout the debates on the Bill. We also believe that we need to consider further ways of increasing that independence and enhancing local accountability—but that is a debate for another time.

Like the Minister, I want to thank those who have been so helpful and constructive during the passage of the Bill. I shall identify the outside organisations without which, as the Minister, having been in opposition, well knows, opposition would be even more difficult than it is. I thank the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief Police Officers Staff Association, the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Association of Police Authorities and many individual police officers of all ranks for all the advice and assistance that they have given to the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill.

I also wish to recognise the constructive approach that the Minister has taken. Despite his occasional lapses into political rhetoric—including the example of a few moments ago—he has addressed the issue with considerable responsibility and command of his subject. I have immense respect for the Minister's command of his subject, and I congratulate him on it. I also recognise and respect the huge contributions made by the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who have driven the issue forward for the Liberal Democrats.

I also endorse the Minister's comments about the Committee. On our side, we had my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), as well as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). All of them made significant contributions. I recall at one stage the Minister conjuring up the vision of a CSO attempting to apprehend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley when he was in a condition of disrepute, shall we say, after a good night out. It was one of the lighter moments in Committee.

Most of the Bill is welcomed by the Opposition. Inevitably, we would prefer that some bits were not in it, and the vexed issue of clause 5 remains. I strongly welcome the Minister's remarks this evening and the amendments that he has proposed to clause 5. We are much closer to solving the outstanding problems and I look forward to a full resolution in the near future. The Minister will understand that, as that resolution has not yet been achieved, I cannot undertake to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight, but I suspect that the opportunity will not arise. However, we would not dream of opposing the Bill, because it contains many measures that we wholly welcome and support. We hope that it will soon pass into legislation, and face the real test of whether all those hopes and expectations can be met by the police and the many civilians who will be brought into the police family. I thank the Minister and the House for the opportunity to consider the Bill. We look forward to seeing it in action.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I concur with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: the judge and jury on the success of the Bill will be the people in constituencies such as mine. One of the key issues is not the dry statistics—the public are now bored with politicians from all parties talking about those—but the effectiveness of the measures in local communities. Fear of crime is a major issue in my constituency, and many others. The CSOs will do much, judging by the experiment that has been carried out in my constituency, to allay that fear. The extension of powers and in the use of antisocial behaviour orders will make a real difference and will be very welcome.

I have enjoyed serving in Committee and contributing to debate. I will miss the interventions of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and his quotations from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have catalogued assiduously over the past few weeks.

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

I've got more.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

As the hon. Gentleman's remark shows, the debate has been good-natured. If my questioning of the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has seemed tough at times, I apologise, but I see it as my role to try to pin the Liberal Democrats down to a policy occasionally. I know that that is difficult for them.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Liberal Democrats have managed to have two policies on one issue during the consideration of the Bill? He will recall that on the last day in Committee they tabled an amendment to abolish the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. Last night, in the House of Lords, they voted against abolishing that Act.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

I am grateful for that intervention. On one occasion, Liberal Democrat Members had three different policies on the same day. They argued that the Home Secretary should have more powers, and then that the local authority should have independence. However, we will not dwell on that.

This is a very good Bill, and it will make a difference in communities throughout the country. I hope that, when CSOs have proved to be electorally popular, they will be enthusiastically endorsed by Liberal Democrat Members. 9.35 pm

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I do not think that the Third Reading debate should be used to pick on Liberal Democrats. That is very unfair, although I must confess that I did not know about the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.

The Minister can sit easy on his Bench, as we have no intention of dividing the House on Third Reading. The Government Whip will be pleased to know that, too. Those hon. Members enjoying the all-party parliamentary beer group dinner can continue to do so, while those of us assiduously carrying out our parliamentary duties here will miss it this year.

I thank the Minister for his contribution to our debates, which has usually been good humoured. He has certainly been in command of his subject, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. I thank Conservative Front Benchers for their constructive approach. It has been useful to work with them and the Government team during the Bill's progress through the House. That shows that hon. Members can behave in a mature way to find common ground where possible, and yet not sacrifice the principles that they hold dear.

I want to thank the Clerks and the other Officers of the House who have been so helpful throughout our deliberations, and the pressure groups outside the House. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Poole and North Dorset—I apologise, it is the other way around: she is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). There may be two policies on her constituency, but she has been of great assistance on the Bill.

The Bill has been improved by the parliamentary process. That is a cliché, but in this case it is true. The Bill is markedly better as a result of the process, partly because of the force of the arguments deployed, and partly because of the arithmetic involved. Whatever the reason, the result shows that parliamentary scrutiny works. The House can take pride in the fact that the Bill has been improved, and hon. Members collectively can congratulate themselves that a Bill will reach the statute book that we all think will improve matters for policing and for law and order.

I do not agree with 98 per cent. of the Bill, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) appears to, but I am pleased that the Government have introduced it. My approval rating for it is certainly in the 90s now, which is higher than it was originally.

As has been said, the Bill contains many good things. I shall not go into detail now, but there is no doubt that much of the Bill will improve matters, nor that it commands support among hon. Members of all three main parties. The sex offenders orders were completely uncontroversial, and they will go along way towards dealing with a matter about which many hon. Members have had grave reservations. In addition, I am pleased with the introduction of the independent police complaints commission. Even if it does not cover Tesco-type police, it will deal with all other officers. It is a welcome innovation that will be support by the public at large. In the long term, it will go a long way towards improving public confidence in the police, as all hon. Members want.

Few issues remain unresolved for the House of Lords to deal with. I suspect that my colleagues and I will not be entirely satisfied with the proposals on CSOs when the Bill finally receives Royal Assent, but we can probably live with that. Overall, the Bill will improve policing and we are pleased to support it.

I thank all those hon. Members in the Select Committee on Home Affairs and in Standing Committee A who have helped with the Bill, and those people outside the House who also made a contribution. I am pleased to have played a small role, along with other hon. Members, in producing legislation that will benefit the country at large.

I have one small gripe with the ministerial team on this Bill, who were reasonably non-partisan in Committee and, to a lesser extent, on the Floor of the House. However, it is very rare that Opposition amendments are accepted, although those often tend to be produced by pressure groups that, equally, produce amendments that the Government are happy to accept. The Government would get more credit if they sometimes accepted Opposition amendments and showed more willingness to agree that the fount of all knowledge may not rest with them but that, occasionally, Opposition Members have good ideas that should be incorporated. If the Government say so, we should not exploit that by claiming massive victories but accept that we have gone forward in a spirit of compromise and good will.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make these comments. I wish the Bill well in the House of Lords.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I would like to use this opportunity to put on record my thanks and those of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Yeoman, the parents of a young nurse, Charis Yeoman, who was killed by a drunk driver while driving her car. On 6 June 2000, I secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, and the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said that he recognised that there was a loophole in the law, and pledged to close it. The Bill does just that.

I thank all Home Office Ministers and officials for bringing about the very difficult negotiations between the police force and those in the medical profession. Having met the BMA ethics committee before I brought the matter to the attention of the House, I know how difficult it has been for those two bodies to reach a compromise. However, that has been achieved, and it would be remiss of me not to say thank you. I believe that this will enable the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to bring to justice people who, through their wanton behaviour of drink-driving, kill innocent people such as Charis Yeoman. So, on my constituents' behalf, I thank the Minister that this provision is in the Bill.

Finally, I hope that when the Bill receives Royal Assent there will not be a long delay in implementing this part of it. Quite a long time can pass before certain parts of a Bill are implemented, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter.

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

David Cameron. [Interruption.] I am sorry—George Osborne. 9.42 pm

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I are often confused for each other. Indeed, he has taken an active part in these debates.

I should like to take part in this mutual round of self-congratulation. It has been a great pleasure taking part in these debates. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for the way in which he has achieved exactly what he set out to achieve. He is expert at filleting Home Office Bills and proves that opposition is sometimes more effective with a scalpel than a blunderbuss. Indeed, he is teaching that to the rest of my party.

I also pay tribute to the Minister for the intelligent and gracious way in which he has steered the Bill through its stages. He dealt with some tricky interventions—usually from the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She raised some tricky legal questions, which he dealt with pretty well.

I pay special tribute to my Front-Bench team. Being a junior Front-Bench spokesman in any Parliament, whoever is in government, is a pretty difficult and miserable job, and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as well as the Whip, who is not here at present, did it extremely well. Without them, there would be no proper parliamentary process.

I have enjoyed sparring with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). I will now throw away my copy of the Second Reading debate of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the various quotes from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) before he was Prime Minister. I note in passing that it was the right hon. Gentleman who came up with the innovation of the Opposition not voting against major criminal justice legislation, for which he got a lot of credit at the time. So we remember that Act.

As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is better than when it was first published. The best bits, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, have remained largely unaltered, although it is a shame that the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee could not do a bit of empire-building earlier this evening.

Some new good bits have been added during the debates on the Bill, particularly the provisions that will give social landlords the power to issue antisocial behaviour orders, which will make a difference in my constituency and, I imagine, most others. The worst bits of the Bill have been considerably improved, particularly clause 5 and the powers for CSOs.

All in all, good things have come from this process, which has been a pleasure to watch. The Bill is still more prescriptive and centralising than I would like, but there we go. I remain sceptical about CSOs, but as the hon. Member for North Durham said, the proof of the pudding will come later—on the streets of our country and we will all watch to see what happens.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It is indeed a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne).

On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that police reform is notoriously difficult to manage. I pay tribute to him for heeding the warning, as did the Home Secretary. Our experience in Northern Ireland has been most unfortunate. When the Patten report was published, the issue was handled with great insensitivity. Reforms were necessary, but they were handled very badly, which resulted in widespread disillusionment among the police force.

Patten recommended that our regular police force should stand at 7,500 over 10 years, but it has dropped dramatically to below 6,900 in less than two and a half years. I urge the Minister and the Home Secretary to continue their consultations with the rank and file members and the Police Federation throughout the land. It is important to maintain the morale of rank and file members.

I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. They were very courteous, patient and efficient throughout the progress of the Bill, and I mean that most sincerely. In Committee on 20 June, I asked the Minister a question regarding the human rights training of community support officers. I should like to place on record the fact that he sent me a very full reply within days in which he explained:

"The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that their CSO training will include training on the Human Rights Act."

He continued:

"The Human Rights Act is important legislation. All CSOs will be required to understand and act within it at all times, in the same professional manner as police officers do."

I commend him on the speed with which he was able to follow up undertakings to write to hon. Members on that and subsequent occasions, and I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members who served on the Committee.

The theme of human rights was mentioned by many hon. Members in Committee. After the Minister has had a good night's sleep—he has worked very hard this evening—I should like him to reflect on another example from Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The commission advises the Assembly on the adequacy and effectiveness of the laws and practice in relation to the protection of human rights. It staves off a lot of criticism and avoids problems before they end up in legislative form. I commend the good work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Although there are differences about the appointment of its members, it need not be dreaded. Indeed, it could be very helpful in future.

It would be most remiss of me to omit paying tribute to all hon. Members who served on the Committee. I very much regretted the fact that I had to absent myself on various occasions because of commitments in North Down.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is not present. I did not agree with a word that he said on the vast majority of occasions, but we all found him exceedingly entertaining. I also pay tribute to the officials who were also involved in the Committee. They were exceedingly kind and helpful to me when I brought various drafting queries to their attention.

May I leave the Minister or his officials with a little query? I hope that he will answer a question, and I am sure that he will write to me by tomorrow. This evening, we voted through Government amendment No. 52, which amended paragraph 6(1) of schedule 1. I shall read, at this late hour, paragraph 6(1) as we have amended it:

"Section 80 shall become subsection (1) of that section, and in that section, after that subsection, there shall be inserted—".

I look forward to the Minister's response to and interpretation of that little amendment that we have voted through this evening.

I commend the Bill to the House. There is much to be said for the police reforms that have been introduced. I repeat my plea that the Government carry the rank and file with them through consultation.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am pleased to add my support to the broad cross-party support that the Bill has received. In a way, it is a shame that I am going to concentrate on the detention powers of community support officers, which has been the most controversial element of the Bill. As the Minister has said, however, the matter has been well rehearsed in Standing Committee but not on the Floor of the House.

The Metropolitan police is one of the few forces to have supported this move. In a briefing note to the Home Affairs Committee, it described a hypothetical situation in which a community support officer has detained someone who refuses to give their personal details:

"He tells the offender they must wait there with him until a police officer arrives, and puts in a call on his radio for a police officer to join him".

I venture to suggest that that would be a very good moment for the suspect to make his escape. It continues:

"The police dispatcher, knowing that having a person detained in a public place is a challenging situation with potential for disorder, gives the call priority and an officer arrives within a few minutes."

A miracle indeed. If there were enough police officers available to respond so quickly, CSOs would not be needed. It continues:

"Perhaps the offender objects to being detained and tries to leave . . . The CSO uses his or her training in the minimum use of force to prevent this, while, at the same time, putting in a further radio call to emphasise the urgency."

That is pure fantasy. It would be funny if it were not so serious. I wonder whether the author of the briefing document has ever been on the streets.

The detention of an unco-operative person is a difficult and possibly dangerous task. Will CSOs be required to inform the person that their powers of detention are limited to 30 minutes? What will happen on the 31st minute if a real constable has not attended the scene in time to make an arrest? Will it be necessary to let the suspect go? If so, the credibility of CSOs will be undermined in no time. What will happen if the CSO is assaulted or injured, as seems highly probable?

The number of applications to the Metropolitan police from people wanting to be CSOs has been unexpectedly high, but the main reason given for not wanting to be a police officer is very worrying—they think that the job is too dangerous, and they do not want the responsibility. How, I wonder, will they cope?

There is also a serious issue of recognition. The uniformed constable is easily recognised and impersonation of a police officer is an offence. CSOs would, therefore, need a uniform that is easily distinguishable from that of a proper police officer. The public would need to know exactly what powers were invested in whom. I understand that the original plan for the Metropolitan police was to give them a uniform that was almost the same as, or barely distinguishable from, a police officer's uniform. I was reassured this week that they will wear a light blue uniform, and that they will therefore be easily distinguishable.

In some areas, however, including Upminster in the London borough of Havering, community wardens are already employed by the council. They work in co-operation with the police, providing local intelligence and information. They are easily recognisable and nobody confuses them with the police. The introduction of yet another type of warden would cause confusion among members of the public.

In evidence to the Select Committee, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities all raised their concerns about CSOs. I share those concerns. The potential for problems with CSOs in dangerous and difficult situations is obvious, and the operational gain from four fully trained constables compared to six CSOs is enormous.

Kevan Jones (Labour, North Durham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I have been assured by the Prime Minister at Question Time and by the Minister in Select Committee that CSOs will not be imposed. However, the enthusiasm that the Prime Minister has subsequently shown for CSOs has made me less sure about the proposed funding arrangements. If the adoption of CSOs is to be truly optional, no form of ring-fenced funding should be used to penalise those police authorities that choose not to adopt them. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me and police authorities on that particular point in his summing up. The Metropolitan police is already busy recruiting CSOs.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am afraid that I do not have the time.

The alarming rise in street and gun crime has added yet more urgent priorities to the tasks of the Metropolitan police. It is unable to respond to calls from the public about the youth disturbances, vandalism and graffiti that are low-level crime in police terms, but affect very seriously the quality of life of law-abiding people. The answer is not CSOs—it is more police constables. I would like the status of community policing to be raised within police forces with the reintroduction of beat policing, which my constituents ask for continually.

The Metropolitan police in outer London boroughs also suffer from abstraction of their already inadequate numbers because of the need to help to police high-profile events in central London. That seriously affects the service to the public in constituencies, such as Upminster, where a visible uniformed presence cannot be sustained. Again, the answer is not CSOs—it is more police constables.

To stem the tide of rising crime, we need police forces that new recruits want to join and in which experienced officers want to stay. Morale was holed below the waterline by the accusation in the Macpherson report that the police were "institutionally racist"—an accusation that was deeply offensive to the vast majority of officers. If the police are to move forward and tackle the enormous increase in violent and drug-related crime, they need the confidence of the public and the backing of the criminal justice system and the Government. The Bill, in its amended form, will help them to do just that.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I briefly wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Bill. I have followed it from afar and listened to one or two of the debates over the past couple of days. As he knows, the particular problem that I always raise is antisocial behaviour. Will he therefore undertake to keep under review the measures in the Bill that deal with that problem and ensure that we enforce the new provisions so that they work properly?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

With the leave of the House, I am pleased to say that we want to ensure that the new antisocial behaviour order provisions work effectively. To coincide with the commencement of the measures, we will introduce new guidance. I hope that it will also simplify procedures.

I will not attempt to reply to the debate, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who thought that I was in command of my brief. This is the appropriate moment to thank my officials. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will know, the difference between giving and not giving the impression that one is in control of one's brief depends largely on the work of the officials who keep us informed before our debates.

I also wish to thank and pay tribute to the men and women who work in the police service. The debate is about them. They do a fantastic job, and we must be judged on whether the measures that we have agreed will help them to do their vital work in communities throughout the country in the weeks and months to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.