Criminal Justice Bill

Public Bill Committee, 17 December 2002.

Standing Committee B

Criminal Justice Bill

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill the Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 17th December at half-past Ten o'clock, do meet on that day at half-past Four o'clock, on Thursday 19th December at ten minutes past Nine o'clock, on Tuesday 7th January at half-past Four o'clock and thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at ten minutes past Nine o'clock and half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 18th February or Thursday 20th February;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 34, Clauses 36 to 48, Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6, Clauses 120 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10, Clauses 200 to 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23, Clauses 262 to 264, Clause 35, Schedule 3, Clauses 49 to 61, Clauses 265 and 266, Schedule 25, Clause 267, Schedule 26, Clause 268, Schedule 24, Clauses 269 to 273, new Clauses, new Schedules;

(3) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 23, Schedule 2 and Clauses 24 to 34 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 9th January 2003;

(4) the proceedings on Clauses 36 to 48 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 14th January 2003;

(5) the proceedings on Clause 62, Schedule 4, Clauses 63 to 97, Schedule 5, Clauses 98 to 119, Schedule 6 and Clauses 120 to 125 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Tuesday 28th January 2003;

(6) the proceedings on Clauses 126 to 162, Schedule 7, Clauses 163 to 169, Schedule 8, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 9, Clauses 175 to 199, Schedule 10 and Clauses 200 to 203 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Tuesday 4th February 2003;

(7) the proceedings on Clause 204, Schedule 11, Clauses 205 to 209, Schedules 12 and 13, Clause 210, Schedule 14, Clauses 211 to 219, Schedule 15, Clauses 220 to 242, Schedule 16, Clause 243, Schedule 17, Clause 244, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 245 to 248, Schedule 20, Clauses 249 to 251, Schedule 21, Clauses 252 to 258, Schedule 22, Clauses 259 to 261, Schedule 23 and Clauses 262 to 264 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 13th February 2003;

(8) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. on Thursday 27th February 2003.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I can think of no better qualification for chairing our deliberations than being a graduate of Leeds university. I note that you list as one of your recreations going to the gymnasium. I fear that the burdens of the Bill might impinge on how much time you can spend there, but I hope that we will compensate by providing lively and productive debates.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we are ready to listen to those who can contribute to improving the Bill. We are grateful for the contribution already made by the Home Affairs Committee. We will reflect on the Committee's arguments, and we will listen to points raised by all hon. Members. Looking around the Room, I am conscious of the experience and expertise of Committee members, which will I am sure will make for useful and instructive deliberations. However, I wish to make clear our strong commitment to reforming the criminal justice system, which is the reason for the Bill. It is important that we always keep in mind the reasons for that reform, which we explored in some depth in what was agreed to be an extremely good Second Reading debate—a point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

It is a long and complex Bill. The programme motion is challenging, and we may find ourselves pushed for time, but I hope that we will be able to conduct our business efficiently and effectively, exposing and bringing to light the key issues. I will happy to discuss issues relating to the Bill outside the Committee if it is helpful. The Government have already tabled a number of technical amendments. If we intend tabling amendments of substance, it will be my practice to write to all members of the Committee to explain our reasoning. I should be happy to meet Opposition spokesmen to discuss those amendments if they would find it helpful.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister's offer is welcome and will be accepted. I hope he agrees that, unless Government amendments have the agreement of Opposition parties, the Government should not table lots of amendments; we will not be able to stick to the programme if they do. The Government have already tabled some amendments. They have had ages to get the Bill right, and I hope that they do not feel that they have to keep on amending it, but they should always give us injury time if they do.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

The answer to that comment—

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Before my hon. Friend gets too far into his answer, I hope that he will consider it carefully. If there are difficulties with the Bill, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to table further amendments. Indeed, that was the undertaking given by the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House. The last thing we want is for the Bill to leave Committee if it is not in good order.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

That was a typically helpful intervention. My hon. Friend took the words right out of my mouth. The straight truth is that we shall have to see how we go; but I hear what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) says.

I commend the motion to the Committee.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I echo the Minister's comments and hope that the Committee will be productive. The Opposition certainly intend to do all they can to ensure that it is and that our discussions

are sufficient, without becoming long-winded, to do justice to this immensely important Bill. This is probably the most important Bill in this Session and may turn out to be one of the most important in this Parliament.

To pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that the Bill did not need not amending, but it may well do; indeed, I would hope and expect us to table amendments to improve it if we are to continue in the spirit in which we have embarked on this process.

Equally, I accept that the Government may need to table amendments—indeed, they already have. I have no problem with that, unless the timetable limits our ability to discuss amendments properly. As I told the Minister informally, and as I said in the Programming Sub-Committee, there is a willingness to make sensible progress and to consider the Bill carefully, but if it becomes clear that we need more time because of the number of amendments, more time will have to be allotted.

That is how debate on the Bill should proceed. We have a framework, which we shall try to observe, and we may sometimes move faster than it allows, although experience suggests that that will not happen often. However, if the Government start amending the Bill heavily—there are already premonitory signs that they will be free with the drafting—we will have to ensure that we have enough time to do justice to the provisions.

I shall not take up the Committee's time any further on preliminary matters. I note with interest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has tabled several amendments to the programme motion, and I am interested to hear his views and to understand what he seeks to do.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I also welcome your co-Chairman, who will join our proceedings in due course.

As everyone has said, the Bill is substantial and will require much careful scrutiny. As was said on Second Reading, the Committee will be able to reach consensus on much of the Bill, although that does not avoid the necessity for careful scrutiny. At other times, however, there will be anything but consensus. Instead, there will be vigorous debate, although I hope that it will be constructive.

Hon. Members have misconstrued the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He was at pains to say that he sought to avoid Government amendments that did not enjoy at least broad agreement among Opposition parties. In other words, we seek from the Minister an assurance that there will be no nasty surprises and that any new gimmick that the Home Office conceives of will not be added to the Bill without time to consider it with sufficient care.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Of course I understand that. The pattern of legislative scrutiny that has supposedly

evolved envisages the early publication of Bills—that did not happen in this case, although we had a White Paper—and therefore a measure of predictability. I heartily endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that it would be most undesirable for the Bill to be completely rewritten halfway through our proceedings, and for a new format and new ideas to be introduced.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend sought to make, and he expressed himself perfectly clearly. Too often, new clauses are introduced at a late stage and do not receive adequate scrutiny. That usually results in the creation of bad law, and we should avoid that. The crucial word is flexibility. We have had welcome assurances from the Programming Sub-Committee that the Government are prepared to reconsider the timetable if necessary. I hope that the Minister will hold to that during our proceedings.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in proceedings on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, more than 300 Government amendments and some 20 new clauses were debated after Second Reading. Does he agree that that should not happen in this case?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I entirely agree. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered that Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did that while I debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, which was also rewritten by the Government as they went along—and then they completely reconstructed it in the House of Lords and it was a much better Bill as a result. I do not want to delay the hon. Member for Nottingham, North who is waiting to speak. I hope that we shall have constructive discussions and that the Minister will, as he has said that he will, listen carefully to our points, because we seek to improve the Bill, not to destroy it.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I welcome the assurances of the Home Secretary and of my hon. Friend the Minister that the debate will be conducted openly, so that proper amendments can be tabled. If people operate along those lines, we shall enhance the Bill. The quid pro quo is that hon. Members should be disciplined in addressing specific issues and not waste time. I say that because the programme motion is trying to squeeze not a quart but several gallons into a pint pot. Because the Bill is so large and we have little time, the Committee might have to be prepared to have Wednesday and late-night sittings in order to discuss it properly.

The provisions of the Bill will be with us for 20-odd years, so I should have hoped that a few more weeks of discussion could have been squeezed in to ensure thorough scrutiny; that is Parliament's job. The Bill is 150 pages long. If we are to have 30 sittings, that is five pages per sitting, or 10 pages a day. If we consider 10 pages today, we shall reach the end of the provisions relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We shall have to work very quickly to get there.

I do not criticise anybody on the Committee or connected with the Bill. There is an institutional weight in Whitehall that forces us to deal inadequately with Bills, regardless of party, of the Opposition view or of anybody's opinions on particular issues. Parliament is forced, unwillingly, to examine statutes. It gives a new meaning to the term ''statutory rape''—that is what happens continually, because of the way in which we are forced to deal with Bills. Governments—not just the current one—have become repeat offenders: they have a lot of previous to take into account. I hope that we can assist in their rehabilitation, and look to the Minister to help us to proceed productively and constructively.

The programme allows no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. That means that, other than through the brave and brief effort of the Home Affairs Committee, we shall not benefit from the experience of front-line police officers, probation officers, victims and witnesses who could bring a great deal to our proceedings. My constituents are concerned about the nuts and bolts issues in the Bill, which deals with major issues of civil liberty.

My local police inspector, a person I know who has been intimidated and who will not therefore give evidence, the Home Secretary and several other people who could have given evidence in an impartial, open forum, pre-legislatively, would have aided our work. I am not giving away any secrets when I say that already we are thinking about slight changes as a result of the experience that certain hon. Members have brought to bear, even before consideration of the Bill has got under way.

The Bill is not politically as adept as it might have been. It is an important Bill for the Government, and we could have drawn in far more people and gained their understanding of what we want to achieve. We have missed that chance.

Now that we have been pushed by the machine into this sausage-making process, this ritual, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure the Committee that this is the last time that a Bill of such significance will be dealt with in this way. Given that we now have carry-over and pre-legislative scrutiny, such a measure should in future be given a significant amount of time for scrutiny before coming to Standing Committee. He knows well that Bills are now being prepared in the Home Office for presentation after the next Queen's Speech. I hope that those responsible will, with the Leader of the House, timetable proceedings so that this time next year hon. Members, perhaps on this Committee, will participate in a pre-legislative process, enabling Bills to be dealt with properly. I hope that he will take that to heart and comment on it.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are very supportive of his approach on these matters. Is he aware that in some European Union countries it is completely normal for any proposed Government Bill to be presented first in draft form to

Parliament? The measure is always then sent to the equivalent of a Special Standing Committee, for the taking of evidence, after which it is dealt with procedurally in the House, and goes through its normal stages.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I hope that that will be our process by this time next year. As I have said, I hope that no one thinks that I am casting aspersions on the Committee or any of its members. We are the victims of the current process, which has only just been changed, and clearly we could not have dealt with the Bill as I should have liked. However, next year we shall not have that excuse.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, inadequate though it may have been, there has been some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Home Affairs Committee?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I have paid tribute to the work of the Home Affairs Committee, and some of my amendments reflect work that it did. However, five or six sittings on a Bill of 150 pages cannot be adequate.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed a report that also amounted to an element of pre-legislative scrutiny. That should be available later in the week.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

That is excellent. I welcome that news and hope that the report will enter into our work on the Bill. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will raise the relevant points that will arise.

As a layman, not a lawyer, attempting to get to grips with the Bill on behalf of my constituents, I must, like other hon. Members, wade through parliamentary drafting and legalese, which make things extremely difficult. However, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the matter of cross-referencing in the Bill. One needs four pairs of hands just to hold all the Bills that are necessary for reading across and back to see what provisions are being amended. That results in a much more difficult process for parliamentarians trying to do an honest, conscientious job of improving the Bill.

That is at the front end of the task. At the back end, we want police officers, probation officers and magistrates courts staff, as well as people who are the subject of the law, to understand what on earth we are doing, and the laws that we are passing. It is impossible for them—even the most articulate and capable people—to comprehend what we will ultimately produce. We need to start producing readable legislation. Perhaps you could take that point back to the Chairmen's Panel, Mr. Illsley. The issue concerns individuals: victims, witnesses and so on. They cannot access the Bill as it is now written, particularly because of the problem of obscure cross-referencing.

On clarity, the Bill says somewhere that the courts shall explain to the accused in ordinary language. Maybe we should start to explain matters to parliamentarians and others in ordinary language, so that those of us who take our job seriously can

understand what is going through the Government's mind and what is being deliberated on in Committee.

The White Paper was a model of its kind: superbly crafted, well put together and eminently readable, as a Bill should be. If all such documents could be like that, it would be an achievement. It mentioned the need for clarity and accountability. Again, however, we have missed the chance to do some of the basics. On courts, for example, people are absolutely mystified by the difference between the High Court and a Crown court. Why, for example, do we not refer to the regional criminal court rather than the Crown court? Why do we refer to a magistrates bench rather than a local court? Why do we not try to let people understand their own justice system?

I believe that the Bill is excellent, and that the programme motion does the best that it can in the circumstances, but I think that it will be extremely difficult to get through without additional time. However, I commend the Government for having put the Bill together. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use the process as a way of explaining the criminal justice system, not only to hon. Members but above all to members of the public, who depend on us to get things right.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley, and I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

The Minister said that we might be pushed for time. That is the reality of the situation. Over the years, time for deliberation in Committee has become shorter and shorter and shorter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was extremely active in debates on the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That Bill had 121 clauses, and we had some 55 hours in Committee. The current Bill has 273 clauses and 26 schedules. If we were even to have the same amount of time proportionately, we would need 130 hours in Committee to do it justice. We will get only about 65, which is probably half what we need. Conservative Members will not be filibustering, but there are big issues that need to be looked at in detail.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was right to say that everything in the House is so rushed nowadays. I am sure that every Government and Opposition Member feels the same. We hurry from A to B, and are never able to spend more than a minute or two on topics that require much more time. A Bill is published. No sooner does one have a chance to look at it than it has a Second Reading. As soon as the Second Reading has taken place, the Committee is set up almost instantly. There then follows an extraordinary rush in which one tries to draft amendments right up to the last moment. The non-governmental organisations are under huge pressure. One often drafts amendments late at night in order to submit them just in time, perhaps having received the relevant paperwork only an hour before. That is no way to proceed.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is made even more difficult by the concurrence of so many Bills from the Home Office and the Lord

Chancellor's Department? Nine Bills in substantive or draft form are too many for people who need to give them adequate attention to be able to do so.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are important Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department Bills currently in the other place, which we do not have time even to look at. There is a wealth of experience on the Government side of the Committee, including distinguished members of the Home Affairs Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) have a distinguished legal background. I wonder whether they agree that there should have been more time to get to grips with the detail of the Bill and to think through the amendments.

The procedure of a Standing Committee hearing evidence is a good one, but yet again we are rushed. We will all be up against the clock, day after day, trying to get our amendments drafted in time. It has been suggested that we may have to sit for longer, and I would be thrilled to sit through the night whenever necessary. I hope that I do not regret saying that—I often say things like that—but I sense from the Minister's response that he will approach the matter carefully and sensibly and will involve us in the discussions.

As I said earlier, we do not want to have to deal with more than 300 Government amendments. We would like the Minister to give plenty of advance notice of anything that he is going to do to change the Bill.

I had better withdraw my comment about sitting late into the night in case it haunts me, but I make my point about our inability to get to grips with matters. I hope that in the course of the next few weeks we will not feel so pressurised by outside constraints that we cannot get across the sensible and constructive additions, alterations and amendments that we want to make to the Bill.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 6.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that as a general rule adequate notice should be given of amendments. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.Clause 1 Extension of powers to stop and search

Clause 1 - Extension of powers to stop and search

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in

clause 1, page 1, line

7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) In section 1(7) of the 1984 Act (prohibited articles) at the end of sub-paragraph (b)(ii) there is inserted ''; and

(iii) an article used in the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property).''.'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 27, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

'but only insofar as the article was intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'.

No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end add—

'(f) an offence under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 (going equipped for stealing etc.)

(g) an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (robbery).'.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I am sure that the Minister did not intend any discourtesy in not replying to several points that I made and I therefore voted in favour of the programme motion. I am sure that he will take the chance to put on record the answers to some of my points.

I am very much in favour of the clause. The inference that my constituents and others can draw is that the Government are serious about helping those who suffer criminal damage to themselves or their property. Criminal damage is often used to prevent people from giving evidence in the courts, supporting their neighbours and assisting their communities. We suffer from that all too much in my constituency.

This is yet another example of cross-referencing, although one needs only two hands to figure out what the clause means. Reference is made to other Acts. Difficult as it is for us to come to terms with that, it will be hard for people outside to interpret the sensible and sound meaning that the Government are trying to bring into the law here. Again, rather than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I hope that the Government will look again at trying to make this process and its wording more accurate and clearer so that those we are trying to help can understand that we are trying to help them and how we are doing it.

The clause extends the powers to stop and search. It is important that the Government explain why. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that. This is a probing amendment to ensure that we are clear about why stop and search is extended from an actual offence of criminal damage to a prospective offence. My constituents think of spray cans and other items that are used to vandalise properties and to deter witnesses from attending court, so we are pleased that the police will have the ability to take action against some of those offenders and help law-abiding citizens in my constituency.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue. I fully understand why the Government have attempted to tackle that issue by amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As I understand it, the intention behind the Government's proposals is to include objects that might be used to destroy or damage property as a legitimate ground for search and seizure. The amendment would widen the scope of prohibited articles. The problem is that PACE splits the articles that may be seized into two categories.

Section 1(6) states:

''If in the course of such a search a constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a stolen or prohibited article or an article to which subsection (8A) below applies, he may seize it.''

Subsection (7) continues:

''An article is prohibited . . . if it is-

(a) an offensive weapon; or

(b) an article-

(i) made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence to which this sub-paragraph applies, or

(ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''

The offences to which paragraph (b)(i) applies are burglary, theft, motor vehicle taking or obtaining property by deception.

I should like to remind myself for a moment of past practice in the Crown court, when I appeared there prosecuting or defending. My understanding of the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although it is not always easy to follow, is that, first, it categorised certain items as offence weapons, and I do not think that anyone has a problem with that because the categories are well defined. Secondly, it includes articles made or adapted for use in the course of particular offences, such as jemmies for burglary and various articles that we know from experience are likely to be used, in the course of theft, for taking vehicles, such as car keys and other devices that can be used to unlock disabling mechanisms.

The problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that almost any item can be used to do criminal damage, including, I suppose, this volume of ''Archbold''. If someone with a greenhouse wants me to demonstrate how it could be used for such a purpose, I would not have too much difficulty. We must be careful about what we are trying to achieve.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Grievous bodily harm.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Indeed, I am confident that it could be used for that purpose, too. In fact, together with its annexe and volume on appeal cases, it would constitute a lethal weapon.

Have we got this right or have we gone too far? Spray cans were mentioned during the debate, and everyone knows about the propensity to use spray cans for writing graffiti, but the clause is drafted in such a way that it could cover virtually any item. I should be interested to hear how a definition could be worded so as to prevent someone from being harassed by the police and from having virtually any item on them removed because it could be used to commit criminal damage. Although I applaud the ingenuity and diligence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the amendment would make the matter even more serious, because it would not only introduce a category of weapon but would prohibit people from carrying such an item at all. That seems to verge on unreason.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Will the hon. Gentleman help me? Let me talk about witness intimidation. Many people who roll up at the Old Bailey think of witness intimidation in terms of east end gangland. Intimidation is rife, but it is no longer connected with big armed robberies. It is carried out by kids who break antisocial behaviour orders and gangs who intimidate people on street corners. Such people go equipped, not necessarily to

break someone's kneecaps, but continually to spray their house with ''scum'' or ''grass''—or other words that I would be brought to order for using—in a persistent attempt to break down and stress out those people who act as witnesses and who are trying to keep their communities law-abiding.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me. I understand and respect the point that he is making, but does he understand the viewpoint of the victims in such situations? Will he help the Committee to formulate amendments that will offer a hand to those people? Members of the legal profession do not seem inclined to discuss the issue in their own terms and have completely lost touch with all the individuals who depend on the criminal justice system.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. There is always a danger that the legal profession will make arguments so abstruse that they no longer meet the common-sense requirements of the public. I am aware of that and do not intend it to happen. I make it clear that the amendments that I tabled are essentially probing amendments.

I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we shall end up with a number of problems if we frame the legislation in a way that is unworkable in practice. There might be challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998. People might ask, ''Why am I being prevented from carrying a perfectly lawful item that I need?'' There will be issues related to proof, and to what juries or magistrates will be prepared to decide on the facts. The hon. Gentleman will not secure his objective.

The key question is not whether we want to stop people who want to spray-paint people's houses going around with spray cans, or those with half-bricks or any other item in their pockets that they want to throw through people's windows. The hon. Gentleman may agree with me that virtually any item can be used for the purpose of criminal damage—chewing gum can be used to bung up a keyhole if one does it well enough. The definition is very broad. The question is therefore whether the definition will in practice be confined to certain items. If it will, should we focus on those items, rather than on the generic term of any item that could be used to destroy or damage property?

The question arises of whether there should at least be evidence of intent by a person to use an item for the purpose of committing criminal damage. I seek to address that question with amendments Nos. 27 and 1. The objection to that, which I can understand, is that far too difficult a test would be put in the way. Having to prove intent will fetter every policeman's ability to stop people and remove such items. Against that, I venture that if a policeman stops someone with a spray can in a bag, that person may be someone who intends to respray his car, which has suffered slight damage in a motor accident, or he may be a 15-year-old who intends to spray graffiti. I would think that on the whole it should be possible to infer the defendant's intention from the surrounding circumstances—and possibly from their previous track record.

Although I will listen carefully to the Minister, I can foresee the danger that the provisions as currently

framed constitute a catch-all to almost any item that people may have in their possession. The items that in my experience feature in the list of offences that are currently under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 enjoy a much narrower definition.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

Is not the hon. Gentleman conflating two situations? There is the substantive offence of going equipped, for which an intention is needed. However, the provisions simply deal with stop-and-search—a precursor—not with convicting anyone of an offence. The added burden of intention is therefore unnecessary.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman is right. However, heaven knows, the issue of stopping and searching people has been the subject of perennial debate in the House. Back in the 1980s, when I was the candidate for a seat that included Brixton, a community there that felt that the police oppressed it in the exercise of their powers said that the policy of stop-and-search in the streets and the way in which it was implemented was a precipitant of rioting. That view appeared to be reinforced by a number of enquiries that followed. There was a time—it is interesting to see how times change—when members of the hon. Gentleman's party loudly denounced the abuse of stop-and-search powers. My recollection, however, is that the official Opposition took a rather more robust view, and the Liberal Democrats may even have shared the Government's views. The issue certainly raises difficult questions about a subject's liberty, and I fully acknowledged that it must be addressed carefully.

All I am saying is that we are extending powers from the readily identifiable objects that most police officers look for when they stop and search someone, to potentially any item that someone may have in their pockets. That is a problem, and the Committee should at least think about it, rather than simply saying, ''Oh, this is wonderful. Let's move on to the next clause.''

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

I get the impression from the hon. Gentleman that the police are going to go on a stop-and-search rampage to take from people everything that they are carrying. In my constituency, however, the police know the troublemakers—the kids on the street who harass old people. They also know what they carry with them and what they do. I hope that the police will operate on the basis of reasonable suspicions and reasonable grounds; otherwise, they will be challenged. However, the clause is not a major problem, because the police will not go on a rampage against people's civil rights. They will, however, have an extra power to prevent the harassment of old and young people in my constituency, and they know who is responsible.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but let me take him back to the wording of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is not easy to follow so, at the risk of repetition, I shall read from it again. Section 1(7) prohibits offensive weapons per se, so we need not worry about that. However, it also prohibits

''an article . . . made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence . . . or . . . intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''

That is the very phrase that I lifted for the purposes of amendment No. 27, so the hon. Gentleman will understand where I am coming from. I have not dreamt that category up out of nowhere; it already features in the Act. The Government have decided—as I said, I shall listen carefully to the Minister—that they do not wish to use that category. As I understand it, they want to use a category of objects that are made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence. This volume of ''Archbold'' could, however, be adapted for the purposes of criminal damage. So, too, could a spray can, even though it is perfectly legitimate for someone to have one if they are repainting a vehicle. We could go through an endless list of items that could be made or adapted.

We are widening the category significantly and moving a long way from the sort of items that one would recognise as being used in burglary, theft, and vehicle taking. The obvious items that one would need to obtain property by deception are false credit cards, and a conman's apparatus would include bits of paper and the other items. If the police picked him up, they would find those items in his pocket and realise that he needed them to copy people's credit cards. They would, therefore, confiscate them.

We are introducing measures that go very wide, and I simply ask the Minister—I do not want to labour the point on amendment No. 27—whether we should include the notion of intention. It would not prevent police officers from stopping and searching the known graffiti sprayer or the local hoodlum who puts bricks through people's windows. Nor would it prevent them from confiscating certain items. They would have little difficulty in court demonstrating intent or that they had justifiable grounds for seizing an item. However, the wording of the Bill is wide open to interpretation.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

If my greenhouse windows had been broken by law books time and again, and the hon. Gentleman were loitering on the corner of my street with a sackful of law books, would it not be reasonable for the police to suspect that he might be using them in an illegal manner? That would be covered, because it would be reasonable to suspect that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree entirely.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Six months.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That might be regarded as rather too kind to me. I would fall squarely foul of the clause as amended by amendment No. 27. Let us suppose that I walk down Fleet street to my barristers chambers and am stopped by a police officer who finds a copy of ''Archbold''. The police officer has moved force in the hope of greater money in the Metropolitan police, remembers that there was at least one occasion when a copy of ''Archbold'' was thrown through someone's greenhouse in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), and decides to confiscate mine. That is an important point, but I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

This is not an ''Archbold'' point but a graffiti can point. I want to establish that that case

would be unfair. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that someone nicked with a can of spray paint would not be carrying, under the logical interpretation of the present law, something made or adapted for a criminal offence? It could be used for a criminal offence, but it would not have been made or adapted for it. Unless one is to extend the law hugely, which would be completely illogical, the only way in which one could regard that as something that could be used in a criminal offence is to add intent. Otherwise, there can be no way to distinguish between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree. That is why we tabled amendment No. 27. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for distilling the argument so succinctly. The way in which the Government have drafted the clause seems to allow any item to be seized in circumstances that could go to the absurd. That is what concerns me, but the Minister may be able to provide reassurance.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

The last thing that I want to do is to get involved in legalisms, especially with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who has made a living out of them, but I am interested in the reference to items made for the commission of an offence. We could argue about a kitchen knife, for example.

We must be careful on this spray paint issue. The vision of young people spray-painting butterflies on the underground is a million miles from what such items can do to people. Repeated spraying is intended to break people and to prevent people from giving evidence against, say, someone else's big brother. Bricks go through greenhouse windows over and again, every time the panes are repaired, until the owner decides not to go to court.

Far be it from me to give advice to the Conservative party, but the clause is about the extension of powers to stop and search. What does that mean to ordinary people? What do they want from the law in those circumstances? Perhaps the ordinary people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield are different from those in mine and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Our people want reassurance that we are addressing their concerns about the low-level, sustained and stressful intimidation that can take place with commonplace household objects. I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues will start to address some of the concerns of those people as we consider the Bill, otherwise his party may appear irrelevant to the concerns of the electorate.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

At the risk of repeating myself, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I resent the innuendo that I or my constituents do not share his concern about antisocial behaviour and crime. It is a calumny; it is absurd; and it is untrue. I, too, am concerned that the criminal justice system should work effectively. As I explained to him earlier, if we pass and implement legislation that is unworkable, he will not get the benefits that he wants from the Bill—and indeed that the Government want.

My concern, when floating my amendments, and in considering the hon. Gentleman's proposals—I hope that the Minister will respond carefully to what he said—was to try to ensure, when extending the category of items that can be seized in stop and search to include those that could be used, made or adapted for use in criminal damage, as they are all likely to be capable of being adapted, that we should provide some guidelines or criteria about what we want police officers to take from people.

Otherwise, the risk—it always happens, however well-intentioned the police may be—is that people will say that they have been treated unjustly and can prove it. When that happens, the legislation starts to be brought into disrepute. It then ceases to achieve the desired object. Heaven knows, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey lives in an area, which I know, and represents an area that is not exactly free from the consequences of criminal damage and antisocial behaviour. I applaud the fact that he appears to be on the same wavelength on this issue, and I urge other hon. Members to understand it. I might add that my constituency has areas of serious social deprivation and areas where criminal damage is rife. That causes me great concern and, so far as possible, I wish to see it stamped out. We shall not achieve that by passing bad legislation.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

The clause as drafted simply adds an additional category of offence. Those offences could be committed only if there was an intention or sufficient mens rea—in which case, does the hon. Gentleman believe that amendment No. 27 is necessary?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Well, is that right? I think we should wait for the Minister to tell us about that. It may be a misreading on my part; I do not claim any sort of guru status in my understanding of the inner workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I looked at it before drafting the amendment, and the hon. Gentleman is probably looking at it now. Section 1(7) provides for three categories of prohibited articles. They are: ''an offensive weapon''; an article

''made or adapted for use in course of or in connection with an offence'',

or an article

''intended by the person having it with him for such use by him''.

As I understand it, the Bill will amend the 1984 Act to put this item on criminal damage in subsection (8), which is that to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies. That means that an article must merely be shown to be

''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence''.

I infer from that that intent does not have to be shown. That is why I tabled the amendment. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will tell me and put me out of my misery. However, I do not think that I am wrong, or he would have interrupted me sooner so that we could move on to something else.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

Intent is something that the police officer could take into account when deciding whether he has reasonable suspicion, which is a precursor to the operation of all stop and search powers. He has the power to take it into account when deciding whether

to stop and search. I would have said in response to the debate that I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point but that the amendment is not necessary.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. The word between subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) is the little word ''or'', not the little word ''and''. It seems that a police officer would be entitled to stop and search simply on the basis that an item was made or adapted for use in, ''or'' in connection with, an offence. Could a spray-can be adapted for use in an offence? It is certainly usable in the course of an offence. I hope that the Minister can clear that matter up.

The amendments are in some ways an attempt to widen the scope of the provision, because I am broadly in support of what the Government want to do. Amendment No. 1 gives the Committee the opportunity to consider whether we should add to the provision items connected with going equipped for stealing or with robbery. I simply invite the Committee to consider that: why stop at criminal damage?

The categories in subsection (8) are confined at present to burglary, theft, the taking of motor vehicles and obtaining property by deception. If we are interested in broadening the categories, and are to add criminal damage, why should we not, for instance, in view of the problems of street robbery experienced in most constituencies, include that too? I see that the Minister wants to contradict me.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I rise only to assist the hon. Gentleman. It may be helpful if I tell him that, in relation to theft, the current definition includes items that might be made, adapted or intended for use in committing either robbery or going equipped for stealing. In other words, the current definition covers his sensible point.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the Minister; that solves that problem, and on that basis, I have spoken enough. I want only to say in finishing that I could not understand amendment No. 67, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, but as it has not been selected I shall perhaps cast a delicate veil over it and ignore it. I shall, however, ask the Committee to consider carefully how we go about constructing the provision on criminal damage, so that it is not drawn so widely as to become unworkable. If the Minister can reassure me on that I can assure him that our amendments were intended only to initiate debate to ensure that we get the measure right.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

To clarify amendment No. 67, which was to incorporate offences in relation to hunting, it has been superseded by events in the House—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. Amendment No. 67 has not been selected and is not in order for debate.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I am happy to be on the Committee. I was just reflecting that the Solicitor-General and I are the only members of the Committee who were in the House when the

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was passed—I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who I now recall was also here. I was not responsible for our response to that Bill, but it was very important, and as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it followed events including the Brixton riots and inquiries.

Stop and search is an important and sensitive issue—particularly sensitive in communities of mixed race and ethnic backgrounds. When we consider what we should do, we need principles and an understanding of the background. My first point is simple: we should never have any law unless it is really justified. As a liberal, I believe that the fewer powers the state has, the better; the fewer laws we have, the better; and the fewer things that are illegal, the better. Of course we must keep up with changing practices, but I am against the presumption that it is necessary to make knives illegal because they could be used for wrong purposes—knives have perfectly proper purposes—or to make it illegal to carry garden items in the street. I start from the presumption that it is important to maximise the liberty of the individual and to minimise the power of the state.

I also take the view that it is right to maximise the liberty of the individual and minimise the powers of the police. They are not agents of the state. They are independent, but they need only the power sufficient to do their job, and not more. I shall always be sceptical about proposals for more police powers. I should have to hear an overwhelming case for that before I could be persuaded to sign up to it.

We need to understand not only the relevant words but the intention behind and motivation for the provision. My understanding is that the proposal concerns criminal damage only, being designed to give the police more powers to pre-empt antisocial behaviour and stop it escalating into lower-level criminal damage because of items that people carry around.

I share other hon. Members' understanding of the motive for the proposal and I do not dissent from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I do not dissent from including criminal damage in general terms, as in the two examples given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The Minister reassured us that such examples will be included; going equipped to rob is part of a panoply of items, as is whether the police should have powers to stop and search.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

We would all like to agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about fewer laws, but does he accept that there was a time when people could control troublemakers within their communities, because they were smaller and more local and people knew each other better, but we now live in different times and community controls, especially in urban areas, have largely broken down? We need more laws to deal with the changed situation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We could have a long debate about that, as I am not sure that it is true. I do not know that we now live in more lawless days than those of 19th-century London recorded in the novels of Dickens. I

think that those days were probably more lawless, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. Although to some extent family life has broken down, and in some places the sense of belonging to a community, in other places it is still very strong. I accept that people move more and therefore their allegiance to a community may be weaker—and because they move more, they are not as easily identified.

Of course, in our society people often take less responsibility for their community. They do not intervene, but stand back and say, ''It's nothing to do with me.'' I am not one of those people; I get stuck in, regardless of the fact that I am an MP. If I think someone is doing something wrong, I will tackle them in the street to stop the person beating up a woman, for example, and I have done so, because I think it is my job to do that, but other people tend to walk away, and I understand why, as it can be dangerous. We should adopt the non-legislative, community solution if there is one. I argue for more police, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, because that, rather than giving the police more powers, is what prevents and deters crime and brings down criminality.

The Minister may have more accurate or up-to-date figures, but the most recent Home Office figures available to me show that fewer than one in six stops and searches led to an arrest. Five out of six people are likely to go away from that experience, possibly feeling aggrieved—

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

They might be happy.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman may believe that people are happy to be stopped and searched, but I do not. When I was 20-something, I used to be stopped and searched regularly by the police when I was walking home after a day as a lawyer in chambers. I got off the bus in the Old Kent road and walked down the road I lived in, late at night, with a bag over my shoulder. I did not like being stopped and searched, and I became more aggrieved the more often it happened. Eventually, I stopped co-operating, because it was becoming oppressive. I would not give my name and address, because I did not think that the police had any cause to stop me.

If I felt like that, how much more does it affect young people in our communities once they get on the police radar? That is when the issue becomes very sensitive; it is sensitive anyway in all communities, but it is especially so in minority communities. Of all the seats represented by my party, my constituency has the largest number of people from minority communities—about one in four—and the Solicitor-General, who represents the neighbouring constituency, has an even larger number. We must be very careful to have laws that command the confidence of the whole community, and police who practise in a way that commands such confidence.

The issue is relevant, because according to Home Offices figures published recently, black people are eight times more likely to be stopped than white people, and 19 per cent. of stops happen to black and Asian people, although they comprise only 7 per cent. of the population. It does not make the existence of the

power wrong or right, but we need to understand its implications and to be sensitive about them. I am keen in this, as in other matters, that we should introduce only powers that are justifiable. They should relate to situations in which it is clear that what is being carried is associated with criminality, or that there is an intention to use it in a criminal way. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, offensive weapons are self-defining, and the courts are well used to that. People generally know when they have them, although there are borderline cases: a rolling pin carried at night under a raincoat could be held to be an offensive weapon, although it was not—

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Would it be in order for you to stop and search the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for something relevant to the clause or the amendments?

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is completely in order, and if he strays out of order, I shall remind him.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am surprised at that offensive interruption. I will always stay in order, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my word on that for the rest of our proceedings.

Items made or adapted for criminal purposes are self-defining. The difficulty is the spray can. That is not made for a criminal purpose. It is not usually adapted for a criminal purpose. All the kids who spray near where I live and, I guess, in Beaconsfield, do not go to a special place and buy a special can; they buy a normal one. They do not adapt a can; they use a normal one for their graffiti. It is therefore relevant to debate this small amendment, the principle of which I accept.

It is important to draw the line in the right place. If somebody sets out to commit criminal damage and carries something that can be shown to be intended for that purpose, the police are justified in intervening, but they cannot do so on the basis of a hunch that is not backed up by evidence. They must have more than a view that because a group of kids that was hanging around on that street corner last week had spray cans, another group of kids—none of them the same—hanging around there this week must have spray cans. One has to be able to demonstrate a basis for stopping and searching people, because it is an intrusion on their civil liberties and should not be the norm. One has a right to go around without people interfering in one's activities. I do not want to live in a state, a country or a community in which the police have the power to take such action unless they have reasonable suspicion that I have something that I intend—or might intend—to use to commit a crime.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, in any profession, people gain experience on the basis of which they sometimes cut corners and use intuition? We use the term ''usual suspects'' as though there is something wrong with it. They are the usual suspects because they are the usual culprits: they have done things wrong before and have been apprehended. Does he accept that local police officers with local knowledge of local troublemakers might be able to use their intuition and hunches in a proper manner?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Of course, and if the hon. Gentleman and I walked to my local police station, went behind the counter and into the back room, we would see a set of photographs of 10 or 20 usual suspects—the people most often picked up. Their appearance there, however, does not justify their ever being nicked unless the police have a specific belief that they are committing an offence at a particular time. Merely because the usual suspects have a criminal record, have been in trouble in the past or come from a family well known to the police, they should not be stopped unless they are doing—or appear to be about to do—something illegal at a particular moment on a particular street. That is my strong belief.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

The hon. Gentleman has articulately provided a full account of the clause. I am glad that it is in order, and I should like to join in. If I can say it without being derogatory, he has expressed a white, lawyerly, middle-class, London-oriented view of the criminal justice system. It is the dominant view in the legal profession and the criminal justice system. Does he accept, though, that millions of traditionally law-abiding people no longer have any faith in it? I am thinking of the sort of ordinary working-class people on council estates in my constituency whose belief in his system has been eroded over time. We have lost such people, and he should reflect on how to recapture them and restore their faith.

I refer not just to the civil liberty of individuals in particular circumstances, which we should all defend, but to reconnecting people to the entire system so that they feel that it works for, and belongs to, them. For many, the system is now in crisis. I hope that the Liberal Democrats and the other Opposition party will join the Government to improve the Bill and recapture the faith of the people.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to increase confidence in the criminal justice system. I accept that it is at a lower level, but confidence in it should apply equally to the victim of crime or the defendant in a court case. Many of my constituents are victims one year and defendants the next, or vice versa. The poorer the community, the lower the income, the more likely are people to be both guilty of crimes and victims of them.

I was not born and brought up in London. My parents were married here, but I was born in the north. We then moved to Wales. Before I was a lawyer, I was a student and a youth worker. I do not have an exclusively southern, London-oriented viewpoint. I happen to represent more council home occupiers than any MP in England, so more of my constituents than the hon. Gentleman's live on estates. I understand the score: I have done the job for more than 20 years.

It is a balancing exercise, about ensuring that everyone feels confident in the system. Making people feel resentful of the authorities because the system has treated them oppressively and unfairly will not assist the cause of criminal justice. We must secure the right balance. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will know exactly what I am talking about: it is a crucial issue for all the communities in Northern

Ireland.

I am not arguing in favour of the rights of the few against the many for the sake of it—the Prime Minister does not understand these issues—but because anyone could find himself in the few. The person living on the estate behind me might be burgled one day but the next day he might be knocking at my door because his kid has been unfairly nicked. I want to ensure that people have confidence that when they are burgled the police will respond and catch the burglar, but when their kid is wrongly stopped by the police he will be treated fairly by the system. That is the balance. I see no inconsistency. Defending the liberty of the defendant and the right to walk along the street without being stopped by the police unjustifiably is just as important to my constituent who is burgled as ensuring that the burglar is caught.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I do not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's 20 years in the House, but he is making a lot of assertions. I am still recovering from the fact that he was stopped and searched so often in his short pre-parliamentary lifetime. I worked in his constituency for eight years, and I was never stopped and searched once. [Hon. Members: ''Shame.''] The 20 photos were perhaps different.

The point that I wish to make is that 95 per cent. of acquisitive crimes committed in my constituency are committed by drug addicts who maintain that their lifestyle requires intervention at every level. Much of that acquisitive crime is shoplifting. It takes place six or seven times a day, every day, other than Sunday when the shops are not open and burglary goes up. How does that fit in with the hon. Gentleman's concept of the victim and the non-victim? Secondly, those young people who are stopped repeatedly are also hassled by those same drug addicts for money. How does that equate with his concept of liberty and police intervention?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I guess that we will come back to that elsewhere. Here we are dealing with the powers given to the police, which is a different issue. I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. We are dealing with the powers that are given to people whose job is to protect people. That is what the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is about. The clause is about that issue. He raises a linked issue, which is about people's liberty to go about their business without being harassed by other people. I am sympathetic to that.

People being harassed and intimidated by other citizens is equally unacceptable. It is a crime in many cases, and it needs to be dealt with. We need to ensure that our law and order agencies are more effective in dealing with that, but those are different issues. This is about what powers we give the police to stop people who are either committing an offence or going to commit an offence. I was keen that we do it on the basis of their reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed or is about to be committed.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

This is quite an important point. I tried to get it over to the Conservative spokesman and I will try again to get it over to the Liberal Democrat

spokesman. The ''Gorblimey, Bill Sykes is a bit of a lad but he's one of us'' attitude is finished, certainly where I come from. We are not talking about someone who is in a bit of trouble here and there. We are talking about persistent, continuous offending that destroys people's lives. The hon. Gentleman talks about balance, but he does not talk about the other side of the equation. He talks about a person who might be an offender one week but a victim another. I do not recognise that picture. The picture I recognise is one in which more 90 per cent. of people are law-abiding and need the support of the criminal law. I admit that 10 per cent. may often perpetrate crimes on one another, but I do not mean it as a criticism when I implore him to help us find a way forward for the remaining 90 per cent. The rights of the 10 per cent. must also be safeguarded—I hope that what I said earlier shows that to be my belief—but we must start to consider what law-abiding people need from the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Minister must provide clarity and cross-referencing, otherwise the Bill will simply be another irrelevance to those law-abiding people who will feel that all the parties in Parliament have let them down once again.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We touched on these broad-ranging matters on Second Reading and before. They relate not only to legislation but to the use of existing powers, what the police do, whether they are efficient, what support they need and so on. Of course the law-abiding citizen needs to have the maximum protection against those who break the law. The hon. Gentleman and every other member of the Committee, including me, will have had surgery visits and correspondence from people who are concerned about the subject. I, too, have been stopped in the street by people expressing similar concerns.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield rightly made the point that not a single constituency, whatever its average income or ethnic make-up, is unaffected by the issue. I am no different from any of my colleagues, and claim no greater understanding of it. However, the real issues are what powers should be given to the police, and the basis of those powers. I understand the reasons for tabling amendment No. 1, but if they are answered by the traditional definition of theft, that is sufficient. I must say, however, that this is one case where it might be better to be explicit.

Amendment No. 27, too, would amend a complicated piece of legislation, so unfortunately, in some ways, we have started with something that is technical as well as substantive. That is no one's fault—it is simply the first issue to have been raised in the Committee. However, I am keen that the police officer carrying out a stop and search does not arrest people for possessing articles unless there is a reasonable suspicion, rather than a hunch, that those articles are obviously intended or adapted for use in a crime. That is important, and we are seeking to find a way of ensuring that the element of intention is included in the Bill. The drafting is not clear, but if the Minister can reassure us that the point about intention is covered, we will take the view that the law need not be amended.

I hope that members of the Committee realise that the point about liberty is important for the good of community relations, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is as concerned as the rest of us. If we get the balance wrong, we risk the possibility of community relations becoming worse. That is why these difficult issues need sensitive consideration. I want a community in which my constituents, whatever their age or colour, believe that the police will take powers only when they need them and that they will treat all people equally. When that happens, we will have made huge progress.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has done the Committee a great service in opening the debate.

Some people believe that criminal damage caused by graffiti is a low-level crime. I take the contrary view that it is a very serious crime. It breeds an atmosphere of criminality in estates and fear in communities. It also creates a fertile ground for other, more serious crimes to thrive. It blights many communities, and changes them from areas where one would want to live into areas not only where one would not want to live but where one would be frightened to live. It is an important issue, and a good starting point for our discussion of the Bill.

The Metropolitan police service is one of several organisations that welcome the extension in the clause and strongly support the inclusion of the power to search for items that could cause criminal damage. It believes that that has been an obvious omission from the search powers for many years, and that its inclusion will assist in the prevention of criminal damage and associated antisocial behaviour that blights so many communities. I say, ''Hear, hear'' to that.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 1 are probing amendments. I share the view expressed today by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that it has been the devil's own job to match up the sections and subsections of the Acts to which one needs to refer. More than once, I have felt myself to be entirely ignorant when I looked up a section of an Act referred to in the Bill and could not find a section with that number. Presumably, I needed to refer to other documents, but I have not had time to do that, and have had to do my best with what I have to hand.

I understand the basic point to be that a constable may search a person for anything that is a prohibited article. In section 1(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an article is prohibited if it is an offensive weapon, but also if it is an article

''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence . . . or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''

My first difficulty is that subsection (8) refers to the offences to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies, but does not refer to subsection (7)(b)(ii). Will the Minister clarify that?

An article is prohibited if it is an article

''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence''

such as burglary or theft under section 12 of the Theft Act. Subsection (7)(b)(ii), however, refers to an article being

''intended by the person having it with him for such use.''

There is no link between that intention and the offences mentioned in subsection (8), and I wonder whether there should be such a link. That is the reason for the probing amendment No. 27. The question of what the articles might be that could be made or adapted for the purposes of criminal damage should also be examined carefully.

When the Minister spoke about amendment No. 1, he said that the offence of going equipped to steal was included under theft. Will he be more specific about that? Subsection (8) discusses the offences to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies but to which subsection (7)(b)(ii) does not. The first offence that it refers to is burglary. The second one is theft. Theft is defined under the Theft Act 1968 as appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it permanently and behaving dishonestly. When one is charged with theft in the Crown court, the indictment sets out the section and charges one with theft, and theft alone. Paragraph (c) deals with offences under section 12 of the Theft Act, which covers taking a motor vehicle without consent, commonly called TWOC, for the purposes not of stealing it but of joyriding.

Paragraph (d) refers to offences under section 15, which deals with obtaining property by deception. In reality, the offence of going equipped to steal is an offence under section 25 of the 1968 Act. That is a different offence. Where a person is not at his place of abode and has with him any article for use in the course of, or in connection with any burglary, theft or cheat, that person is subject to a charge under section 25 of the Theft Act. I hope that the Minister will say something about the issues surrounding going equipped to steal. Typically, someone goes equipped to steal from a car or from a motorbike, not from a property, because that would be burglary. A person who goes equipped to do that would, typically, have about their person, more keys than they should have, or a piece of wire. Hon. Members have no idea how many people appear in court for going equipped to steal with a piece of stiff wire or a coathanger. Those who know what they are doing can open 90 per cent. of cars with a wire coathanger in seconds. The Committee should ponder the relevance of those items in people's possession. I find it easier to say that someone who has 36 keys in his pocket, no vehicle and no front door may be about to commit the crime of going equipped to steal, although people also carry coathangers from dry cleaners.

We need to be clear about this. If someone is walking down the street with an aerosol can and a policeman thinks that he is about to commit an offence with it, can the policeman simply stop and search that person? Where is the requirement, if there is one, for some intention on the part of the person with the aerosol can to use it in connection with criminal damage? Ditto the person carrying the other

items that I mentioned. We must bear it in mind that the charge of going equipped to steal is entirely separate from theft, so it is hard to see how it can be included under the generic definition of theft. If it could be, the rest of the clause would not refer to other offences under the Theft Act.

I move on to robbery. I do not want to move into a fanciful world, but people can have all sorts of items with them for use in connection with robbery, which is not defined here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said so tellingly, all sorts of items can be carried about with the intention of committing all sorts of offences. The subject is slightly difficult.

All that I have tried to do is to point out to the Minister the question marks in my mind. I think that the Committee would appreciate a little clarification on the issue of intent. However, I would do less than my duty if I did not say how right the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was to recognise that the use of graffiti is becoming a terrible scourge. Any powers that we can sensibly give to the police to stop it would be well worth taking.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

This has been a useful debate. We have covered all the ground on the clause in debating the amendment.

The clause originates in the review of PACE that was undertaken and published earlier this year, as hon. Members will be aware. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that there was a strong police request that stop-and-search powers be extended in such a way. The reason for the clause has been acknowledged in several contributions, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right when he said that in the end we were discussing a balance. In a sense, all police powers are an infringement on the liberty of the individual, but we decide to give the police certain powers in the interests of protecting the rights of others or of society as a whole. Therefore, one has to balance the impact that stop-and-search can have with the sheer misery caused by crime. The police are conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

We should not question the interests of any member of the Committee as regards their constituents, whether they live in leafy suburbs or deprived inner-city communities. Many of my constituents do not have a lot of money and live in areas of great deprivation. They tend to experience more crime than those in the leafy suburbs, but it can occur in any part of the country. I would not want any member of the Committee to question the bona fides of any other. By all means, let us say that we do not think that the argument has been put correctly; by all means, let us say that we do not think that hon. Members have balanced correctly in their contributions the need to protect the rights of the individual against the need to protect people that we all represent from utter misery. The clause is about giving the police more power to protect those people. That is why we are trying to get the balance right.

In asking the Committee to resist the amendments, I want to explain why the points that have been

legitimately raised are covered by what the clause proposed, or would have other adverse consequences that probably were not intended by those who tabled them. I can tell the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking, in relation to the point about ''going equipped'' and robbery, that there is no need to add the offences suggested in amendment No. 1, as they are covered by the general reference to ''theft'' in section 1(8)(b) of PACE.

As for ''going equipped'', we are talking about items that will be made, adapted or intended for use for stealing—for theft. For that reason, the wording of section 1(7) of PACE makes the Government's view clear. We do not disagree with the intention that going equipped should be covered by stop-and-search powers, which is why we are firmly of the view that it is already covered by legislation. Similarly, those considerations apply in relation to robbery, which is defined as stealing with force or threat of force.

I remind the Committee that in exercising stop-and-search powers, police officers must have a reasonable suspicion. The PACE code of practice A describes the types of circumstances that can be taken into account. I refer hon. Members who wish to consider the matter in more detail to that document.

Amendment No. 27 is unnecessary, because the current stop-and-search framework set out in section 1 of PACE makes it clear that a constable can stop and search a person only if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find articles made or adapted for use in the course of, or in connection with, a relevant offence, or intended by the person having them for such use. The test is whether the item is made, adapted or intended for such use. That list currently applies to burglary, theft, offences under section 12 of the 1968 Act, and offences under section 15 of the 1968 Act. A new section 1(8)(e)—on criminal damage—will be added to PACE. Therefore, the point made in amendment No. 27 is already catered for. The amendment would also stop a constable from searching for articles specifically made or adapted for use in destroying or damaging property.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I can see the force of what the Minister says. It seems that if the failure lies anywhere, it is with the way that PACE was originally drafted. The provisions were extremely opaque, and only as the debate proceeded did it become apparent to me what the Minister was trying to say. I cannot blame the Minister for that. However, it is rather unlikely that many items will be made or adapted. It is always likely that an intention will have to be shown, because of the very nature of the items under discussion.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He rightly detected the thought processes that have gone on in the course of the debate. If the concern that he raised was correct, the existing parts of section 1(8) of PACE—burglary, theft and other offences—would not apply to the question of intention. That was clearly not intended. For opaque reasons that I do not pretend to understand fully, the advice is that such provisions apply. We can therefore safely add a new section 1(8)(e), which will deal with the problem of intent.

As I am sure hon. Members acknowledge, everything will depend on the circumstances. A police officer who, for the sake of argument, entered railway premises at night where trains had been spray-painted—as happens regularly—and encountered two young people would have reasonable grounds both for suspicion and to stop and search, to see whether those people were carrying a can of spray paint. We shall of course have to rely on the discretion and common sense of police officers to apply the new law in that way. That is why the power would be welcome.

Finally, on Amendment No 71, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that no discourtesy was intended in relation to the previous debate. I must be more fleet of foot. He made many good points. He appears to have tried to draft an alternative approach to dealing with the problem about which he spoke with such passion. It is unfortunate that his amendment would only cover articles that had been used in the commission of such offences. Our proposed clause would cover items made, adapted or intended for such purposes, and would therefore be more useful to the police, enabling them to deal with the types of problem that, I am sure hon. Members recognise, cause our constituents distress. That is why I believe that the clause as currently drafted achieves the objective.

I hope that I have satisfied the Committee on the points that have been raised, and I would resist the amendments that have been debated.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I thank the Minister for his careful and considerate reply. I also press him to write to me regarding the arguments that I advanced in the debate on the programme motion. It would be extremely helpful to put those points to rest.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I will.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I am grateful for that reassurance. The Minister has been well probed and has responded to our promptings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on

the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Warrants to enter and search

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, after 'powers', insert 'and duties.'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 28, in

clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 84, in

clause 2, page 2, line 1, after second 'the', insert 'direct'.

No. 4, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 'and with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.'.

No. 68, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end add 'and shall be subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as apply to a constable.'.

No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) He shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier.'.

No. 69, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) any person so authorised shall be identified, together with his rank or office and his place of business or employment, to the owner or person in charge of the premises concerned.'.

No. 91, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 28, after first 'the', insert 'direct'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 2, 4, 3 and 28. The clause extends the existing range of warrants to give an authorised person who accompanies a police officer the same powers as that officer. Amendment No. 2 would insert ''and duties'' after the word ''powers'' and amendment No. 28 would omit the extension of the power to the execution of the warrant. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are probing amendments; they suggest that the person accompanying the officer should have a duty to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. Likewise, such a person would need the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.

The issue of warrants is a difficult area for the courts. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that my experience in that regard makes me slightly concerned about giving very broad powers to an authorised person accompanying an officer. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant to enter and search premises can be executed by any constable and such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable executing it. Little or nothing else is said about the accompanying person.

Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I picked up a copy of PACE and found what I was talking about in section 16. I then looked at ''Archbold'' and a photostat of section 16, and found that that covered something else completely, and that I needed section 10. I hope to goodness that they are both relevant.

Now, picture the scene: Bow Street magistrates court on any Friday—in my rare moments away from my constituency, I sit there as a district judge. An application is made for a warrant. Before the district judge comes an officer who lays before him the information that a warrant is necessary in relation to certain premises because it is believed that there are drugs or documents involving a financial swindle there. Accompanying the information are sufficient details to enable that judge to form a view as to whether the warrant should be issued. It is no good a policeman turning up and saying, ''I apply for a

warrant for these premises,'' because the answer will be, ''Go away. You can't have one,'' unless that policeman has details of the basis on which the warrant is sought.

Every district judge or magistrate carefully examines an application for a warrant and, if satisfied, grants it. Every district judge or magistrate knows that under PACE the police occasionally take with them someone who is authorised. Our probing amendments try to put a dampener on the clause because it gives the accompanying person and the police officer the same powers. I understand that a policeman has large powers in respect of the warrant—for example, the ability to force entry if required and the ability when inside the premises to seize and confiscate items. Constables are in a unique position; they are given authority by the citizen. We should know what we are doing before we allow the clause to give the accompanying person the same powers as the constable in a blanket fashion. There are reasons why that is important.

My first question to the Minister is, who can be an authorised person under proposed new section (2A)? I am informed in various briefings that it is likely to be an IT specialist, for example, who may be dealing with a computer-related offence. Is there an exhaustive list? Are those who are not fully fledged constables but are part of the community police force—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will correct me if I use the wrong term—to be included and given the same powers?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Support officers.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

There we are: support officers. Are they to be given the same powers? Are they, in short, to be authorised persons? Will the court have any say now in who the authorised person is to be? When the judge gives the police officer the ability to execute a warrant, he gives it to that officer based on the officer's deposition to the court and on his unique status as one of Her Majesty's constables. Would not a court ask, or want to know, if a warrant is to be executed in future, who the officer will take with him or her as an authorised person? Do the Government have any plans to ensure that an application for a warrant to a district judge or magistrate includes the information that the applicant seeks to take so-and-so as an authorised person? Will there be judicial permission or not, or will the matter bypass the courts?

What limit will there be on the category of people being dealt with? At the officer's discretion, can it be a solicitor, an accountant, a friend or a passer-by because the officer is frightened, or anybody or no one? That is the point of these probing amendments, especially the important amendment No. 2, which would add the words ''and duties''. When that is linked with amendment No. 3, there is a compelling case for the Government to accept the amendment.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, on which I made my maiden speech in 1983, states:

''Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present when a constable seeks to execute a warrant''—

and then—this is critical—it lists the duties on the officer. There must be duties—it would be nonsense if

there were not. There are such duties under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The officer must identify himself to the occupier, and, if not in uniform, must produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable. Furthermore, he shall produce the warrant to him and give him a copy. That is an obvious thing for an officer to do—hence our amendment, which would oblige the person authorised to accompany the officer to carry evidence of identity and produce it to the occupier. It is similar to the current requirement applying to the officer himself.

Amendment No. 4 would provide that in addition to exercising the relevant powers only in the company and under the supervision of a constable, the person concerned would also need to do so

''with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer''.

That is a way of suggesting to the Minister that a slightly higher level of police involvement and authority should be used.

The Minister should take on board the need for the same duties for the authorised person, and the same requirement to identify himself or herself, as apply to the officer. Perhaps he could go further and say whether, if the officer has powers to seize documents and, as an officer must from time to time, act with force, the authorised person has those powers? That is an interesting and troubling situation. The authorised person is not a constable of Her Majesty. The point needs to be examined.

I assume, but am ready to be corrected if I am wrong, that if a police officer, in executing a warrant, goes over the top and does something wrong, there is insurance cover applying to Her Majesty's force. What would be the position of an authorised person—a solicitor or accountant who just happened to be authorised by someone to go in and do exactly what the policeman was doing? If I were an accountant, asked by the police to go and carry out those duties, I should want to check my insurance policy before I stepped outside my house.

I have another point to raise, although I do not expect the Minister to answer it today. If he can respond to this one, he is very fast on his feet. He is, of course. However, I want to mention in passing the case of Funke v. France. He thinks that I am pulling his leg. It is that time of year. I cannot tell the Committee how the case came to my attention, because I have forgotten. It was more than two days ago, and by mistake it came to my attention. I am quite sure that those advising him will look it up straight away. I am sure, indeed, that they will know all about it.

The case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. I do not think that it is exactly on all fours with what we are considering, and it will probably be distinguished from it, but a serious point arises from it. The case relates to the remedy that individuals have in relation to their own premises when those are invaded—or entered—by various officers of the law or Customs, and what they do, what they take, and how they behave.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Illsley, that I do not intend to read out all 34 extraordinarily boring pages. This is a 1993 case, and to cut a long story short, Mr. and Mrs. Funke lived in France—which explains, I think, why the case is called Funke v. France. Various Customs officers stormed in and took a lot of documents. Mr. Funke died in due course, but his widow was permitted to carry on with an action that was so grievously complex that I have not the slightest idea what she was getting at.

In short, the action related to article 8 of the convention, which states that although everyone has the right to respect for his private life and correspondence, there may be interference by a public authority with the exercise of that right, so long as it is in accordance with the law and amounts to a measure that is necessary in a democratic society, inter alia in the interests of the economic well-being of the country or for the prevention of disorder or crime. That is fine. We can all understand that, so I shall get straight to the point.

At the end of the case, I believe that there was a finding that article 8 had been breached in relation to the private life and correspondence. That is relevant to the extent that we in this country have a system whereby the police and Customs seek a warrant and behave in a certain way. That is fine, because we entrust them with that, but could have the Minister and his officials taken on board the position whereby we give hugely extended powers to those who are not constables or Customs officers. Is that entirely safe from a possible attack under the convention? I simply do not know, so I have posed the question. I am terribly pleased that the Minister is nodding as though he thinks that I have made a sage point.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I very much welcome the clause, in the same way that people in the criminal justice system in Nottinghamshire warmly welcome it. However, we have a couple of concerns, which my hon. Friend the Minister might allay. Yet again, we are talking, quite rightly, about extending a power, but we need to be clear about the defence that individuals may have in relation to an abuse of that power. It is none the less important that the warrants to enter and search have the capability outlined by the clause.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Woking. We always thought that he was funky, and he has proved it this morning. However, he should keep an eye on people who table amendments through or for him. I am thinking in particular of amendment No. 4, which goes against the spirit of what the clause and indeed the Bill are trying to achieve by making the processes speedier where appropriate and where possible. The amendment would require a chief inspector or more senior officer to sign off the warrants, which goes against what I hope he would endorse as the good objective of trying to speed up the process, rather than pushing it up the chain of command in the police force and imposing yet more red tape and bureaucracy when the police are trying to do their job. I hope that he agrees that that is a good objective and will not press the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point that I was going to make about the use of force. Are people

who go along on a search expected or empowered to use force in the same way as the police? It would be helpful for the Minister to place their status on the record. The two amendments that I tabled are about the hangers-on, if I may use that term. I am thinking less about the civilians whom the police employ than about civilians who are not employed by the police but may be at the scene. They need safeguards almost as much as the person being searched does.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a difficulty with insurance, which I had not thought of. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee or write to hon. Members about that.

I believe that we need also a clear code of practice for those civilians who are not directly employed by the police. I hope that the Minister can put that into the public domain an appropriate point, so that those people's rights are covered, as well as the rights of those being searched.

I am sure that hon. Members can think of many examples. One that occurs to me is of a television crew accompanying the police on a raid because the police want to show pictures of a drugs bust. A more appropriate example would be someone employed by the police to take some pictures for evidential use. There must be many other sorts of people involved in that sort of activity.

Marsha Singh (Labour, Bradford West)

In discussing who those authorised people might be, the example of bailiffs comes to mind. I do not know what codes of conduct govern their powers, but is there not a similarity?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

That is a good point. I cannot answer it, but the Minister may be able to do so. Other hon. Members may be able to think of people who might tag along on an operation, all for good reasons, who should be covered. I ask my hon. Friend whether this is not an appropriate point for a code of practice for such people.

Any person authorised by the police to accompany them on a search should be identified, with their rank or office, to the owner of the property or the person being searched. People should know, when a crowd comes into a house or premises, who the heck all those people are who are storming into the front room, especially as the person being searched may not be charged, arrested or convicted. It is only fair that the person whose privacy is invaded should know who those people are.

Apart from those two question marks, I hope that the Minister will accept a strong welcome on behalf of those in Nottinghamshire who are interested in the matter. It is a helpful clause and I wish it a fair wind. Given those reassurances, I shall not seek to press amendments Nos. 68 and 69 to a vote.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

This is another important clause, but the amendments can be dealt with fairly quickly. Amendments Nos. 84 and 91 are intended to probe the understanding of direct supervision. Does the person concerned have to be with the constable, or could he be apart or separated from him, and would they have

to be in communication by radio walkie-talkie? How much supervision should there be? Is there case law for it? Is there any understanding? Is there any statutory basis for the meaning of supervision? Technically, the Minister, I or anyone else could be supervising someone who was 100 miles away, but the supervision would be minimal. We need to ensure that we are not going down that road.

The Minister will know that we are supportive of many of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. It is right that we should include the words ''and duties''. Those who have powers must also have duties to go with them. If the Government seek automatically to give those who accompany constables such powers—the present law says that the powers for the additional person are given when the warrant is issued—it seems to me that they should also have the duties.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

This is a continual theme. Why does the person who accompanies the police officer have to have duties if he is under the supervision of that police officer? Many people seem not to have turned over the page to read that. He is there because he is accompanying the police officer in the execution of the warrant in new subsection (2A). Surely all the duties are on the police officer who is supervising him.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

This is important. Let us take the following case. Several police officers with people under their supervision go into a house, a factory or a goods yard and the police officer in charge says, ''Right, guys, I want you to go and look for notebooks.'' They all go off separately, although they will be under the supervision of the police officer because he gave them their task. An hour or two later they will all meet up again. They may do all sorts of things while they are on their own. It seems to me that they have duties to the person whose premises are being searched, who may never see the police officer, but only the person who accompanies him.

That touches on the bigger issue. This is an invasion of privacy. The cliché is that an Englishman's home is his castle. We are talking about men and women, English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh and every other nationality here, and people's homes, offices and factories should not be invaded by others without permission. The first exception to that is if a warrant has been obtained, and the magistrates must satisfy themselves about that. The second exception is when there is a power in the law to go in without a warrant. Such powers should be granted sparingly. The number of people who have those powers should be limited. They are not limited. There are huge numbers of people with the power to go into our houses. It is not just police and Customs officers, but people who work for the Inland Revenue and every quango in the country. There are far too many people who can invade other people's activities.

Will the Minister tell us who has these powers to give a warrant to a constable? What are the categories of people who might be able to be authorised? It is an extension of the question that was asked a moment or

so ago. Are we increasing the power only in relation to those who are accompanying a constable? The law appears to say that we are not giving additional powers to someone who accompanies a tax inspector or a Customs and Excise official. I hope that we are clear that this power is only for people who accompany a police constable, not for one of that great army of people who may invade our homes.

Amendment No. 28 would take away the power of the execution of the warrant from the accompanying person. That seems right. The execution of the warrant should be in the power of the constable—the person who is accountable before the law. The IT expert, the forensic science expert or the DNA expert or anyone else should not be responsible for executing the warrant. We are always complaining that our constituents have people knocking on their doors and they do not know who they are. They need to know whether people are from the council or the water board. We always tell older people to guard against opening the door to unauthorised people. We must be consistent. We must ensure that the person who executes the warrant is a uniformed police officer or can prove that he is a police officer. That seems perfectly proper.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 3 are also important. A junior officer could haul in an extra group of people only with the written consent of someone at senior level, which gives the public extra protection. Amendment No. 3 would require any such person to carry evidence of identity, and to produce it on request. We cannot have people wandering around the houses and business premises of Britain without that proper identification. The amendment is similar to amendments Nos. 68 and 69. Amendment No. 69 would ensure the ability to identify, and amendment No. 68 would ensure that the person is subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures. The Liberal Democrats support both those amendments.

These important matters relate to the liberty of the citizen in their home, their right to privacy and the right not to have people entering their home without authority. I hope that the Minister will reassure us by being sympathetic to the amendments and answering the perfectly reasonable questions that they pose. At this stage, I presume that this will be an exercise in probing. However, these are issues that hon. Members will want to raise again on Report if they do not receive satisfactory answers now. We must know what we are doing, and the citizen must know exactly who has the power to do what on their doorstep or in their home.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I simply add this to the comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking: I doubt that any member of the Committee disputes that a search warrant must be carried out as efficiently as possible. If that requires the presence and active participation of others who are not police officers, I, for one, will not be troubled as long as the buck stops with the police.

The difficulty of the clause, and the reason for the Conservative amendments and the similar amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is that

section 16(2) of PACE authorises persons to accompany any constable who is executing a warrant. There is no difficulty in individuals being present who are not constables. The next question is what is the intention behind the new subsection, which gives the direct impression that the buck will still stop with the police, who must supervise what is going on, but also purports to extend the powers of those who accompany the officer to be identical to his.

Members of the Committee need an answer from the Minister about how this is supposed to work in practice. It is perfectly acceptable to provide extra protection in an area of doubt. Does accompaniment simply mean that the man merely has to stand there and make suggestions to the officer rather than involve himself? If so, I can understand the logic of that. I must say, however, that the wording suggests that the person is, in effect, given a free ticket to act exactly as the officer does on those premises, including breaking in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said.

I have the gravest reservations about giving the person breaking-in powers of any sort. In relation to what the person does on the premises, I can see the force and legitimacy of his being able to download computer files and carry out specialist activities, but supervision is key. The word ''supervision'', as I understand it, could mean that no one else who is present and close to him when he is carrying out such activities is an officer. It bothers me if that will be the upshot of the provisions.

My hon. Friend rightly made the point about insurance. If I were a solicitor or an IT specialist, I would want my insurance cleared up. Most importantly, who has responsibility? Is it the chief constable? In the case of misfeasance, will an action lie against a chief constable or not? I assume that it would, but it would be useful for the Minister to confirm that that is the case, and that there is no ambiguity in the matter.

We seek the Minister's reassurance on some issues, but on one or two matters we may need more than reassurance, because I am not persuaded that the wording is no wider than it needs to be. Effectively, we are asking the Minister to think again and return to the matter later.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

This has been a helpful debate, and I shall attempt to respond to all the issues.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly divined, the intention of the clause is to enable the person accompanying a police officer to do more than at present, which is to stand and give advice. An obvious example might be examining a computer to find evidence of child pornography. Some expertise might be required to access the files and find encoded or encrypted information. All police constables might not have that expertise, so it is entirely sensible for the policeman to be accompanied by someone who does. Rather than have him standing there saying, ''Press return,'' it is much more sensible to allow the expert to sit and do the searching. That is the purpose behind the clause, and the change arises out of the PACE review.

May I first deal with the questions about authorisation asked by the hon. Member for Woking? Authorised persons for these purposes will be those authorised to accompany the constable by being named on the warrant. In other words, they are known at the point when the magistrate or the judge grants the warrant. The Police Reform Act 2002 gives powers to investigating officers—people employed by police authorities—to apply for and execute warrants. Only the civilians who need to be named on the warrant will be specifically identified.

The hon. Member for Woking made a fair point about Funke v. France because all these powers are subject to challenge in respect of the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. The honest answer is that no one knows for sure where the application of the convention, which can be tested against what Parliament has framed as legislation, will lead. The Bill has certainly been drafted to be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the convention. I am grateful to him for informing us of the case, not least for its delightful title, though its circumstances sound rather sad.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for his support. If he is agreeable, I shall write to him on the question of insurance. I can also tell him and the hon. Member for Woking that civilians accompanying police officers will not be permitted to use force. They cannot, for example, kick in the door. The only exception will apply to investigating officers who, under the new power in the Police Reform Act 2002, are allowed to apply for and execute the warrant.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

But the Bill as it stands allows the authorised person to use force to get in, so how does it prevent someone from acting in that way?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

The answer is section 117 of PACE—

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Sorry if I have wasted time.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

No, not at all. I did not know either, but I do now.

I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that his point does not apply to tax inspectors. He raised a legitimate issue about the circumstances in which agents of the state are allowed to enter premises, but the changes relate only to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

The trouble with amendment No. 28 is that it would deny the person authorised to accompany a constable in executing a warrant the relevant powers linked to the execution process. Given that the precise purpose of the clause is to enable the person actively to participate, the amendment is unhelpful, and I ask the Committee to reject it if it comes to a vote. Indeed, I ask the Committee to reject all the amendments, although I am not unsympathetic to the points that lie behind them, as I shall explain in a moment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I hope that the Minister will soon deal with my question about direct and indirect supervision. On amendment No. 28—

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee B

Clause 2 - Warrants to enter and search

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 28, in

clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 84, in

clause 2, page 2, line 1, after second 'the', insert 'direct'.

No. 4, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 'and with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.'

No. 68, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end add 'and shall be subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as apply to a constable.'

No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) He shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier.'

No. 69, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) any person so authorised shall be identified, together with his rank or office and his place of business or employment, to the owner or person in charge of the premises concerned.'

No. 91, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 28, after first 'the', insert 'direct'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

As I understand it, the Minister was speaking at the end of this morning's debate, and he did not have time to respond to an intervention by Mr. Hughes. I ask the Minister to give way, if he wishes to do so.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran. We look forward to working under your guidance. I am happy to give way.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I thank the Minister for giving way, and join him in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.

My intervention was to prompt the Minister to remember to deal with my point about supervision, to which he had not yet replied. That may be my last request in relation to this group of amendments.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I shall do so in due course.

On amendment No. 2, we agree that it is important that the persons who are authorised to accompany constables behave properly, and where appropriate are subject to the same duties as those constables, as well as having the same powers. That is why we provided for supervision of such persons by a constable. Schedule 1 will amend sections 21 and 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by imposing duties on the persons authorised to accompany constables in respect of such matters as access to and copying seized material. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the constable will ultimately be responsible for the execution of the warrant, and that it would be unnecessary to impose certain duties on the persons who are authorised to accompany constables. That is why we cannot accept the amendment, which would impose all the duties on authorised persons, such as endorsing the warrant after it has been executed. The constable can do that, so we do not need to impose a duty on the authorised person to do the same.

We believe that we have got the list right by placing duties on the authorised person that we believe are sensible for him or her to have. If any hon. Members believe that we have not, we will be happy to consider the matter further, but amendment No. 28 is too broad in its current form.

On supervision, it is not clear that amendments Nos. 84 and 91 add anything. The civilian will need some freedom of action to be effective in participating in the process, which is the reason for the clause. At the same time, however, we recognise that the civilian will always be under the general direction of the constable, which is what the clause seeks to achieve. In so far as I understand the difference between ''direct supervision'' and ''supervision'', it would get in the way of what we are trying to achieve if the intention was that the constable should be constantly looking over the civilian's shoulder. That is why we are not inclined to accept such an amendment, which does not add anything. There may be circumstances in which members of the team are working together, but in different parts of a building, or are searching premises that have more than one building, such as a house and barn complex. In those circumstances, it would not be sensible to require the constable to be next to the authorised person at every stage, although that person is clearly under the supervision of the constable.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The amendment is intended to be probing. According to the Minister's briefing and understanding, is the supervision required to be carried out by someone who is on the premises at the same time? That is the crucial issue. Are they there? Are they within reach, as opposed to someone else?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

Yes. I hope that that is helpful.

Through amendment No. 4, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would require further written authority from a senior officer before someone accompanying a constable in executing a warrant could exercise relevant search and seizure powers. That amendment is unnecessary, given that the individuals will be named on the warrant that is granted in the first place, as I said earlier. It will be authorised by a judge or magistrate, and the

endorsement will be given in the knowledge that it implies access to certain powers by the authorised persons. Requiring additional written authority would add to bureaucracy in police operations at a time when we are trying to minimise it.

Amendment No. 3 suggests a change to the current position whereby persons who accompany constables executing a warrant are not obliged to carry evidence of identity or to produce it for the occupier of the premises that are searched. The amendment is unnecessary, because in the vast majority of cases the constable executing the warrant must identify himself or herself when entering the premises. An exception is terrorism cases, in which the officer has to give a number but not a name. The police will also keep records of the search, which will show who was at the premises when they were searched.

Clearly, the person whose premises are searched can identify police officers in uniform by their number, but if they wanted to know who the person accompanying the police was, it would be good practice for them to be introduced, if that is the right term, at the start of the process, or for there to be a means of identifying the authorised person, particularly if there was a complaint about their conduct. That seems perfectly reasonable. However, as we are updating PACE code B, which is the relevant code, that would be the sensible place to deal with the expectation that authorised persons should identify themselves appropriately when requested to do so. That would be a way of dealing with the point that gave rise to the amendment without writing it into the Bill.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Why is it preferable to put the point about identification of the authorised person in a code, when the identification of the constable if he is in civilian clothing is dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act itself?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's fair point is that authorised persons act at all times under direction. They do not act independently; they support and assist the police in the process of searching. Although the clause gives them new powers, they are in a different position from the constable, and it is right and proper that the person who sought the warrant and is leading the process and supervising and directing should be the person who has to identify himself. That is why it is right that that should be in the current PACE legislation. I accept the point, but I think that it should be dealt with in the code of practice.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Given that we try to protect our fellow citizens against people who do not have authority going into their homes, and given that, perfectly properly, the police are sometimes in civilian clothing, will the Minister tell us, or inquire, whether there is a process whereby people who, perfectly reasonably, are suspicious of the credentials of the person at their door can check them? It is now common practice in local government for someone to be able to ring a number and for the person at the other end to confirm that the person at the door is from a particular department. Obviously, in some

cases, there is a right to enter the premises without having to get permission, but there may be other cases that are delicate but in which that is less necessary, and it would be useful if there was a mechanism whereby people could make checks in a simple and straightforward way.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I understand the point, but I can envisage circumstances in which people with things to hide would answer the door and say that they just wanted to check. They would then shut the door and dispose of all the things that the people had come to find. There is a practical difficulty in operating as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Clearly, if requested, the officers will need to show their warrant cards, which can be examined. Indeed, that would be good practice. There is no provision currently for people to say, ''Well that looks interesting but I want to ring the police station to check that you are who you say you are.'' In answering the hon. Gentleman's question off the cuff, I can see practical difficulties because of the requirements of law enforcement.

In respect of amendments Nos. 68 and 69, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will be aware that there are differences between the disciplinary procedures that apply to police officers and those that apply to civilian staff. However, those differences will reduce as a consequence of the Police Reform Act 2002, which will include civilians employed by the police in the same complaints arrangements as police officers, although not in the same disciplinary arrangements, as Parliament specifically decided.

When persons accompanying constables in the execution of warrants are not police employees, they will not be covered by the complaints or disciplinary arrangements. However, if there is a complaint, the constable and the police force are ultimately responsible. I undertake to explore whether it would be possible for the police to make it clear to contracted staff that if their behaviour gave rise to a complaint, it would be expected as a result of their having taken on such work that they would participate in the complaints process. Again, that is an issue for good practice and guidance, not for the Bill.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, which meets the points that I made earlier.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

In the light of my hon. Friend's comment, I believe that I have dealt with everything that he wanted to tease out of me in respect of the amendments. I will resist them for the reasons I have given, but as I said, we propose to pick up a number of the helpful points that were made in the debate.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.

The Minister spoke kindly and persuasively, but I am disappointed that he will not accept amendment No. 3, in particular, as it would mean that the authorised person would be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. It is specified in statute that when a policeman who is not in uniform comes to the door, he is obliged, whether asked to do so or not, to identify himself to the occupier, to show documentary evidence

that he is a constable, to produce a warrant and to supply a copy of it. Clearly, the authorised person will not be in uniform, but we are often told—it is always on the television—not to let people into our house if we do not know who they are. That is good advice, especially for old people. People must produce their identification or they cannot come in.

I worry about the following situation: an officer who is not in uniform calls at the door and says, ''My name is Officer So-and-so and I have come to execute a search warrant. Here is my warrant card.'' The resident says, ''Okay, but who is that with you?'' The officer replies, ''That's nothing to do with you,'' or, ''I'm not obliged to tell you,'' or ''It's Mr. John Smith, an accountant, who is here to assist me with certain technical matters.'' Under the Bill as drafted, the officer is not obliged to say the last of those three sentences. I want to be sure that under the code he will be obliged to do so. Can the Minister help me in that respect?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

With the greatest of pleasure, as it was what I thought I had told the Committee already. The officer is in charge and it is right that he—or she—should identify himself. It will be written into the code of practice that all those participating should be identified to the individual whose home is being searched, all other things being equal—leaving aside circumstances in which those involved have to ram down the door to get in.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

In that case, the Minister has gone a long way to help us, and I am grateful for his observations. We have had a good debate and I am largely reassured, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

These are important issues and we did not have a stand part debate on clause 1.

This term has seen the beginning of citizenship on the national curriculum. It is important for citizens, young and adult, to know about what powers are vested and in whom, when an officer wants to search the home, for example. It should be part of the code that people know about when they leave school. I appreciate that it is not principally a Home Office responsibility, but it is indirectly, and the Home Secretary has said publicly that he is interested in such matters. Rights and responsibilities should be part of what is taught at school. When people know the score, it will cause much less aggravation than when they do not know their rights and someone wants to stop them or search their home.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I will gladly undertake to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Bail elsewhere than at police station

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in

clause 3, page 2, line 13, after 'practicable', insert 'and within 2 hours'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 35

No. 75, in

clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out 'the constable is satisfied'.

No. 10, in

clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out 'necessary' and insert 'essential'.

No. 11, in

clause 3, page 2, line 31, after 'delay', insert 'which shall not exceed two hours'.

No. 79, in

clause 3, page 3, line 26, at end insert—

'(8) The police station to which he is bailed to under subsection (4) or (6) above must be reasonably proximate to the place where the arrested person lives.

(9) He may be bailed for no longer than four weeks from the day of arrest.'.

No. 90, in

schedule 1, page 151, line 6, leave out paragraph 2.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.

The clause deals with what is commonly known as street bail. We all understand the clear operational benefits of allowing the police some flexibility, but we must ensure that the same delimitations and safeguards that apply at a police station also apply elsewhere. The process requires clarity, so that everyone knows what is happening, why and what the consequences might be.

Two of the amendments in the group were tabled by the Liberal Democrats and we have happily subscribed to the Conservative amendments.

Amendment No. 85 is a corollary to a later amendment tabled to deal with the potential delay factor—unquantified at present, but limited to two hours under the amendment. It deals with the original wording of the 1984 Act, particularly the vagueness in the phrase ''as soon as practicable'' after the arrest. It would be qualified by the changes in new section 30A. We can easily add clarity to the original wording by limiting ''as soon as practicable'' to a maximum of two hours. In operational terms, it is unlikely to have a significant effect. It simply avoids an unpardonable delay in taking a person to a police station after arresting him. That seems a sensible explanation of what the term may mean.

Amendment No. 90 is a probing amendment. Paragraph 2 to schedule 1 deals with entry and search after arrest. We are not sure what the Minister has in mind in here and we hope that he can elucidate it for us. We assume that we are talking about entry and search of premises rather than a person in this instance. It would be helpful if he could set out not only how he construes the meaning of that paragraph, but under which circumstances he intends

it to be used. There is at least a strong supposition that it reduces the requirements for obtaining an authorisation. He can tell me if that supposition is wrong. If so, we would need to be persuaded that there is a case for reducing the conditions for authorisation, because of particular circumstances that are not immediately apparent.

I should like to deal briefly with the other amendments in the group, although I do not wish to steal anyone else's thunder. I welcome Government amendment No. 35. Clearly it would be silly to put the requirement on a named constable, rather than a constable in generality, for determining that a person no longer needs to be detained. That seems a sensible drafting change. We look forward to the explanations of amendments Nos. 75 and 10. I have briefly touched on amendment No. 11. No doubt the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will wish to expand on that. We will certainly support him.

Finally, I should like to make a broad point in this context. There is a concern about what a local police station is. It will mean different things in different places. There is an underlying assumption in this part of the Bill that every person being arrested will be in the vicinity of a police station that is staffed, available, has a custody suite and is within a reasonable distance from his normal abode. In many of our constituencies that is simply not the case. Many of our police stations are closed for a lot of the time. If the duty sergeant or constable is called away, the station may be closed without notice. Many of our police stations are some considerable distance from where the arrested person lives.

If a designated police station in this context is a police station with a custody suite that is capable of providing custody within the meaning of the current legislation, my constituency does not contain a single such station. We do not have a police station with operational cells in which a person who has been arrested could be held. There needs to be a little amplification from the Minister about what would happen if, under those circumstances, someone was arrested, given bail and required to report to a police station that was not available at the requisite moment. That seems to place an additional burden on the person arrested, which does not help them to comply with the conditions that have been set out for them.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Cran.

The concerns raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) are broadly shared by the Conservative party. It is interesting that we have come to roughly the same conclusion, albeit using a slightly different approach. He made points that we believe should be considered in the context of bail elsewhere than at a police station.

I fully accept that, although our amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would not amend anything that the Minister is adding to the 1984 Act, they would amend the existing Act in several important ways. This might be a good opportunity to revisit the Act and its working,

and to consider some of the areas that, in my experience, can give cause for concern.

As the Minister will have seen, amendment No. 10 is about the circumstances in which a person may not be taken immediately to a police station. I am aware from my professional practice that there will be circumstances in which it is essential—rather than simply necessary—not to take someone who has been arrested immediately to a police station.

In amendment No. 11, I suggest a limit of two hours. I am the first to acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which two hours is too short. I hope that the Minister will regard the amendments as probing. We tabled them to try to simulate debate in Committee on an important issue.

As a general principle, I have no doubt that when someone is arrested, the best place for him to be as soon as possible, from his point of view as well as for the proper administration of the justice system, is in a police station. That is where he will get access to legal representation, where a proper assessment will be made of his condition, where a proper search of his documentation can be carried out, where a doctor can be called if necessary, and where the process of investigation can take place in an environment that is controlled and properly regulated by PACE.

Anywhere else falls outside that. That said, I can think of at least one case in which I was involved in which a man approached a police officer and informed him that he had just stabbed a man and believed that he had killed him, although he did not know where that person was in relation to the domestic premises in which the stabbing had taken place. The police spent some time with the man trying to find out where he had committed the offence. Eventually, they found a corpse. One can well understand that, in those circumstances, the priority was not to get the individual to the police station, but to try to see whether it would be possible to identify the place where the victim lay, with the help of the man who was expressing some contrition about what he had done. That must be a perfect example of circumstances in which getting someone to a police station is a lower priority.

Even if I can concede that the two-hour limit in amendment No. 11 may be too fixed in this context, I wonder about the use of ''essential'' as opposed to ''necessary'', because there should be a rigorous test to decide not to take a person to a police station, for the purposes of the police carrying out the investigation. I see no reason why it would not have been possible, in the circumstances and with the offence that I have just described, even with the word ''essential'', not to take that person to the police station. It would have been possible for the police to keep him, while they went in search of the victim. There will be other similar instances.

Having been prompted by those amendments, will the Minister tell the Committee how the Home Office views that issue? Will he also tell us how PACE has been operating in that respect, and whether there have been complaints about people being detained for too long without being taken to a police station?

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify his intention? Can he think of a situation in which the presence of a person would be necessary but not essential?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Yes, I can. I believe that the word ''necessary'' is different in its nature and quality from the word ''essential'', and that the word ''necessary'' gives the police greater of flexibility than the word ''essential''.

It should be remembered that this is not an abstract concept, because many things will flow from it, including the admissibility of evidence about what emerges or what someone may say prior to being taken to the police station. It is not a question merely of how quickly an officer can take someone to the police station but of the protection of that person's rights under PACE.

I believe that the definition of the two words is slightly different, and as we are revisiting PACE, I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

The hon. Gentleman said that he could think of many circumstances in which the presence of someone would be necessary but not essential. Would he care to give me an example? [Interruption.]

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) says that it is the difference between the two-line and the three-line Whip, which may be a wise definition.

A policeman may often think that detaining a suspect is necessary to his investigation. For instance, he may think that he can recover property if he keeps the individual with him. The policeman may think that that will be to his advantage, even if it is not to the individual's advantage.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Does not ''necessary'' imply a subjective assessment, whereas ''essential'' is an objective assessment? I believe that that differentiation is borne out by the etymology.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That is a good contrast. Most people, hearing those two words juxtaposed, would have no difficulty in saying that ''essential'' is a more pressing requirement than ''necessary''.

It is necessary for me to attend this Committee, because it is one of my duties as an MP; it is essential for me to do so because the Whip will be stroppy about it if I do not. That is a valid contrast in terms of prioritisation.

Amendment No. 79 relates to new section 30B, which sets out what a constable must do when granting a person bail under new section 30A. Subsections (1) and (2) require, among other things, that he must give that person a notice. I am delighted to see the power to bail a person without taking him to a police station in the Bill. It is a good idea, but it is vital that it should not be abused. The element of potential abuse is that it enables the police, if they were so minded, to keep an individual in a form of suspended animation without putting him through the beginnings of a legal process of investigation. That

could simply be for their convenience or even, at worst, a form of harassment. We cannot completely get away from that. There is the potential for that to happen.

As the Minister knows, a person who is arrested and taken to a police station may eventually be released without charge, but at least a process of palpable investigation will have taken place. Reviews will have been carried out and there will have been some input into whether there are grounds for a charge to lie against him. While it may be convenient for both the person arrested and the police to grant immediate bail to return on a further date, it should not be a completely open-ended matter. We will otherwise impose conditions on people who have not been charged with any offence, who have not even had the matter properly investigated or had an opportunity to have their say. That could continue for an indefinite period.

The purpose of amendment No. 79 is twofold. It is separate from our other amendments. They just happen to have been grouped together. The amendment would ensure first that the person bailed is not put to inconvenience by being bailed to a police station that is not near the place where he lives, and secondly that there is a cut-off. A four-week cut-off strikes me as reasonable. If in that time the police have not got their act together to investigate the matter further, I can think of no reason why bail conditions should continue and that person should consider himself to be under arrest.

If there is any flaw or potential flaw in what is otherwise a good idea, it is that this could be used as a form of police control of individuals by arresting and then releasing them. That could be done quite frequently, especially when it is one of the usual suspects. The police may suspect that he is up to no good and may wish to give the impression that they are keeping him under close supervision. I ask the Minister to take amendment No. 79 seriously. I ask him to take our other amendments seriously as well. They are there in the spirit of inquiry. However, amendment No. 79 goes to the heart of the potential problems in the working of what is otherwise a good clause.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Cran. I am delighted to see you here.

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Everything has been predicated on the fact that the person has been arrested. I draw the Committee's attention to subsection (5), which refers to

''a constable delaying taking a person to a police station''.

It does not include the words ''who has been arrested''. As the new subsection (5) replaces existing subsections (10) and (11) of PACE, which use that phrase, it is crucial that be included in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It is clear in section 30 that the individual has been arrested, although like so much drafting where another Act is being amended, it needs to be read carefully. Subsection (7) reads:

''30A Bail elsewhere than at police station

(1) A constable may release on bail a person who is arrested or taken into custody in the circumstances mentioned in section 30(1).

(2) A person may be released on bail . . . at any time before he arrives at a police station.''

I took it from those words that the person had been arrested, although the use of the words ''or taken into custody'' may require some further clarification from the Minister. However, I took arrest as the absolute premise on which we started. If we are wrong about that, I shall be grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the matter. I am sure that the Minister will deal with it.

The hon. Lady will note that section 30B(2) says:

''The notice must state—

(a) the offence for which he was arrested, and

(b) the ground on which he was arrested.''

I assume from those words that the remaining subsections of section 30B, to which I seek to add new subsections (8) and (9), cover a person who has been arrested and is to be bailed elsewhere than at a police station, but has not yet been taken to that place. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I want to say a word about amendment No. 79. In the London courts, the main court—normally court No. 1—would take the remand list every day. At any one of 15 courts across London there might be 70, 80 or 100 remands. Anecdotally, I should say that a reasonable proportion of the defendants come from places far away from London. They find themselves drawn to London for one reason or another, and commit an offence while there. They are kept in custody overnight and appear the next morning.

It is often the case that a person has enough money to get to London and blow it, and then does not have much left. That person might tell a court that is about to bail them for a month that they live in Cornwall. They might say, ''I'll be off down there, and I'll come back to court in a month.'' In a court, there is judicial intervention, and there is almost certainly a duty solicitor advising a person as to his or her rights. That is a court granting bail.

Although in general I support the principle of police giving bail, there is a big difference between bail given by a police offer, and bail given in a judicial surrounding. In a police station there is no person present to protect the interests of the defendant, to speak up for him or her, or to make representations about the nature of the bail granted.

The Bill permits the police to grant bail requiring the defendant to surrender at the police station, but the Bill does not say where that police station must be. Amendment No. 79 would require that it shall be a police station

''reasonably proximate to the place where the arrested person lives.''

New subsection (9) in amendment No. 79 would give a maximum time for which bail can be granted of four weeks. I am slightly troubled at the prospect of a defendant from Bristol or Manchester who is not terribly well-off finding himself or herself at the whim of an officer, who, as I understand the Bill, can say,

''You are bailed to appear at Brixton police station in 28 days.'' Funnily enough, 28 days is probably much more convenient for the defendant than two days, because the defendant may go home.

The courts will consider those issues in some detail and reach a reasoned judgment as to whether it is appropriate for the defendant to surrender at a different police station, or to go back to his or her home. Then, it can deal with matters such as bail enlarged—a court can enlarge bail in the absence of a defendant. Once a defendant is within the jurisdiction of the court, a raft of assistance and other measures are available. One would want to ensure, if possible, that there is some practical mechanism to give a defendant bailed by a policeman similar protections or an ability to ask for a review of the bail conditions.

As far as I can see, the defendant who is told by a police officer on a Friday afternoon, ''I'll bail you, but you must appear at Brixton police station on Monday,'' is stuck with it. If that is the case and the defendant has no recourse to asking anyone else whether they really have to do that, they may, if they live in Manchester or Bristol, have a serious problem.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Is not the alternative for the person to be stuck with being arrested and taken forthwith to Brixton police station? The proposed arrangement is slightly better for both sides. It is a little like making an appointment, albeit there is the seriousness of an arrest without a warrant immediately if the person does not turn up.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The alternative is for the defendant to be taken to the police station, but once he or she is there, the full panoply of protections—I use that word loosely—and services offered by the police station come into play. That involves use of the custody suite and the availability of legal advice and other help.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The full panoply of support will also be there on Monday, when the person keeps the appointment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman must understand the thrust of my argument. I am distinguishing between bail given by a court, where a huge range of issues are considered, and bail given by the police, either at a police station, where legal advice is usually available, or not at a police station, where legal advice will certainly not be available.

I am not sure what mechanism there is to appeal. We are talking about putting a defendant in a very difficult situation that someone acting as an advocate on his or her behalf might have been able to avoid. I put that to the Minister merely as a probing thought. The fact that he nods suggests that he thinks it a point worth considering. I hope that he will indeed consider it.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

First, I shall deal with the point highlighted by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). On the distinction between who is arrested and who is taken into custody, I am advised that the phrase ''taken into custody'' refers to a citizen's arrest. That is the distinction, to the

enlightenment of all members of the Committee, including me.

The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Beaconsfield acknowledged that a maximum of two hours would not work in all circumstances, so amendments Nos. 85 and 11 were probing amendments. As has been recognised, no time limits currently operate under PACE. Most delays in the circumstances that we are discussing will be relatively brief, but there will be circumstances in which a delay could exceed two hours: for example, when the arrested person needs to accompany the police officer during the search of premises. For that reason, I resist the idea of imposing a time limit.

The first safeguard is that the delays must be recorded in writing. Secondly, we must remember the context in which the entire debate is taking place: the purpose of introducing street bail is to save time. The police, in grabbing street bail as a new power, will not have much incentive to waste a lot of time by keeping people for longer than two hours before granting them street bail.

On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary referred to the queue in front of the custody sergeant. We shall discuss that when we come to property and possessions, but the new power is a means of trying to reduce that queue, so the police, above all, will have an incentive to use it to save time. I very much hope that unreasonable delays will not occur.

Amendment No. 35 is the only amendment to which I ask the Committee to agree. For reasons that have been identified, it is sensible not to confine the taking to a police station to the constable who made the original arrest. That is why we are replacing ''the'' with ''a''.

I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that it is difficult to see how amendment No. 75 would work in practice. Removing the words ''the constable is satisfied'' would leave open the question of who would take the decision in those circumstances. I cannot accept the amendment.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke to amendment No. 10, which would modify the test on which a police officer has to decide whether he has grounds to delay taking an arrested person to a police station or should release him on street bail. Currently, delay can be justified only when the presence of the person is necessary to carry out investigations. The example that we discussed was a good one.

On the ''essential'' or ''necessary'' debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) rightly argued—and it accords with the advice given to me—that in the particular context, to all intents and purposes, the two terms have the same meaning. I realise that all members of the Committee do not subscribe to that view, and we shall return to matters of grammatical propriety later, but I broadly regard the terms as interchangeable.

Amendment No. 79 would restrict flexibility. The hon. Member for Woking pointed out the good sense in bailing people at police stations close to where they live. In the vast majority of cases, that is what will

happen, but an alternative choice may be justified in certain circumstances. We discussed the example of Bow street when someone is arrested a long way from home and the arresting officer—by definition working in the area where the arrest took place, not where the offender lives—requires a subsequent interview. Similarly, it seems a bit unfair to make a witness required for an identification procedure travel a large distance to where the arrested person lives rather than obliging that person to return to where he or she was arrested in the first place.

On whether four weeks is sufficient time, the provision could benefit the arrested person in certain circumstances. Let us say that an MP is arrested on the last day of the summer Session and tells the police officer that he is about to head off on a pre-booked holiday—a six-week around-the-world trip. The officer might be happy to bail the MP seven weeks later, but unfortunately, because the Committee passed the amendment, he would have to insist that the MP returned in four weeks when the clock stops ticking. That is an entirely hypothetical and unlikely example, but it shows that the amendment could be unnecessarily restrictive.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield used the phrase ''imposing conditions'' in respect of bail.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

No.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I may have misheard him, and if so I apologise. I wanted to assure the Committee that in those circumstances no conditions apply.

I should like to tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the purpose of the provision that amendment No. 85 would remove is to allow for when, after an arrest, the police want to search premises under section 18 of PACE, prior to releasing the person on street bail. In other words, we do not want to preclude that possibility, which the amendment would. That would not be sensible.

Finally, we have heard about the different arrangements by which police stations are staffed. Clearly, it would be sensible for the police officer to ensure that someone will be present to receive an arrested person when a time and place is specified. That would be good practice. There would be no point in telling someone to return in three days at 7 o'clock in the evening to a police station that was not staffed at that time. The next group of amendments will deal with notification procedures.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for dealing with the issues that prompted the amendments. We shall have to return to the problem of police stations later, because I am unclear how the provisions will work, particularly when someone is billed to visit a police station in an area other than that of the arresting force. It is unclear whether the arresting officer can have knowledge of what would prevail in those circumstances.

I am not entirely convinced by what the Minister said about paragraph 2 to schedule 1. I can see the benefit of being able to carry out a search prior to releasing someone on bail, but it should usually proceed on the same basis of authorisation as in

other circumstances. We can return later to debate the reduction in the threshold of authorisation.

This group of amendments has proved useful for exploring the Government's thinking. I would characterise them as necessary rather than essential. They have now served their purpose, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 35, in

clause 3, page 2, line 22, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.—[Hilary Benn.]

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in

clause 3, page 2, line 31, after 'be', insert 'explained to the person arrested, and'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 5, in

clause 3, page 2, line 33, after 'bail', insert 'and a written copy of the reasons shall be given personally to the person forthwith.'.

No. 8, in

clause 3, page 3, line 4, after 'station', insert 'once'.

No. 29, in

clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end insert 'within 8 days'.

No. 78, in

clause 3, page 3, line 16, after 'station', insert 'and set out the consequences of any failure to surrender to bail'.

No. 76, in

clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I can be extremely brief, because we have already explored the argument that people dealt with in accordance with the clause should not be at a legal disadvantage in comparison with the more conventional practice of taking someone to a police station and releasing them on police bail. The Bill makes provision for the reasons for any delay to be reported and recorded and for a later date to be specified. The contention in amendment No. 86 is a simple matter of natural justice: that those reasons should be explained to the person whose release is being delayed in defined conditions under the Bill. It is surely appropriate for the reasons to be explained in comprehensible terms to the person being arrested. It should be an uncontroversial amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The amendments touch on the same issues that were raised when we debated the provisions for bail under new section 30A and elsewhere than at a police station. The amendments fall into two different categories. One of them deals with the length of time before a person has to return to the police station, and I have acknowledged that we may have covered that in a debate on an earlier amendment.

New section 30A(3) says:

''A person released on bail under subsection (1) must be required to attend a police station.''

Amendment No. 29 is a probing amendment, asking whether there should be a time limit. The Minister may already have addressed that issue, but I raise it again.

The other issues that we wish to raise are perhaps slightly more important. New section 30B is headed:

''Bail under section 30A: notices''.

Section 30B(5) says:

''If the notice does not include the information mentioned in subsection (4), the person must subsequently be given a further notice in writing which contains that information.''

From that, I take it that it would be possible for the police to post such a notice to the person concerned. That causes me anxiety. What happens if the person does not receive notification? In such circumstances, he could be in breach of his bail—and the consequences of that are set out in new section 30D. That is why we have tabled an amendment to require that the written notification should be provided in person.

There may be other ways of doing that—for example, by sending the notification by registered post so that one can be absolutely certain that the person has received it. However, an issue arises here. The whole point of bail conditions is that the person is told what those conditions are. If he is not told immediately, how and when will they be given to him, and how will we ensure that he has received the information to which he is entitled?

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

Has my hon. Friend also considered that a person receiving notification under new section 30B(5) may be illiterate or may not have English as his or her first language?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That is a perfectly valid point. The Minister looks a little puzzled, but under new section 30B, the individual must be given a notice that states

''the offence for which he was arrested''

and

''the ground on which he was arrested.''

The notice must also inform him

''that he is required to attend a police station''

and it

''may also specify the police station which he is required to attend and the time when he is required to attend.''

If he does not do those things, he will be in breach under new section 30D. New section 30B(5) raises the possibility that he may not have received the information and says that he

''must subsequently be given a further notice in writing which contains that information.''

The question is when. If the Minister is about to tell me that that has to happen prior to the person being discharged from custody or arrest, the problem does not arise. However, if the failure to be specific about the further notice in writing allows the possibility of a notice in writing being sent in the post, there is a problem.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

The issues that are being raised are fair, but they are not new. Currently, a section 47 bail date can be amended by post. That can happen under the current arrangements, so it is not as if the hon. Gentleman is raising a new point of principle.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That may happen under the current arrangements, but that is no reason why we should allow it to continue if difficulties may arise.

There is a difference between the example that the Minister has just given and the situation that we are discussing now. If things are working properly, it is desirable that a person who has been arrested should come into minimal contact with the police. He is rapidly told that he can go away but must come back and go to a police station on a specified day. In those circumstances, it is all too easy for a person to be ignorant of his responsibility. What if he never gets a letter? He might then be arrested without a warrant, which is draconian.

The Minister perfectly reasonably states that if a Member of Parliament was arrested outside the House of Commons and said that he was going away on holiday for seven weeks, the police officer would reply, ''Don't worry, because we'll get in touch with you.'' However, that Member of Parliament may never get his notice in writing. A Member of Parliament is a bad example in this instance, as he has a fixed address at these premises even if he does not have another address. However, for a lot of people, their address is a more difficult issue, and it troubles me that we are introducing a system where such a person may subsequently be scooped up off the street—arrested without a warrant—which could cause serious disruption to his life. Potentially, it is a humiliating procedure, and it might subsequently transpire that that person never received the notification because of a simple error that may have arisen as a result of the very brief initial contact that he had with a police officer.

Given the nature of the procedure, it is most undesirable that an individual should simply be sent on his way by a police officer without being given the necessary information to enable him to come back and attend a suitable police station at a later date.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

I, too, welcome you to the chair, Mr. Cran.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way: it was not essential that he did so, but it was mildly necessary. There is another weakness in the drafting of the Bill about which I would like his opinion. New section 30B(2)(b) states that the written notice must include,

''the ground on which he was arrested.''

That could be interpreted in two ways because it does not refer to ''the grounds''—in other words, the reasons. Does ''the ground'' mean the reason why the person was arrested or the geographical area where that person was arrested or detained? If we want to use clear language, that is a weakness.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is sloppy drafting; ''grounds'' would be better than ''ground''.

My hon. Friend's intervention highlights another important point. There is potential for future difficulties if we are to allow a person to be released after contact with the police without the ground on which he was originally arrested having been specified.

Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? It appears that new section 30B specifically provides for the possibility that that could happen. One only has to look at the type of offence that I would expect to give rise to thsy procedure to see that, if somebody is to return to a police station several weeks later, a dispute or misunderstanding might arise about the grounds on which he was arrested that might not have occurred if he had been sent away with a written document.

The Minister is preparing to intervene. He may be about to tell me that that person will take something else away with him. However, as drafted, new section 30B appears to envisage the possibility that somebody could be sent away without having that information in writing.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

New section 30B(1) states that a constable

''must give that person a notice in writing'',

subsection (2) says that the notice must state the offence and the ground, and subsection (3) states that it must also notify him that he must attend a police station. The information that might not be contained is that which relates to subsection ) and, therefore, the point that the hon. Gentleman makes would not arise. In those circumstances, he or she will always get that information.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I apologise to the Minister—he is right. I have been diverted along an interesting, but erroneous, line, but that does not diminish the issue and I return to my main point.

A person should be provided with proper information about which police station to attend to prevent him being in breach, with the attendant consequences that are set out in new section 30D. It is as simple as that, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board. It would be most unsatisfactory if the person were to be sent away without that information. The possibility of variation may be allowed for in writing, but for him not to have that information appears to be a potentially serious problem.

The Minister will also note that amendment No. 78 adds to line 16 the words

''set out the consequences of any failure to surrender to bail.''

I hope that that would be made clear at the time. Since the procedure is new and unusual, we must ensure that the person concerned knows about the consequences of not turning up.

These are minor amendments that could improve what is otherwise a provision of which I heartily approve. We should, however, be careful about ensuring that people fully understand what is required of them.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran, and I welcome the clause unreservedly. I have discussed the matter with various serving police officers in my area who are keen that the provision comes into force, because it will help them to do their job in the way in which we, locally, would like them to. I have to say that those officers also expressed—I do not know if I should say this—some reservations about the Conservative amendments in respect of

written copies of reasons. Those officers said that that was exactly the type of bureaucracy that they were trying to cut down on. It is odd that the Conservative party, which once used to be the party of law and order, is now making the job of the police more difficult.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

To suggest that a police officer would be seriously handicapped in the execution of his duty by having to write a docket specifying five words at most when bailing someone, is to push the issue to absurdity. There are many bureaucratic impositions on the police in terms of form filling at police stations. Those are much more pertinent, but I find it difficult to see how the proposal poses a major problem.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

That is the sort of sloppy liberalism that we have come to expect from the Conservatives.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Is it not the case that imposing a bureaucratic burden on a police officer in the street is far more onerous than imposing such a burden in the police station?

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.

I now move on to the serious question that was raised by serving officers, which I hope the Minister will address in order to reassure them. Officers felt that the word ''must'', rather than ''may'', would strengthen the proposition in section 30B(4), not least because as it is currently drafted the implication might be that the person could report to any police station at any time. That might be merely a drafting point for the Minister and his colleagues, but it is possible that someone could be arrested in Nottingham and show up weeks later at Bournemouth, or somewhere else. The police officers to whom I spoke were keen to ensure that the barrack-room lawyers could not exploit such a situation. That provision might need to be made more specific, and such tidying up could be done later.

This is a serious matter, because we need to ensure that the powers in new section 30D making such failure an arrestable offence are properly applied. I welcome the new section, and hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of the police officers' concerns.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

There is a big difference between bail granted by a court and bail granted by a policeman on the street. Over the past few years, the number of charges for offences such as failure to surrender, or failure to surrender at the appointed time, under the Bail Act 1976 has increased dramatically. Will the Minister let me know in writing how many charges have been preferred for those two offences under the 1976 Act in the past 12 months by the inner London magistrates courts?

When a magistrate grants bail, he or she is duty bound, under guidelines issued by the Lord Chancellor, to say to the defendant that they will be granted unconditional bail to appear again at the same place at a specified time, but that if they fail to do so, they will be committing an offence under the Bail Act

1976 and will be likely to be arrested immediately and charged with that offence. The courts find it increasingly difficult to ensure that the message contained in that sentence is completely understood. Sometimes it is deliberately ignored.

An increasing number of defendants who appear before courts in London and other urban areas of the UK do not have English as their first language. Many defendants speak English competently in some respects, but not as their first language., When someone is before them whose first language is not English, the courts are careful to ensure that that person understands exactly what they have been told by the court, and to use an interpreter if there is any doubt. Will the Minister let me know in writing what are the principal 10 languages currently spoken by those in the London area for whom English is not their first language, and how many court interpreters are available in respect of each of those languages in the inner London magistrates courts area? When dealing with a case at 11 o'clock in the morning, it is a problem if there is no interpreter available in a language that is not regularly used. Nevertheless, the courts must get to grips with that and do the best that they can.

I am sure that there has been an increase in charges for offences under the Bail Act 1976 over the past two years, and that trend must be monitored.

On amendment No. 78, I understand that proposed new section 30B deals with a constable in the street bailing to someone to appear at a police station. We have agreed that that is a good idea. However, we must probe a little to establish the content of the notice that will be given to the person concerned. We know that that notice will say that the person has been arrested for a particular offence on specific grounds, and that he or she is required to attend an agreed police station in 28 days. Will the Minister confirm that that notice will also state that if the person concerned fails to surrender at the appointed time, they will be guilty of an offence, and will be liable to arrest?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he knew that street bail was different from police and court bail. I understand that not to answer to street bail would not be an offence under proposed new section 30D, but

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I think that that is right. It needs to be on the record that a failure in respect of proposed new section 30D is not an offence under the Bail Act, but will be liable to result in the defendant's arrest for such a failure. The courts sometimes have difficulty explaining to a defendant in language that is readily understood that failure to comply with the bail terms that they impose will result in the defendant's arrest and charge. Therefore, if a policeman gives the document to a person in the street, it is important to ensure that that person understands what is going on.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Is not it the case that if an officer who arrests an individual has any doubt that that person can understand him, he is highly unlikely to give him street bail? In such circumstances, it is likely that the person will be arrested and taken to a police station where the relevant assistance from interpreters can be

given. Is not that the reality of the situation on the ground?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is no reason why all police officers, if they are in any doubt, should not deal with the matter in another way, using other safety mechanisms. What concerns me is not so much the officer's attitude, but that of the potential defendant who, on being arrested later for failure to comply with the notice given to him or her by the police officer, can hide behind an excuse and protest that the notice did not specify the consequences of a failure to surrender. The Minister would be well advised to take note that we want to play absolutely safe and spell it out clearly—

Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West) indicated assent.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, is nodding and that he is with us on the matter. Many votes will come our way if the Committee divides on the amendment. The street arrest point is important; I am trying to express to the Committee how important it is to be able to get across in such a way that a person cannot deny that it was put to them, the reality of a situation if he or she fails to surrender as directed. Hence, there is much merit in amendment No. 78.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman on the figures for failure to answer bail and with information on the availability of interpreters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) advises me that there is a directory of public service interpreters who cover the courts, hospitals and other local authority services.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the matter of delay. The police are already able to delay taking an arrested person to a police station if their presence is necessary elsewhere to carry out immediate investigations. An example has already been given of the circumstances in which that applies.

A legislative provision to explain the reasons to the arrested person, as amendment No. 86 suggests, would be unnecessary, first, because a record will always be made and will be available if any issues arise subsequently about the justification for the delay. In practice, the arresting officer is likely to explain the reasons for the delay, and as guidance will be issued on the operation of the street bail arrangements, I undertake to ensure that it will include advice that if officers have to delay taking an individual to a police station it will be good practice to explain why. The hon. Gentleman's very fair point can be dealt with by that means rather than by amending the Bill.

Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North pointed out in respect of amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, a requirement immediately to provide the arrested person with a copy of the reasons could constitute an additional burden. However, a record will always be made; it will be available if any issues arise subsequently about the justification for the delay and the individual will be entitled to have a copy of that record. That issue will be covered in the guidance.

In relation to amendment No. 8, it is unnecessary to specify that attendance at a police station to answer to street bail should be a once-only requirement because that is how the clause is drafted. Any subsequent bail is under the section 47 arrangements in PACE that apply to being bailed from a police station. The hon. Member for Woking made an excellent suggestion about the consequences of what follows, and following discussions with officials this afternoon, we propose to print that information on the back of the notice. It is a really good idea and we will do what he sensibly suggests.

If we were to make it compulsory to specify the police station, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North proposed, the hypothetical Member of Parliament might say to the policeman, ''Look, it would be really handy if I could report to the police station near my constituency in six weeks' time when I come back from my skiing holiday.'' The officer may reply, ''I'm not sure I can arrange it, but maybe . . .'' and rather than saying that the police station must be identified at the time of the arrest, leave it open, to the benefit of the person who has been arrested. What the amendment proposes might not be practical or beneficial.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Is my hon. Friend saying, then, that normally the station would be specified—that would reassure serving officers throughout the land—but that in unusual circumstances that would not be the case?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

In most circumstances, that will indeed be the case. For the want of any other reason, it is much easier for officers to specify the station when the notice is given, rather than having to think about it and subsequently arrange for a letter providing that information to be sent to the person who has been arrested. It would be in the interests of the police to operate as the hon. Member for Woking suggests. It would not be sensible to be restrictive.

On the matter of sending things by post, in many parts of the criminal justice system information is notified to individuals by post, so the hon. Gentleman's problem is not unique. The key requirement for police officers in operating street bail is that they must be satisfied that they have clear, solid evidence of the name and address of the person to whom they propose to give street bail. They must be certain that if they send subsequent notification to that address the person concerned will receive it.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I understand the Minister's point. It is undesirable that a person should part company with an officer in the street without the police station having been specified. It bothers me much less that it may subsequently be changed than that the person should have no indication of which station he should return to and when. As I said earlier, there is a serious risk that some individuals will not receive the information and will end up being arrested without warrant. That would defeat the object of the proposal because that is the last thing we want, and if it can be avoided—[Interruption.]

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

Could the hon. Gentleman repeat his last point?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

One of the purposes behind the clause is to try to simplify matters for the police and the accused. If it leads to people being arrested without warrant and saying, ''Well I didn't know where I was supposed to go,'' that would be an undesirable state of affairs.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to new section 30B(5). If the police station has not been mentioned in the original notice there is an obligation in subsection (5), which reads:

''If the notice does not include the information mentioned in subsection (4),''—

that is, the police station—

''the person must subsequently be given a further notice in writing which contains that information.''

That addresses the point.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That is if he gets it.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

Well, indeed. The hon. Lady is right. The clause is drafted in that way to ensure that if the police station is not specified at the time that bail is given, the person is subsequently notified. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is not unique to problems of notification. It could arise currently where someone's bail arrangements are changed by the police. I am sure that those who are listening to these debates will have taken note of the point. Clearly it is important that people are notified and that they give addresses where they are likely to be when the letter is received.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Although I suspect that we had some superfluous argument in the middle of the debate, we arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. The Minister listened to some of the points that we were trying to make. The guidance will be crucial to this. It was suggested that extra bureaucracy was involved in letting the arrested person know what was happening. There is no extra bureaucracy in what we have debated. We are talking about a report that has to be made at the police station. It is not made by the arresting officer in the first instance, but when the person is presented at the police station following a delay. It is not unreasonable that that record should be available. It is not explicit that it is available, but I understand what the Minister said about the guidance. If he will give us that assurance, we do not need to pursue the matter further.

Similarly, on the question of the consequences of not acceding to the bail conditions, a perfectly sensible solution was obvious from the outset. The notification consequences should be spelt out on the reverse of the bail notice or elsewhere. That is a perfectly proper way to do it, with one proviso. Perhaps the Minister can go one step further and say that guidance will be given to the arresting officer that he must draw the attention of the person to whom he is issuing the notice to the consequences of bail. He does not have to spell it out if it is written down and the person is capable of understanding it. However, it is important that when the person is given a notice it is pointed out to him if he does not comply with it he will be arrested. There should be no doubt about that.

In normal circumstances it must be right to specify a police station. I think that that is what the Minister said. There may be occasions when the arresting officer has no knowledge of what may be an appropriate police station or whether it is open for business in the vicinity of the arrested person's home. In those circumstances it would be entirely proper to notify him later, having rung up West Mercia police from Sussex, for example, to ask what is the nearest police station and whether it is appropriate to bail someone to attend there. That seems entirely proper, provided that the notice is given explicitly, and guidance is given to the arresting officer that normally a police station must be specified, except in those circumstances.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

Just to ensure that we get the balance right, let me say that there will be a few cases like that, but the vast majority will involve someone engaged in antisocial behaviour on an estate in my constituency. The officer will say, ''Get yourself down to this station at this time tomorrow.'' It is a summary and speedy measure, which is what the clause is all about.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Although I am not prepared to concede that most crime in this country happens on estates in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which seems to be the refrain, I accept the premise that he advances. In most cases, because most crime is local, it will be appropriate to specify a police station on the notification. However, there will be occasions on which that is not appropriate, for clear reasons. Provided that the guidance is right, we will have a workable system. If the guidance is not right, the system will be open to abuse and challenge, which none of us wants.

On that note, I thank the Minister for his assurances, which have been extremely helpful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in

clause 3, page 3, line 20, after 'writing', insert 'and in person'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in

clause 3, page 3, line 25, after 'writing', insert 'and in person'.

No. 87, in

clause 3, page 3, line 25, after 'writing', insert 'in advance'.

No. 88, in

clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out 'but more than one such notice may be given to him'.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The amendment can be dealt with quickly. We are going over ground that we covered previously, and the Minister, if he has not answered the relevant questions to my satisfaction, has provided answers as to how the system will work. I certainly do not intend to reopen that debate, but it was perhaps slightly unfortunate that the amendment was not grouped with the previous ones, so that they could be dealt with together.

Amendment No. 88 may be more relevant. It raises the question of how many notices may be given. I hope that the Minister will answer that. No doubt the hon.

Member for Somerton and Frome will raise it with him.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

On amendments Nos. 87 and 88, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I are concerned that the person who receives a notice on the basis that we are discussing should not be messed about excessively and that the police should take some trouble to specify a police station that is available for use and appropriate to use in the first instance.

I suspect that the Minister may say that his guidance notes to officers will deal with that subject, which would be extremely helpful. If he cannot tell us that, my view is that there is a limit to how many times a notification should need to be changed in normal use. I can conceive of very exceptional circumstances in which that needs to happen, for reasons that are outside the control of the constable involved.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, we have dealt with the question of delivering personally as opposed to posting.

On amendment No. 87, by definition the notification needs to be in advance of the date to which the notice refers, but we will deal with that in the guidance, rather than the Bill. The guidance will be a wonderful thing in relation to street bail. It will be a good means of addressing a number of issues. Clearly, it would not be good practice to make repeated changes, but there may be circumstances in which, for operational or other reasons, it is necessary to do so. The clause is drafted to allow that to happen if necessary, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and undertake to refer to that in the guidance.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in

clause 3 , page 3 , line 22, leave out second 'to' and insert 'from'.

Occasionally, an amendment is tabled that carries unanimous support, and I am sure that this will be one of them. I am absolutely certain that the Minister will accept it. It is a purely grammatical amendment. I would be terribly grateful if hon. Members would look at line 22 on page 3, which states:

''The person may be required to attend a different police station to that specified in the notice''.

My amendment seeks to omit the word ''to'' and insert the word ''from''. [Interruption.] I am hearing the word ''ablative'' from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. That takes me back to school days. From those days, one learned that the correct grammar would be ''different from''. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board, and I look forward immensely to his accepting the amendment.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I do not know whether my understanding of correct usage is different to or different from that of the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest for the benefit of the Committee and to further constitutional innovation—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is listening—that we should have a vote.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

A free vote?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

A free vote, just on this occasion.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The question now arises whether I should press this to a vote. Of course I shall. It is very good to hear from the Minister—I have not come across this in my whole life—that this will be a genuinely free vote. I look at the Government Benches, and I know the result—I know what will happen. I just repeat that there will be no sanctions from the usual channels against any Government Member who exercises his or her conscience in the normal way. [Interruption.] I believe that the Government Whip has just passed down the line a note saying that he will support my amendment on a free vote. I may not have seen it accurately. If he supports me, he will of course see that his hon. Friends follow suit.

Harriet Harman (Labour, Camberwell and Peckham)

Get a move on, or I shall change my vote.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

In that case, I propose that the provision should read ''different from'' rather than ''different to''.

Amendment agreed to.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in

clause 3 , page 3, line 26, at end insert—

'(8) Where a person is arrested and property seized, that person will be entitled to free legal advice.'.

The amendment is designed to ensure free legal advice if a person's property is searched and material is seized but they are given bail. By way of background, when a person's property is searched and effects are seized under section 18 of PACE and they are given street bail, they do not have access to free legal advice under the duty solicitor scheme. The suspect may not be bailed and may remain at the police station for some time, which would mean that they would not have access to their property or to free legal advice, because of the implications of approaching the police to request such access.

If the Government accepted the amendment, it would allow for non-means-tested legal advice, which is available to arrested persons when they are taken to the police station, to be made available to those who are arrested but bailed before they are taken to the police station.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

The amendment addresses a broad issue, and it is not clear why it has been proposed for inclusion in the street bail provisions, although I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. On the general principle, any person who is arrested and held in custody in a police station is entitled to receive confidential legal advice. Arrangements are of course in place to provide such advice free of charge at the police station where it is necessary and appropriate.

The long-standing assumption reflected in PACE is that the entitlement is triggered on arrival at the police station. It was mentioned earlier that in the case of street bail that entitlement would kick in when that street bail is answered and the person arrives at the

police station, which is the practical location for such advice to be delivered. There is no specific entitlement under PACE to legal advice following arrest but prior to arriving at a police station. I would resist the amendment on the grounds that a person will get all the rights to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred at the moment when they answer the bail by arriving at a police station.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister has been very helpful, because it was a probing amendment. It has made me so happy this afternoon that we have set a precedent for free votes in Committee on all matters.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

Just the one.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister's response has been helpful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

Given the helpful precedent set earlier, the amendment changes a single word, and the Minister will happily put it to the Committee for a free vote in the same way as previously.

The designated police station is one that can provide for, as the Minister has just said, the PACE provisions. If a person is required to attend an alternative police station, which has not provided those rights and capacity, it is appropriate that they should be transferred to a police station that is correctly provided for at the earliest opportunity.

Six hours is a long time to be held in a police station prior to transfer without recourse to the rights that would normally be provided at the time of being taken into custody. There is a defect in the Bill, and our suggestion is that the six hours be reduced to three. I appreciate that there may be operational difficulties in some parts of the country with three hours, and I am happy to hear what the Minister has to say on that. The principle must be that if someone is incorrectly required to attend a police station to surrender their bail, there is an onus on the police service to rectify that at the earliest opportunity rather than leaving a person to be held for a considerable length of time. Six hours is a considerable amount of time for someone to be held who has in the first instance been released on street bail.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

PACE requires chief constables to designate certain police stations as those to be used for detaining arrested persons. They will be stations that are fully equipped and staffed for the detention process, as we acknowledged in the earlier debate. The general principle in PACE is that where an arrested person is taken to a non-designated station, they should be released or moved to a designated station after no more than six hours. That is what PACE currently provides for, and I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I can see no obvious reason for specifying a shorter period when the arrested person happens to be answering street bail. I cannot accept the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not entirely agree. In the case of answering street bail, the police station concerned has been specified for that purpose—it is not simply the nearest or most convenient place to be taken following arrest by a constable who has other duties to perform. I should have thought that an arresting officer in those circumstances would show a little foresight in identifying the police station to which it might be appropriate to ask somebody to report.

That brings me back to my previous point about what happens in an area where there are no police stations with custody suites in anything like proximity to the individual who has been arrested. Some thought—not in theoretical but in operational terms—must be given to how the provision will work.

I do not intend to pursue the matter now, but we may return to it, and I hope that the Minister will give it further consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Minister has been helpful in suggesting various forms of guidance. It would assist the Committee if he were able to provide even the earliest draft of the guidance that is to be given, because that will answer many of the questions that are worrying people outside the House and facilitate a smoother passage for the Bill when it reaches another place.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I want to support the request for the criteria by which the officer's decision on whether to grant street bail will be taken. As those criteria will be the focus of the guidance, they should be made clear as soon as possible. This is an excellent proposal that is in everybody's interests. It will save police time and free people who might otherwise, at the very least, be massively inconvenienced.

The basis of the decision on whether to keep somebody at liberty or to take them to the police station is very important. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of convolution in the thoughts that I am about to express. At present, once a police officer has arrested someone he must take him straight to the police station—there is no option. Under the Bill, he will have a right not to do that but to release him. If, on the other hand, he decides not to release him, because he has been granted that extra possibility, he will in fact be deciding to detain him. That is why the criteria by which he makes the decision are very important and should be made as clear as possible.

I shall try to exemplify what I mean. In a typical situation in which six football fans are arrested with bottles—or whatever might cause them to be arrested—as long as they remain calm and the bottles are removed, street bail might be appropriate for whatever they have done. I am at a loss to know what the criteria are, so that may not be a good example. If, however, five of them were given street bail and one was detained and taken to the police station, the officer would be exercising an arbitrary power of detention, however nominally, unless the

criteria on which that decision was taken were clearly laid out. It is therefore important that we should see the criteria as soon as we can, and discuss them if possible.

I was interested, although I was not quick enough to mention it at the time, in the power to remove property from a person who had been arrested and given street bail, which was referred to in an amendment that was recently withdrawn. Will the Minister clarify that matter? Notionally, it would be possible for someone to be arrested, some of their property to be confiscated by the police officer, and for them to be given street bail. If there was then an argument about whether that property should have been taken, the subject of the bail would not have any help in formulating his or her argument. I imagine that, in a situation in which property was to be removed, it would be obvious that the matter should be transferred to the police station and that street bail would not be given. However, I would like the police to be given clarification on that issue. Although that is a hypothetical situation, there remains the possibility that someone's property could be removed and that they would not have a legal adviser to hand to assist in recovering it.

The first notice of a person's bail need not specify when he must return to the police station and therefore at what point he might have his property returned. That property could be part of a tool kit that he needed. There is no finite time in these bail provisions, so interference with a person's property rights could occur.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am interested in the hon. and learned Lady's comments about the clause. We support the intention behind it, and the amendments were designed to ensure that it operates correctly. She has encapsulated some of our concerns.

I will make a further and related point. Police officers must exercise judgment and take decisions about whether they should make arrests. The greater flexibility that the measure provides will be a powerful tool for the police to remove bureaucratic problems, and will probably enable them to deal with multiple offenders simultaneously.

However, the legislation should not be used as a substitute for judgment about whether to arrest. I am anxious that it should not be used as a blunderbuss, so that people become irritated that they are being placed under a sanction that may require their subsequent attendance at a police station, only then to be told that the matter will not be proceeded with, when it could have been resolved at an earlier stage. That is not desirable. Careful implementation will be needed, and appropriate guidelines must be issued to the police so that the legislation is used correctly. It must not be seen as a tool of administrative convenience that leads to people being inconvenienced by the police rather than being brought to justice. We must be careful to guard against that.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

May I briefly support my hon. and learned Friend? Amendment No. 75 also aimed to ensure that there would be objective criteria rather than reliance on subjective judgment.

I leave the Minister with one thought as he sups his cocoa. These provisions aim to free up police time and reduce bureaucracy. Will he give some thought, as he puts on his nightcap tonight, to what we will do with that extra time? Can we quantify it and put it to use for the people whom we have been discussing—even those in Nottingham, North or anywhere else?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

On that last point, all hon. Members will have a long list of uses to which they would like to put additional police officers' time in their constituencies, so I do not think that that will be a problem in practice. That is why all members of the Committee have welcomed the provision.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made a point about property. Property can be seized under section 18, but as she will be aware, that would apply equally to someone who was subject to the provisions of street bail.

On the guidance, which clearly will be very important, I understand hon. Members' desire to see what it might look like, but one must ensure that it is written with regard to the process that Parliament goes through in deciding legislation, and not anticipate the final form. I was much taken by the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the importance of getting the guidance right. I undertake to reflect on the nature of the guidance, but I do not want to submit to hon. Members' understandable wish to get something quickly to look at, and in so doing get the drafting wrong. If I did, people would tell me that I had not got it right, and we would end up in more difficulty. I would rather get the guidance right than draft it quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Use of telephones for review of police detention

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in

clause 4, page 4, line 19, after 'out', insert 'with the authority of an officer with the rank of superintendent or above'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 30, in

clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out 'with' and insert 'between an officer of at least the rank of inspector and'.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The amendment would make an important and sensible change. The intention behind the clause was clear to me when I first read it, but became much less clear when I started to consider what was already in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and when I read the explanatory notes. I may have completely misunderstood what is intended, in which case the Minister will put me right.

The explanatory notes state that the provision

''enables reviews of the continuing need for detention without charge . . . to be conducted over the telephone rather than in person at the police station'',

as is currently the case. However, under section 40 of the 1984 Act, provision is made for review when a person has been arrested and not charged. Section 40(1)(b) states that a review must be carried out

''in the case of a person who has been arrested but not charged, by an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has not been directly involved in the investigation.''

Section 40A(1) states:

''This section applies, notwithstanding anything in section 40 above, where in the case of a person who has been arrested but not charged . . . it is not reasonably practicable for an officer of at least the rank of inspector to be present in the police station where that person is held to carry out any review of that person's detention that is required by subsection (1)(b) of that section''.

The review is not a conferencing review. Section 40A(2) continues:

''The review may be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has access to a means of communication by telephone to persons in the police station where the arrested person is held.''

The Minister and I may be on common ground, but under the current rules it is possible to carry out reviews of detention of a person who has not been charged by telephone. To that extent, the explanatory notes are misleading or I have not understood something important about them. What is the consequence of the clause as it stands?

The new subsection seems to remove the need for the involvement of any police officer at inspector rank. It states:

''A review under section 40(1)(b) may be carried out by means of a discussion, conducted by telephone, with one or more persons at the police station where the arrested person is held.''

The new subsection does not specify who is supposed to carry out the necessary discussion. It is a wondrously nebulous concept that to carry out a review one has only to pick up a telephone and talk to some unspecified disembodied individual at the other end. What is the intention behind this provision? I detect that the need for the inspector's presence at the other end of the telephone has been removed.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The hon. Gentleman has ''Archbold'' there, so can he tell us who is required to carry out a review under the existing section 40(1)(b) of PACE?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Yes. Under that section, when a person is arrested but not charged, the work must be done by an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has not been directly involved in the investigation. The new section 40A appears to add the rider that if the inspector is not present at the police station, he can communicate over the telephone with those who are. It is perfectly comprehensible.

It is noteworthy that new section 40A does not specify that the inspector should not be the one who is engaged in the investigation. That follows logically because he is not at the police station at the time. I understand the present rules, but not what the new rules are intended to achieve. As I told the Minister, something is missing from the explanatory notes, which I do not understand, so the purpose of the amendments is to probe the position. Until I can

understand what the Minister intends, it is difficult to know how best to amend the provisions.

I find it particularly difficult to understand why the need for a police officer of at least inspector rank should be removed from the process entirely. Is that the intention? At this stage, the best thing would be for me to sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say. I shall then exercise my right of reply if I am dissatisfied with his explanation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I shall speak in support of the hon. Gentleman. I have been round this course before when we debated the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill a year ago. On another previous Bill, too, we discussed changing the rank of police officer—bringing it down a peg from inspector to superintendent—appropriate to authorise detention powers. We also debated the perfectly reasonable proposition of enabling some form of checking from afar in order to avoid making police officers run around different police stations.

Two questions follow from the two amendments. The first is, what is the justification in practical terms for moving down a peg in seniority in these cases? Logically, the more it becomes possible to review from a distance, the less the need for a low-ranked officer. Understandably, if someone had to be in the station, it would have to be a superintendent, because an inspector could not get to the station every six or nine hours. However, if it were someone from afar, they would not need to be of a lower rank, because inspectors are available across a police force area very easily down a telephone. The proposal is for a twin-track change, to reduce the seniority of the officer and to allow them to conduct reviews from a distance. The Minister must justify both the parts to which I have referred.

Secondly, with regard to the amendment and the clause as a whole, it is not clear quite what the line of communication will be, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. I have a proposition to test that for the Minister. If a person and their legal representative accept from the beginning that the person is likely to be detained for a long time for various reasons, there will be no great concern periodically. Everyone will almost have signed up in advance to the fact that the six-hour or nine-hour check will happen. If there is consent, a video link from afar may be used—even, arguably, with a less senior officer.

Let us imagine, however, that the case is controversial. It could involve a young adult who had come under the remit of the Youth Justice Board, which has made clear its views about the sort of detention that we are discussing. That would involve wholly different considerations. One might want to insist that a more senior officer be in the cell at the police station to see what is going on, in order to satisfy everyone, not least the young adult, that their interests are being looked after.

I am anxious that we should know much more clearly the two justifications that we have probed with the amendments, and the linked justification for the

much less clear line of communication proposed by the clause.

Graham Allen (Labour, Nottingham North)

May I just say how much I welcome the clause? It will certainly be extremely valuable to the Nottinghamshire constabulary.

As I understand it, inspectors will still be the officers responsible; I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The review after six, nine and 24 hours is an incredibly onerous burden on an independent inspector, who is not associated with the case. In my area, it involves officers who are trying to serve at the Bridewell in Nottingham, which I think is the busiest prison handling centre in Europe, regularly dashing from there to various locations throughout Nottinghamshire.

The measure will be well received. I do not know the whole history of PACE, but I imagine that when it was introduced, perhaps as a reaction to some of the things that the police service should not have been doing at the time, things may have gone a little too far in the other direction. This measure rebalances in a common-sense way the rights of the person who is held and the right of the police service to get on and do its job.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

It may help if I draw attention to paragraphs 104 to 106 of the explanatory memorandum. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield read from the overview, which is at the beginning, but there is a more detailed explanation on page 22. In addition, the section 40A that he quoted is not yet in force. I am advised that it was inserted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

Currently, as paragraph 104 states, telephone reviews are allowed only

''where it is not reasonably practicable for the reviewing officer to be present at the police station.''

The clause simply broadens that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is absolutely right. For the avoidance of doubt and to show that amendment No. 30 is unnecessary, I point out that all reviews of detention without charge, including telephone reviews, must be carried out by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. That is unchanged.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I now understand the Minister more clearly, but if that is the case, why are we tinkering with the provision? If it has been amended by the 2001 Act, which provides the same power but in much clearer terms, why are we amending a piece of legislation that was passed only last year? The clarity does not appear. This wording is in a much shorter form than last year's legislation.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.