Police and Justice Bill

Public Bill Committee, 23 March 2006.

Police and Justice Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 12 - Conditional cautions: types of condition

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in clause 12, page 7, line 21, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.

The amendment tests the extent of the Government’s commitment to rehabilitation. It would make only a small change. The Home Secretary recently made a statement in the House, in which he told us that the Government are focusing on reducing reoffending. We believe that punishment tells individuals and society that certain forms of behaviour, or certain acts are not tolerated or acceptable. It should act as a deterrent. Without rehabilitation, however, it will not necessarily change behaviour.

I hope that all parties are in favour of changing such behaviour. Our ambition should be to convert offenders to become responsible members of society who will not reoffend, who will not engage in antisocial behaviour and who, ultimately, will not be a burden on the taxpayer. The caution is an alternative to entering the criminal justice system. It is a non-punitive means of encouraging people not to push their luck, to learn their lesson and to take a reprimand. However, it is a serious measure. It is a wake-up call, and a reprieve from the full arm of the law being extended. It gives the recipients a chance to change their behaviour.

Applying conditions to cautions would give us the opportunity to enshrine the Government’s message on rehabilitation and reparation. The amendment would allow that to be done statutorily rather than arbitrarily. At the moment, we have to use only one of the ways forward—perhaps punishment without rehabilitation—but the amendment would allow us to use more than one condition. We argue that it would be better for rehabilitation and reparation to become part of the process.

I seek a reassurance that cautions will not be misused. I acknowledge that a person has a choice whether or not to accept a caution, but the freedom to refuse a caution is likely to be limited by a person’s fear of prosecution. To a great extent, it is Hobson’s choice. I hope that the Minister will accept this small change, which would put flesh on the Home Secretary’s aspiration that rehabilitation should stop reoffending.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I understand the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. It is clearly our intention that conditional cautions should include conditions for rehabilitation, reparation and punishment, as set out in the clause. It is important that we send out the clear message that we want to change behaviour. The driving force behind all our policies on tackling antisocial behaviour is to ensure that, with enforcement and support, such problems do not occur in future.

Under the existing conditional caution scheme, conditions must be either reparative or rehabilitative, but they do not need to be both. Each decision has to be taken in relation to the offence, and the prosecutor has to decide what conditions are appropriate. Conditional cautions are entirely voluntary. It is up to offenders whether to accept them. The clause amends the scheme so that, in addition to rehabilitation and reparation, there is an element of punishment. It also recognises that, as in the existing scheme, it may be desirable to attach conditions that have more than one effect. For instance, if someone makes off from a filling station without making payment, we might want to impose a conditional caution that has a provision for compensation to the victim, which is a financial penalty; a fine, which is a punishment; and something that makes good the damage caused, which is reparative. The clause is designed to ensure that there is flexibility to put a range of conditions into the scheme.

There will be some cases in which only one condition is appropriate, which is why I want to reject the amendment. In the cases of a drug-misusing prostitute, we may want simply to rehabilitate. We may not want to punish, and it may be difficult to find reparative work that a drug-misusing prostitute may want to do. I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that it is therefore important for the Bill to have sufficient flexibility to enable there to be only one condition in some cases.

Another example would be if somebody were guilty of a minor public order offence. The appropriate response could be a punitive condition requiring the offender to undertake unpaid work to clear up the mess in a town centre after a Saturday night. That is not reparative, because he might be clearing up damage that he has not personally caused. It would be perfectly proper for such conditions to be used in circumstances in which somebody has caused damage such as graffiti or vandalism. There must be flexibility to direct conditions towards only one of the objects set out in the clause rather than at least two, which would be far too restrictive and would not cover the range of offences at which the clause is targeted. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider that point and withdraw her amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am somewhat persuaded by the Minister’s argument. What she says is fair. In the long term I would like some monitoring of how the conditions to a caution are being applied, so that we can watch performance and establish whether what she says should be happening actually is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 141, in clause 12, page 7, line 31, at end insert ‘and undertake specified activities.’.

This is essentially a probing amendment on the conditions that can be attached to a caution. I want to obtain some clarification on the intent behind clause 12. The clause mentions

“a condition that the offender attend at a specified place at specified times.”

The Minister has spoken of the need, for example, in drug-related offences, for someone to attend a centre and receive treatment. The explanatory notes state that that might include the completion of a specified activity. My amendment would put that concept into the Bill.

If a condition is attached to a caution requiring an offender to attend a drug rehabilitation treatment centre, some involvement must be required. Just turning up at a specified time and place may not be sufficient, because an offender may not wish to co-operate with the service or facility. If the condition is to achieve its stated aim of facilitating rehabilitation, ensuring that an offender makes reparation, or punishing him, it should not be limited to attendance somewhere at specified times. For example, in the case of somebody who has damaged a wall or written graffiti on it, the condition might be that he should attend at a specified place at a specified time to clean up the mess that he has created. That is a creative way of making an offender appreciate the harm or damage that his actions have caused. However, it seems strange that the only condition that can be attached—and that can, therefore, be breached—is to tell the person that he has to attend the specified place at the specified time, without going on to say, “and you will undertake certain specified activities,” so that, should he not co-operate, it would be clear that he had breached the condition.

I tabled the amendment in order to clarify the intent behind the provisions and to find out what teeth they have to enable them to be followed through appropriately, so that if reparation is required, reparation actually occurs. Similarly, rehabilitation will take place by virtue of the fact that somebody attends a clinic and receives treatment and support in order to change his ways, whether they result from a drug habit or another problem. I shall be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I hope to provide the hon. Gentleman with sufficient reassurance to enable him to withdraw his amendment. The purpose of conditional cautions is to deal with low-level offences and to ensure that conditions are attached that facilitate rehabilitation or reparation or impose punishment.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that, in addition to having to attend a specified place at a specified time, a person should carry out specified activities—we envisage such things as drug rehabilitation, undertaking unpaid work or attending an anger management course. Clause 12(2) says that

“The conditions which may be attached to such a caution are those which have one or more of the following objects—”

and it states rehabilitation or reparation and punishment. The power to make general conditions is contained in that clause. New subsection (3A)(b) includes provision to ensure that an offender attends

“a specified place at specified times”.

That is to give us a peg on which to hang new subsection (3B), which includes provision for the offender not attend for more than 20 hours. We needed to specify a time limit. The general power to set conditions on what an offender should do is contained in a substantive clause by reference to the stated objects of the Bill.

If that has not given the hon. Gentleman clarity, I apologise. However, the power to make the conditions is set out by reference to the objects, and is therefore contained in the legislation—we specify time and place in order to provide ourselves with a legislative peg on which to hang the provision on the time limit, and a similar argument applies to the fine as well. Therefore, I can assure him that his amendment is superfluous. That is not his fault. However, given that the Bill as drafted enables us to ensure that the conditions can specify the kind of thing that he has set out, a breach will be a breach of the conditions and appropriate action will be taken. I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I am grateful for that clarification. I am reassured by the inter-relationship between the provisions. When one seeks to amend a statute—the Bill seems a little disjointed in terms of which bits are being amended and how it will all hang together subsequently—it is not necessarily clear whether something needs to appear in a certain part. The Minister has reassured me that, in essence, clause 12(2) sits alongside and supplements the additional measures proposed in clause 12(3). There is therefore no breakdown of the linkage between those two points. As she said, the objects are the fundamental driver and, therefore, the provisions on conditional cautions drive at what we have been talking about this morning. On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 137, in clause 12, page 7, line 38, at end insert—

‘(3A)In section 22(4)(a) after “constable” there is inserted—

“or, in the case of a condition which has an object under subsection (3)(c) above, an officer of the rank of sergeant or above”.’.

It is important that we have a debate on clause 12 and the principle of conditional cautions. Amendment No. 137 seeks to address a particular aspect of the operation of conditional cautions. At the moment, they can be imposed by a police constable—an officer of any rank. My suggestion is in line with the one I made in relation to the street bail provisions that we discussed earlier. It is that a punitive conditional caution should be made only by an officer with the rank of sergeant or above. I shall explain why I think that that is a good idea—

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it will help the Committee if I make it clear that the decision to administer a conditional caution is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, not a police officer.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, which might mean that the amendment is unnecessary. I should like, however, to make a number of general remarks about the operation of conditional cautions. Perhaps I should do that in a clause stand part debate.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I have not proposed the question on his amendment yet. If he does not want to pursue it, he does not have to. The Committee is entitled to a clause stand part debate, so if he wants to be more wide-ranging, I will be happy to ensure that he can make that contribution during that clause stand part debate. Of course, the decision is his.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful for your advice, Mr.d¤Conway, and in the circumstances, that is probably the best thing to do, because I tabled the amendment on the basis of a misunderstanding about the operation of conditional cautions. I would therefore prefer not to move the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about the operation of conditional cautions. Those concerns come under three parts, which it is appropriate for the Committee to consider in more detail.

First, concern has been expressed outside the House and by a number of hon. Members about the fact that the power to impose punitive cautions will effectively allow the police to act as investigator, prosecutor and judge. Hon. Members might have received a letter from the Magistrates Association, which said that it considers it to be

“contrary to the principles of justice for prosecutors and police to be able to impose punishment without the involvement of the judiciary. A democratic legal system ensures that an independent tribunal—the judiciary—should sentence and impose punishment, thus preventing bias from prosecutorial authorities”.

The Magistrates Association also pointed out that the Secretary of State will be

“given powers to increase these potential penalties in the future. It opens up the possibility of more serious offences”,

than those currently proposed,

“being dealt with outside a court. This would mean that the prosecutorial authorities would be given extensive powers to impose penalties that should solely be the responsibility of the judiciary. It is an overriding principle of any criminal justice system that sentencing is for the judiciary”.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree with the concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition, including, incidentally, the Liberal Democrats, that so much of the Bill is dependent on secondary legislation? I am referring to the Magistrates Association’s concern about what additional powers there would be. Although the Minister will no doubt assure us of the good intent of the present Home Secretary, having seen the film “V for Vendetta” last night, I can see the potential should a less benevolent Home Secretary ever be in power.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful, as always, for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I have not seen “V for Vendetta”, so I am not able to comment.

This is a serious issue. Many of the provisions in the Bill give Ministers powers, for example, as we have already discussed, in the reshaping of police authorities. In relation to such a big extension of summary justice, it is questionable whether the Government should have such a power. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that and the Magistrates Association’s concerns when she responds. That was the first of the concerns. The power is a big shift in the principle of justice, and one that we should not let go without considering it carefully.

The second concern that I set out on Second Reading was that the Prime Minister had said that summary justice would be tough and hard, when there is a question that it might mean softer justice. When using the provisions under the legislation for conditional cautions to attach punitive conditions, the maximum penalty will be £500, which may be an attractive alternative to an offender who might be given a stiffer fine or even a custodial sentence were the matter to go to court. Just as seriously, there is a danger that it will give rise to two-tier justice and that those who can afford to accept the conditional caution and pay a fine will do so, but those who cannot will not. Although a voluntary principle underlies the exercise of conditional cautions, it applies only to the extent that the offender might have the financial means to comply with the condition.

When we were debating street bail, I gave the example of a business man in my constituency who had been given a fixed penalty notice as a consequence of a warning by a police officer. He decided to accept that rather than travel to court because it was more convenient for him. He could afford to accept the fixed penalty notice, but others might not be able to. There is a danger that the provision could become a “get out of jail with your credit card” option, instead of one that is intended to exercise justice in an equal manner. Liberty points out:

“Since the conditions may include a financial penalty, there is a serious concern that this could lead to two tiers of punishment ... Those without the means to pay a fine attached to a caution could face prosecution while someone who could afford to pay the fine could avoid a criminal conviction by paying.”

My third concern was about how the cautions were to be exercised. My concern about that, which I expressed on Second Reading in relation to both conditional cautions and street bail, has been allayed by the Minister pointing out that the prosecution services are involved in conditional cautions, whereas that is not the case in relation to street bail. I am grateful for that. The concerns that I expressed about the seniority of the police officers concerned apply more properly to the street bail provisions. Provided that the Crown Prosecution Service is involved, it is not such a concern that a constable of any rank can exercise a caution.

However, before we allow this big transfer of justice and give far less say to the courts and far more say to the police in the exercise of summary justice, it is important that hon. Members stop to consider what that means. On Second Reading, I quoted from an article in The Daily Telegraph:

“According to one document circulating in Whitehall, about half of the two million cases heard by magistrates every year could be processed without the costly and time-consuming business of a trial.”

I do not know whether that suggestion relates, in terms of the number of offences, to the provisions in the Bill, or whether the Home Office is considering plans to extend summary justice further. Can the Minister comment on that report?

To clarify, the beginning of the report stated:

“Ministers are drawing up plans to bypass the courts in the handling of hundreds of thousands more low-level crimes. Defendants who plead guilty to most offences with non-custodial sentences would, under their proposals, be sentenced by prosecutors, in consultation with the police.”

I think that that refers to the proposal for conditional cautions, but the report went on, as I said, to say that about half of the 2 million cases heard by magistrates every year could be processed in that way. Is the report accurate? Does it refer to conditional cautions, or are there other proposals to extend summary justice further? We should scrutinise that significant development properly.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

My hon. Friend raises interesting points about the development of summary justice. It is interesting to see the provisions in clause 12, and we have debated the objectives of conditional cautions. We are talking about an extension of the conditions that can be attached to cautions. In some ways, that reflects practical approaches undertaken in the summary justice system in Scotland, where it is possible for the procurator fiscal to attach fiscal fines. However, I understand that there is a fundamental difference with the system in Scotland inasmuch as the caution does not carry with it a formal acceptance of criminal liability, and does not have a criminal record attached to it, whereas a conditional caution in England and Wales would have that connotation. I suppose that the equivalent in Scotland would be a settlement out of court with no attachment of liability, albeit that the fiscal fine and the details of that could be provided to the victim of the crime and other interested parties.

I should be interested to hear from the Minister why the development that we are considering is taking place in England and Wales, in contrast with the slightly different system in Scotland. I should like to know what the logic is and what the thought processes were in developing the Home Office’s policies in that regard. How was that approach established?

There are questions about where the development may ultimately lead. When Bills such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill come before the House, we receive assurances in Committee about the scope and operation of the provisions, but there is a risk. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill allows wholesale amendment of primary legislation without the need to return to the Floor of the House for full scrutiny of that. Such Bills make us somewhat cautious, because although we can understand the logic and the Minister’s explanations, we do not know where they may ultimately lead if there is the ability to amend them without full and proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, if further amendments to primary legislation are required. It is important that the issue should be considered carefully and that the provision be given appropriate scrutiny.

I can see what is sought to be achieved. However, the question is whether that may subsequently be built upon and whether there will be any further erosion of the operation of the judiciary in this country’s system of justice, which I hope we would all accept as common ground, and which should remain an essential part of our democratic and free process. I hope that the provisions are not a precursor to a more expansive approach on summary justice and that they are intended, as the Minister says, to address low-level crime, which could be dealt with efficiently and without delay or expense, provided that that is done with the appropriate checks and balances, without the need formally to go to court, if that is accepted. I hope that the aim is to assist in the process of justice, rather than being a perhaps unintended Trojan horse for something more fundamental and sinister.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My hon. Friends have already spoken quite eloquently about clause 12, but I have a concern about secondary legislation, which I mentioned in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I am the first to accept that all Governments, of whatever colour, cannot have everything debated on the Floor on the House, as that would simply cause a logjam. However, whereas it is appropriate to have secondary legislation for setting levels of fines and that sort of thing, it becomes dangerous when it fundamentally reforms legislation.

My hon. Friend has already quoted the Magistrates Association, so I will quote only one more line. It says that secondary legislation

“opens up the possibility of more serious offences, rather than extremely low level ones, being dealt with outside a court.”

That clearly does not meet the requirements of natural justice, of the judiciary or of one’s peers making judgments. It would be fundamentally wrong if more serious crimes were included within the ambit of the Bill through secondary legislation.

The Minister told us in the previous sitting that we have a “benevolent” Home Secretary, but what serious assurance can she give us that no future Home Secretary—perhaps not because of his nature, but because of changing circumstances in Britain—will decide that he must bring more serious crimes under the auspices of clause 12, meaning that they could be dealt with outside a court? How can we be assured that there would still be a role for magistrates and Crown courts if there were changes in secondary legislation? What safeguards can the Minister give us to assure us that someone who was not as “benevolent” as the present Home Secretary—I use the Minister’s word, although some would argue that he is not so benevolent—would not extend the powers considerably?

Does the Minister agree that, in principle, it would be wrong for more serious cases to be dealt with in that way? If she sets out the principle, lawyers will always be able to say that a Home Secretary who is not benevolent and who tries to extend the powers beyond what is provided for in clause 12 is in breach of the spirit of the law. I should be most interested to hear what she has to say, first, about the spirit of the law and the principle and, secondly, about the safeguards that exist to ensure that the power is not extended.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Given the lobbying that goes on and the various representations that are made, it is understandable that debates tend to look at these matters from the point of view of the offender or the legal system. However, it is important also to look at them from the point of view of victims and the wider community.

The proposal to introduce conditional cautions was referred to in our respect action plan and is about ensuring that our system takes seriously offences that really affect people’s quality of life, such as graffiti, shoplifting, vandalism and low-level antisocial behaviour. It is about having sanctions, punishments, reparation, rehabilitation and restorative justice to deal with what is sometimes referred to as low-level crime, even though its impact on communities can be enormous.

The legal system is complicated, time consuming and sometimes bureaucratic, so offences and acts that cause people a lot of damage have not always been taken seriously. Sometimes, because of the time involved in processing a case, people have got away with such acts. The whole point of introducing measures such as conditional cautions is to ensure that we address these issues speedily and effectively, so that the victims and the community have a real sense that the system is working.

Let me give hon. Members one example, which relates to shoplifting, although not specifically to conditional cautions. In many cases, shoplifting has not been seen as a serious offence, but it is serious to the people involved. When we introduced a fixed penalty notice provision last year, there was an outcry because people thought that we were downgrading the offence; they thought that it was no longer a criminal offence because it was subject to a fixed penalty notice. In practice, however, shoplifting now has a sanction attached to it in far more cases and is easier to dispose of. Instead of the offender simply getting away with it, there is now a punishment, and I think that everybody recognises that that is a good development.

Similarly, in the case before us, we are talking about ensuring that the justice system takes antisocial behaviour extremely seriously. I make a plea to the Committee, and particularly to the Opposition, to look at the issue from the other end of the kaleidoscope for a change—from the point of view of the public and the victim, not the offender.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I think that it is a little unfair of the Minister to accuse the Opposition of not taking account of the view of the victim. I agree with everything that she has said, other than her last remark, which was a little cheap and party political. Incidentally, the John Lewis Partnership—a company with which I have certain connections—very much welcomes the legislation to which the Minister referred. Will she, however, address the issue of using secondary legislation to deal with more serious issues? Although we must take the side of the victim, must we not also take the side of justice? The victim will not thank the Government if the wrong person is found guilty. The measures are wholly appropriate in the instances that the Minister gave, but we are asking about other crimes, which could come under the ambit of the clause as a result of secondary legislation.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I think that I have been very generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make his point yet again. He has made it previously, and I will come to it, if he will just have a little patience—[Interruption.] I think that I have been very generous to hon. Members in seeking to have a proper debate on these serious matters. It is important that we look at them properly.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

A conditional caution is not a court sentence or a criminal conviction, but an admission of guilt. The person who accepts the caution must accept the conditions, so it is a voluntary process. That deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs about there being a two-tier justice system in which a person who can afford to pay a fine will take a different kind of caution. The person has to agree to the conditions, whether they are punitive, whether they concern compensation, reparation or rehabilitation. If they are not prepared to accept them, they always have the option of going to court.

The financial and unpaid work penalties are significantly lower than the fines that magistrates courts would be likely to impose. That is an incentive to get matters dealt with as speedily, effectively and efficiently as possible. It is important to ensure that our courts system works properly. If it does not and there is inordinate delay, it is brought into disrepute. The maxim that justice delayed is justice denied is as appropriate in criminal matters as in civil matters.

As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said, making the connection between the relevant behaviour and the punishment and rehabilitation as quickly as possible helps to change behaviour. If the sanction or penalty comes three or six months after the relevant low-level antisocial behaviour, it is difficult to make that connection. I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that the proposals are radical, but they will be significant in making a connection between the behaviour and the sanction, and showing the public that the criminal justice system works.

I envisage that, if someone commits criminal damage on a Wednesday evening, within a couple of weeks they might be out in the local park at the weekend putting right some other damage. I hope that such punishments will be carried out in a visible way, so that the community can see that such work is being carried out, and we can start to get some public confidence in the criminal justice system.

This is not about wandering into areas of serious crime; the hon. Member for Lichfield makes a fair point. There is clear guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions about the kind of offences that should be subject to conditional cautions. Because the conditions are set lower than the fines and punishments that magistrates courts can impose, it clearly is not appropriate to stray into that serious crime area. The proposal is an innovative and radical departure to try to ensure that, at long last, we deal with some of the issues that have gone unnoticed, unpunished and untackled in the past, which has led to a diminution in public confidence in the criminal justice system that these matters are to be addressed.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

On that point about public confidence, whilst I do not doubt the motivation of the Minister and the Government with these new proposals, does she agree that there is public concern about the lack of fine money being collected under existing legislation, never mind under the proposed legislation? The public are also concerned that many people do not turn up to do the work required by their community service orders, and that they are never tracked down and never serve them. If we are to extend the use of fines and community service orders—albeit under a new name—surely there is an issue regarding the continuing lack of public confidence.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that fine collection has improved dramatically in the past few years. We have had a number of high profile operations, such as operation payback, in which the Court Service and the national enforcement service stepped up the recovery rate of fines. He is right to say that the fines system fell into disrepute because fines were not being paid, but that has been tackled. I cannot give the current figures off the top of my head, but I think that collection rates are up to almost 80 per cent., which is a significant improvement. I am sure that we can do more on that.

The same notion applies to community service orders. I am absolutely convinced that, if we are to get the public to have confidence in community penalties, we must ensure that they are rigorous, that people complete them, that they are hard work and that they are properly enforced. We have a big programme to ensure that that happens. Community payback operates across the country, and there is more visible community punishment. My experience is that, when the public do not have a sense that community punishments are working, they do not have confidence that the system is on their side, so it is imperative that we ensure that the whole system works. We are determined to do that, and we are making significant progress in making that happen.

Opposition Members talked about the possibility of 1 million offences being diverted from the justice system into more forms of summary justice. We estimate that the number of conditional cautions will be around 30,000 a year, which is a small proportion of the figure mentioned in the reports. It is dangerous to take information from reports in TheDaily Telegraph.

The Government are looking at ways to process cases through the magistrates court system more effectively. Magistrates courts deal with a huge number of offences and when the custody plus provisions are introduced later in the year they will take on significant extra responsibility. Cases involving things such as TV licence fines, motoring offences, council tax arrears, can be batched together and dealt with more efficiently and effectively. Work is still in the fairly early stages, but we are considering how we might make that happen. I hope that that will have the support of all hon. Members: if we can free up magistrates’ time to deal with the cases that are contentious and have significant judicial impact, so much the better. Dealing with many cases is very much an administrative process, and if we can make the system work better we will do so. We will take a staged approach, however, because I am conscious of the need to ensure that the justice system is properly balanced between protecting the rights of the accused—until a person is found guilty he is not an offender—and the rights of the decent, law-abiding majority of people in this country. Rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of victims and law-abiding people is something that we need to do and be seen to do.

I emphasise that throughout the process, the person who has admitted their guilt has the right of access to free legal advice, so we are not talking about vulnerable people being coerced into accepting a caution against their will. We are talking about speedy, common-sense disposal of a case and making sure that bad behaviour does not go unpunished. I hope that that has the support of the whole of the Committee. We are taking a radical step, but the Government and the people involved should be congratulated on having the courage to deal with the issue.

When cautions were introduced they were very useful. The proposed changes are the result of our experiences and of recommendations from the police, prosecutors and people involved in administering the schemes. We need to ensure that we have a variety of conditions that we can attach. There are safeguards in the fact that it will be the Crown Prosecution Service, not the police, exercising jurisdiction. There is proper guidance in place—the conditional cautioning code of practice was agreed by the House in 2004. The guidance sets out clearly the role of the Crown prosecutor in the process and the role of the police officers. Para 2.4 makes it absolutely clear that it is for the prosecutor to decide that a conditional caution is the right disposal and what conditions would be suitable. That has already been debated by the House.

With those safeguards, the proposed arrangement should be a welcome, imaginative and creative addition to the way in which we can use our criminal justice system to protect both victims and the wider public.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Minister’s suggestion that we should consider not just the offenders or the courts, but the victims, is of course right—we must be mindful of the victims throughout our discussions on this Bill and others. The statement that there are victims suffering from antisocial behaviour and that the courts are too bureaucratic to deal with that serious problem could be used to justify any measure to try to shut the courts out, but it is not a sufficient argument in itself to justify any measure and it does not justify the measure that we are debating now. The question is whether the proposed measure strikes the right balance.

It is never acceptable for Ministers to use such arguments, but they used precisely the same arguments in relation to the 90-day proposals for the detention of terrorists. The House rightly took a different view: we had to debate what number of days was right and not just accept the general principle that, because it was necessary to deal with terrorism, an extension was bound to be justified. The question is whether the measure is proportionate and whether there are sufficient safeguards in it.

The Minister did not address my point people who can afford to pay will have the option of paying a lower fine, by way of the fixed penalty, than they might have received had they gone to court. The Minister conceded that by saying that the fines would be set at a lower level than if the matter were dealt with in court. That will lead to people who can afford to pay fixed penalty notices finding them to be a convenient way of avoiding higher fines, while those who cannot afford to pay will be in a totally different situation. That is the two-tier nature of the proposal.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the system should be monitored continually and carefully to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where, for the sake of expediency, offenders are given a caution rather than taken through the full judicial process even where a tougher sentence might be more appropriate? The caution must not be overused. To ensure that justice and that the victims of crimes are properly served, offenders must continue be taken to court rather than handed conditional cautions.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

That is precisely my point. Justice will not be served if an offender can get away with a lower level of fine by way of a fixed penalty when that is not merited. Magistrates are no longer to make those decisions—they will not be able to exercise their judgment on the proper level of fine for such offenders because they are not to be involved in the process. The decisions are to be taken only by the police with prosecutors.

The Minister said that the measure will free up magistrates’ time. One might, therefore, have expected the Magistrates Association to be terribly grateful for a measure to deal with the bureaucracy that confronts them, but they have not said that. Instead, they have expressed great concern about the fact that they are to be removed from the process altogether. That is a fundamental shift in the basis on which justice has been exercised in this country.

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the press report that I mentioned referred not to the introduction of punitive conditions in relation to cautions, but to potential future changes through which there may be a further extension of summary justice. We look forward to hearing those proposals. The Minister said that she expected us to welcome them, but we cannot know that until we have sight of them.

It confirms—and we know this from the Prime Minister’s statements during news conferences and in the House—that a large change is under way which involves the appropriate level of punishment being decided, not by magistrates who are trained and qualified to make such decisions, but by prosecutors and the police. The only safeguard lies in the fact that the measure is voluntary—the offender can choose not to accept the fixed penalty and can opt to go to court. However, we must be concerned about those offenders who are less able to afford the possible fine or who find themselves coerced. By coerced, I mean that there is a serious danger that the police might overuse the measure to dispense summary justice and to deal with people they find troublesome, meaning that cases never reach court or, indeed, public attention.

It may be true that this measure will make it easier to deal with antisocial behaviour, and we should take it seriously. However, it will also change the balance of how we dispense justice in this country, so it merits a serious debate. It is not sufficient argument to say that because antisocial behaviour is a problem, the change must be merited and anybody who cares about antisocial behaviour must be in favour of it.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

The issue of coercion and confusion is most pertinent. Is my hon. Friend aware that some people, rather than go to court, have accepted cautions, which are then revealed by a Criminal Records Bureau check when they go for a teaching post, for example, although they were not told at the time that the caution would form part of a CRB check? At least six or seven people have told me that because they believed they were innocent they would have gone to court, but they did not want to go through that process and therefore settled for a caution; however, they would not have done so if they had known that it would have an impact on their livelihoods every day of the week.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very good example of a situation in which people will settle for cautions that they might not otherwise have been willing to accept.

If, as the Minister suggests, the processes that involve bringing people to court are over-bureaucratic, it behoves us to examine those process and to decide how cases can be speeded up. However, to shut magistrates courts out altogether is a much more radical option. I am grateful that we have had this opportunity to discuss the matter.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to accept the proposed shift in the way of dealing with some antisocial behaviour to admit the possibility of a swift reaction, there should be very strict auditing of the cases involved and the cautions and conditions that are applied? We would then be able to analyse those cases retrospectively to see whether what the Minister says will be applied is actually applied, and ensure that summary justice does not overstep the mark and apply in cases that should really go through the courts.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The hon. Lady raises an interesting question: the extent to which it will be possible to scrutinise publicly how the cautions are exercised, because these cases will be almost private matters between the prosecutors, the police and the offender, whereas when a case is heard before a magistrates court it is a public matter. That is an interesting example of an element of scrutiny that we have not really discussed and to which the Minister might like to respond. There may be ways in which the exercise of the conditional cautions can be scrutinised.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make wider points about the exercise of the conditional cautions. The whole House should watch the results of this measure and the process very carefully as the extension of summary justice is developed in the years ahead.

Clause 13 - Arrest for failing to comply with conditional caution

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 147, in clause 13, page 9, line 28, leave out subsection (6).

I tabled the amendment in response to a point made by the Magistrates Association about the operation of conditional cautions relating to the ability of the police to arrest someone without warrant and then to detain them while they are investigating a breach of the conditional caution, which is a power given in subsection (6). The Magistrates Association says that it gives the police greater power in dealing with a breach of the caution than the courts have in dealing with the breach of an order that they impose. It is questionable whether the police should be given such powers of detention and I wonder what safeguards there are in relation to the exercise of the power. For how long will the police be permitted to detain someone for a possible breach while they investigate the possibility—only the possibility—that a breach has occurred? That is an important question.

We must remember that the police will be able to exercise those powers of detention without any supervision by the courts. The courts will not have been involved at all. A conditional caution with a punitive element to it will have been imposed with the agreement of the offender. Once it is in operation, if the police believe that it has been breached, they can detain the offender for a period—I am waiting for the Minister to tell us how long that period might be—while they investigate it.

I should be grateful if the Minister told us what safeguards will operate in the exercise of the power in question. Is the Magistrates Association’s concern a proper one? Is it right that the police should have greater powers in relation to breaches in such cases than magistrates do in relation to breaches of court orders?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I listened to the Minister speak on clause 12 and I understand and sympathise with her argument, because a considerable amount of poor behaviour, which needs to be controlled, goes on. I can imagine that clause 13(6) might apply in a case of someone with a can of paint for writing graffiti: the policeman holding that person might want to find out whether he was in breach of a conditional caution. However, I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs: surely there must be a time limit.

I am sure that in practice it will be very quick. I imagine that the police officer will find out the name of the chap, or sometimes the lady, concerned, he will use his mobile phone and get a response within two or three minutes, and go on from there. However, things can go wrong. Let us suppose that for some reason the records are not accessible—say, the computer is down. I am surprised that a time limit is not specified in the Bill. An hour or an hour and a half is quite a long time to detain someone in that way.

I seek reassurance from the Minister about how long detention would be in practice and what she would regard as an unreasonable time for which to detain a person in that way. If she makes that clear in Committee, we shall be reassured; we can be pretty clear in our minds that if the provisions are abused, lawyers will be able to quote from the Minister’s remarks in Committee Hansard and show that the spirit of the Act—if the Bill is enacted—has been broken.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I hope that I can give hon. Members some reassurance. It is a matter of practicality, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has outlined. The provision will often be used for a quick inquiry to ascertain whether conditions have been breached, so that the process can go ahead. It would be illogical if someone who had been arrested had to be released and rearrested so that the breach of the original condition could be dealt with. We are trying to get the balance right between a proper system with safeguards, checks and balances, and getting matters dealt with as quickly as possible. That is the imperative throughout the system.

Subsection (6) specifies

“the power to keep the person in police detention if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating whether he has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any of the conditions attached to the conditional caution.”

When the detention becomes unnecessary for the purpose of those investigations it becomes unlawful. It is lawful only for as long as it is necessary for the carrying out of the inquiries. It would be unreasonable of me arbitrarily to suggest what I would regard as reasonable or necessary in any one of 100 different circumstances that could arise when the police had to carry out inquiries to establish whether a condition had been breached. The essence of the matter is that it relates to the specific case that a police officer is dealing with.

As long as the detention is necessary to allow the inquiries to be carried out, the officer will be within the legal framework set out in the clause. Once the matter strays into an area where detention is no longer necessary, the detention will be unlawful, and open to challenge in a range of ways.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

What the Minister says is reassuring, up to a point, but what about the scenario that I mentioned earlier, where a computer goes wrong, or the battery goes flat on the police officer’s wireless or radio control system? I can think of a series of scenarios in which things go wrong. It is right and proper that someone with a paint aerosol—the example that I gave earlier—should be held, but only up to a limit. How long will it be for—half a day, a day, two days? Surely some safeguard has to be built in.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

It would be difficult to put an arbitrary limit in the Bill because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, circumstances could vary enormously. We envisage a person being held for a relatively short period, to allow the police to carry out quick inquiries into whether the conditions had been breached. It would be a ridiculous state of affairs if the police had to release someone automatically and then rearrest them, when a quick phone call or a quick inquiry could ascertain whether the conditions had been breached in order for the original prosecution to be brought.

It is a matter of practicality. I would not want the police to detain people for inordinately long periods in order to carry out inquiries. The safeguard is that the police must always be aware of this question: “Am I detaining this person for as long as necessary in order to carry out my inquiries?” That should act as a proper check and balance in the circumstances. I genuinely do not feel that putting one hour or two hours in the Bill would make it a good provision.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

What, in the Minister’s view, is an unnecessary or inordinate period for which a person could be detained?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If the inquiries have been carried out and the person is still detained, but not for the purpose of carrying out inquiries, that would not fall within the clause. The police have the authority to detain someone only for the period necessary for them to carry out their inquiries. It is inappropriate for me to speculate about the circumstances in which that might occur. The people making that judgment will be those involved at the time, in the context of the relevant circumstances.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Clearly, people who have done wrong need to be detained if one cannot determine who they are, where they live and so on. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield rightly asked, should there not be a limit? It is a reasonable question. For example, if a police shift was changing at a particular time of night, or if it was called away to an emergency—perhaps a terrorist incident—would the person have to remain in custody for 24 hours or 48 hours? What is the limit? Those are good examples.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate but, as I said, it is not appropriate for me to do so. If investigations are likely to be protracted and lengthy, the individual can be bailed. The provision is designed to enable a quick, on-the-spot inquiry to take place. In the vast majority of cases, an hour or a couple of hours will be sufficient, but I cannot say categorically that it will be so; it will depend on the circumstances of the case. However, if protracted inquires are needed, other provisions are available.

The purpose is to ensure that low-level antisocial behaviour is dealt with and that those who breach the conditions of their cautions can be kept in the police station while officers make inquiries. It is a common-sense approach, which will be hugely welcomed by the public.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The Minister continually uses words such as protracted and lengthy, but if the provision is to be justified by the length of time that it takes to carry out inquiries, we must be told what those words mean. For instance, under other circumstances, the Government argued in the House that inquiries can take as long as 90 days. I presume that the Minister does not envisage such a period, but will she ever define protracted, lengthy or appropriate—in secondary legislation, if not in the Bill?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I ask the hon. Gentleman to maintain a sense of proportion. We are talking about low-level offences—guidance to prosecutors from the Director of Public Prosecutions makes that clear. Attempts by hon. Members to exaggerate the problems are not to the point. The system will give us efficient, speedy, effective justice when it comes to the things that the public are sick and tired of not being dealt with at all. The safeguards are there, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s reply, including her ticking us off for not having a sense of proportion. I would remind her that the Magistrates Association described the proposed power as draconian, so I do not think that it is fair to say that we are exaggerating concern about it. I accept that it is practical to adopt a measure to ensure that the police can investigate potential breaches; that is our purpose here, and we all agree that it is desirable. However, the Minister is relying on the concept that all that has to happen to justify a lengthy detention is that it has to be “necessary” for the police to conduct that investigation. The test of necessity is not sufficient to allow detention by the police without any kind of court supervision. Somebody who voluntarily agrees to a conditional caution could suddenly be detained by the police, not for breach of a conditional caution—we accept that the police should have the ability to do that for a breach; it is important that measures such as this, including antisocial behaviour orders, be backed up with robust powers so that they can be properly enforced—but simply to investigate whether a breach has occurred.

It is surprising that no time limit is specified. Such a limit might be arbitrary, but we have arbitrary time limits for detention throughout the criminal justice system. The police cannot indefinitely detain people in the course of the routine investigation of offences. After a period, people must be released, unless the courts grant an extension. Our system accepts that to detain somebody is a sufficiently serious matter that it has to be prescribed; the power to detain cannot be open-ended. I acknowledge that it is the Minister’s intention that the detention should be for a relatively short time; I do not attribute to her any wish to detain offenders for longer. However, Parliament must be careful before granting the police the ability, on their own judgment, to detain people for indefinite periods, and to tell such people who object to seek judicial review—to go to the courts and say that they were detained for an improper length of time—because that is the only remedy available to them if the police exceed their powers. Of course, there is a danger that the measure will be abused if we grant the police an unsupervised power to detain people while they investigate breaches.

The Minister should accept that our concerns are serious. I invite her to consider whether it is necessary to specify a time limit in the provision. There is time to reflect upon that before Report. I do not want to oppose the measure wholesale, which is what the effect of my amendment would be, because I accept that a provision that allows detention for investigation might be desirable. However, the clause is problematic as currently drafted. The case has been made by a number of hon. Members for some sort of check to be imposed, and I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 3 - Establishment of the Inspectorate of Data

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

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

We return to the balance between the need to do certain things speedily and without a lengthy process of judicial oversight, and the need to ensure that people do not overstep the mark and that the new measures are not abused. There is a clear trend, which we support, of dealing with cases speedily so that they do not become trapped in a long process and so that the system is effective.

The new clause follows on from a previous amendment and debate and relates to the extension of data collection. Domestic flight passenger lists will be available on request, without any crime having been committed, to police forces. We support the Government’s intention, but again we want some scrutiny of what is done without the normal protections of the criminal justice system or judicial oversight. We want to include safeguards in the Bill to prevent access to domestic flight passenger lists from becoming routine, overextended and overused and to prevent such data from being targeted disproportionately or used inappropriately for reasons other than preventing crime or disrupting terrorism.

I do not expect the Minister to accept the new clause; it is a probing amendment. However, I look to her to introduce some oversight, some close scrutiny, some method of redress that will give the public confidence and send a message to those with access to the information not to use it lightly.

We suggest establishing a body that would oversee, monitor and check with rigour that the collection of data was appropriate in all ways. There could be unease about the collection of private information when no crime has been committed. Mistakes could be made as a result of faulty technology. There is concern on the part of certain communities, particularly the Muslim community, which already feels targeted because of the conditions that have prevailed and the many measures that have been instituted since 7/7. There has been an explosion—a 300 per cent. increase—in stops under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, whereby a police officer can stop someone without reasonable grounds; such stops are not covered by the normal stop-and-search provisions. There are communities that feel targeted, which can lead to dysfunctional and bad relationships. We want a body that will provide rigorous oversight and audit.

I am sure that the Minister would wish to put safeguards in place to reassure all those who might otherwise fear that the extra surveillance might cross the line. Obviously, the prevention of crime is a legitimate aim in relation to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which relates to the right to a private life. However, given that part of the purpose of collecting such data is to detect patterns in travel so that potential terrorist action can be disrupted, we seek a framework for monitoring and audit of the process. We agreed in the previous debate that speed was of the essence with regard to successful and lawful prevention of crime or disruption of terrorism and that a balance needs to be struck between people’s freedoms and the need to be vigilant to protect our nation from terrorism and to protect people from crime.

On Second Reading, I referred to a letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) received from the Home Office. It stated that clause 9 was

“not designed to allow the routine surveillance of all domestic passengers. The police will only request data on the domestic routes that are of operational interest and likely to provide the greatest amount of intelligence essential to combat terrorism and serious organised crime. They are not designed to keep track of all domestic passengers.

They will help the police gain effective intelligence on the movement of known terrorist suspects and criminals and will allow them to build up a detailed picture of suspect passengers, travel patterns and networks.”

Although the letter suggests that there is absolutely no intention of blanket use of the power, the police officer who came to the Home Office briefing believed that the purpose was to build up a detailed pattern.

I hope that the Minister understands that I am trying to balance the need for protection with the need to protect the rights to a private life set out in the European convention and to examine how far the step would be from the promise in the Home Office letter to use the power only when tracking a “person of interest” to the illegitimate use of the power to track everyone, perhaps particularly those with Muslim-sounding surnames. That has to be a concern, which is why there should be a body in charge of a retrospective examination. I ask the Minister whether she has considered establishing an independent body to oversee the collection of information.

In the letter, we were told that

“requests for information will be recorded and there will be a clear audit trail to safeguard against ‘fishing trips’. And that in addition only police officers of the rank of superintendent or above may authorise a request.”

The new clause is designed to extend that protection and ensure that people retain the right to a private life, but not to inhibit the Government’s good intentions.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about fishing trips, but surely there must be some degree of surveillance? There will be times when the security services and the police have surveillance on someone who turns out not to have been doing anything wrong. It is a question of public protection, and while I understand what the hon. Lady is getting at, surely we must allow the police some leeway and not inhibit them so much that they cannot perform their task of protecting the public.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to allow that freedom and speed but to add a safeguard against what happened under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It was not ill-intended, but the effect on communities was damaging. I am sure that the Government agree that we must be sensitive to our communities while not inhibiting the police’s ability to look, even if they are seeking patterns. There would be public concern if every domestic flight passenger list was fed into a computer and every name tracked.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Why?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Well, perhaps not. We want to achieve a balance.

The new clause would also cover automatic number plate recognition.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am sorry to prolong the debate, but what objection would the hon. Lady have if there was automatic number plate recognition where she was driving? That would not bother me, nor would it if people were making a note of where I go on holiday, which I am sure they probably are. So what? Computers can do these things, and if it protects society, let us do it.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I take the view that it is better to know and debate such matters than to create a police surveillance society without the benefit of public and parliamentary debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) did a lot of work on the matter, and in 2005 figures revealed that more than one in five motorists have been wrongly identified because of flaws in police databases. It is a little specious and unkind to say that there should be no checks and balances such as those proposed in the new clause. As the hon. Member for Lichfield has said, problems sometimes occur with technology. We therefore need to ensure that there is rigorous oversight and that people are not tracked wrongly or without their knowledge and without a public debate.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The new clause would establish a new body, the inspectorate of data. As the hon. Lady anticipated, I am not in a position to agree with her that there should be yet another body. We are constantly trying to reduce bureaucracy—

Police and Justice Bill - Standing Committee D

New Clause 3 - Establishment of the inspectorate of data

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

When we adjourned, I was saying to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) that although I could not accept the new clause because it would involve the creation of a new organisation, which would be too bureaucratic, I understood the reasoning behind it. I do not think that it is necessary to have a new body. We already have the Information Commissioner, whose role it is to protect the individual’s right to privacy by ensuring the correct processing of personal data. The Information Commissioner will ensure that the police act in accordance with their obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary also has a role.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am reasonably familiar with the data protection principles and the role of the Information Commissioner. I had not realised that it extended to vetting the use of data that are legal but may not be agreeable to public policy in such cases. That is surely way outside the Information Commissioner’s remit.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The Information Commissioner has wide-ranging duties, responsibilities and powers under the Data Protection Act, including responding to complaints from individuals about the processing of their data, investigating the way in which data are processed by data controllers such the police, requiring appropriate remedial action from data controllers or instituting court proceedings, and encouraging the drawing up of suitable codes of conduct, often with sectoral application, for police and law enforcement authorities, for example.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Individuals might not have any knowledge that their data have been supplied to someone, so how would they know that they could complain to the Information Commissioner?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

That issue is often raised in relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Information Commissioner takes a broad supervisory view of how the powers are exercised, and if individuals have concerns, they can raise the question of whether their data have been subject to processing.

My more substantive concern about the hon. Lady’s suggestion of a six-monthly report before Parliament is that the police have sought the powers to enable them to build up an intelligence picture of those flights that might be of interest, particularly those that form the domestic leg of an international journey. They will have a particular interest in certain routes and passenger journeys. If they have to lay a report before Parliament about the routes that they are interested in and the kind of intelligence picture that they are trying to develop, that would in many ways defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do and could well give information and assistance to the people whom they are trying to track and have surveillance over. I find it difficult to accept that.

Clause 32(5) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, which will apply to international journeys, will also require that the Secretary of State should specify by order what passenger, crew and service information will be required and the manner in which that information is to be provided. In that case, Parliamentary will already be aware of the specific types of data that carriers will be required to provide and how the data are to be provided.

As I say, the police will request data on routes of operational interest that have been subject to a threat and risk assessment. They would not necessarily want that information to be made publicly available. I have assured the hon. Lady that this is not a power through which people intend to get details of the 40 million or so journeys made in this country. It will be targeted, and carried out on the basis of the threat that is posed and there will be risk assessments of the routes on which data is sought.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I want to make progress, so I shall simply ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I did not expect the Minister to accept the creation of a new body. I see the point about not laying such information in public view in front of Parliament. However, it could go before the Intelligence Services Committee if there were a will to pursue the matter.

I did not get an opportunity to ask the Minister whether it was intended that such surveillance be applied to other routes. One of my concerns is that a terrorist, knowing that passenger flight information is available to law agencies, might decide not to fly and to let the train take the strain.

It was important to make the point. As we tolerate the move to speedy surveillance without oversight in advance, we are looking for safeguards and audit trails at the other end of the bargain. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 12 - Recording of encounters not governed by statutory powers

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

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

The purpose of new clause 12 is to precipitate debate on a matter that is controversial and sensitive but that should none the less be discussed—the requirement placed on the police since the Macpherson report to record every stop that they make. That requirement does not apply every time that the police engage in a general conversation with the member of the public, but it does apply when a police officer requests someone to stop to account for themselves. A large number of interactions with the public are therefore covered by the provision. Although I understand that national figures for the number of stops made and recorded under the new provisions are not yet available, as the provisions have been in place for only 17 months, we know that police in the Metropolitan police area make 30,000 stops-and-searches or stops-and-accounts every month.

I emphasise that my new clause, which aims to end the requirement to record every stop, does not apply to stops-and-searches. It is generally agreed that a search is intrusive and that it is important that police officers record them. However, it would apply to stops alone.

My concerns fall into two categories. The first is that the relevant form is very long. The Minister will be familiar with it, but I do not know whether other Committee members are. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is. It contains 40 questions and takes about seven minutes to fill in, according to the Police Federation. The reason for the stop, the outcome and the self-defined ethnicity of the person stopped must be included in it. According to the Home Office, the average police officer stops someone and completes one of the forms every 2.2 hours that they spend outside a police station. That creates a time issue. If a police officer wishes to make a number of stops, that means that he could be engaged in filling in forms for a long time. The practical effect is that he will probably be deterred from making the stops in the first place.

My second concern relates to the extent to which the bureaucracy that recording will generate prevents the police from encountering people and requiring them to stop. How robust is the system? To what extent are police officers being deterred from making stops? Stopping people is precisely what we wish them to do in neighbourhood policing.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

Has my hon. Friend, as I have, received complaints from police officers that the part of the form that is given to the person stopped sets out in great detail their rights, including a statement to the effect that they do not have to give the police any information at all? Some police officers have told me that the sheet is often thrust in their faces on subsequent occasions by people saying, “We don’t have to tell you anything; you told us that on your notice.”

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

That is one concern. Another is that people decide that they just do not wish to complete that part of the form, and walk away. Those are practical concerns about the form and its potential for deterring police officers from engaging with the community.

A third practical concern is the cost of collating the forms and the bureaucracy that is created. The new clause was prompted by the Metropolitan Police Authority reporting only a few days ago that its anti-bureaucracy taskforce had estimated that the cost of completing the forms was £720,000 annually, with front-line officers’ time being diverted from other duties. The authority said that, as a result of concerns expressed by the Metropolitan police service and other forces, Ministers were considering ways of reducing the burden. I understand that digital technology and electronic forms to record searches may be available. The Home Office confirmed that a report—not a routine report—was being prepared. Part of my purpose in tabling the new clause was to seek further clarification about that study—how far it goes and the extent to which it will take on board some of the concerns that I have raised.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the forms were needed because of discrimination and disproportionality in the way that stops were being carried out?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I was coming to precisely to that point. It lies at the heart of the debate, and it is an intensely sensitive matter. As I said, the stop form was introduced as a result of the recommendations of the Macpherson report, which accepted that stop-and-search was a valuable activity, but recommended that a record of searches should be kept in order to build confidence among ethnic communities.

I wholeheartedly accept the need to build confidence, as Macpherson recommended, and that it is essential that any suggestion of racism should be dealt with firmly throughout the police service. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree on that. The question is whether the measure has itself become disproportionate, and that it imposes a burden, which has other costs, on the police. Our judgment is that it does.

When action is taken in response to situations that have caused a great deal of public concern or outrage, the pendulum can swing too far. In 2002, the former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Lord Harris, said that since Macpherson

“the balance has probably slipped too far the other way, which has resulted in police being reluctant to use stop and search powers for fear of accusations of racism or harassment, even where they suspect wrongdoing.”

That may be the case irrespective of the existence of the form, but it reflects a general sensitivity among the police.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the form offers the police some protection against accusations of disproportionality or racism? It enables them to use what everyone agrees is a vital tool for forces to function and detect criminality.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I accept that some police officers believe that it provides some protection. On the other hand, that will depend on the collation of the data, which has not yet happened; it may do the opposite, and fuel further debate about whether there is disproportionality.

The wider concern is whether the existence of a stop form that has to be used in all situations and at all stops where people are asked to account for themselves holds up effective policing and deters the police from making stops. Police officers of all ranks have expressed that concern to me. That is not always reflected in what the police service says officially, because it is acutely sensitive about the issue and does not want to send out the wrong message to ethnic communities. I understand that sensitivity. Nevertheless, it is important that Parliament should be willing to debate the issues carefully and sensitively, and to consider the effects of such measures.

On the basis of the report that I read about the cost and bureaucracy of the measure, I want to examine whether it is possible to reduce the bureaucracy. I accept that it is essential to retain the search form, but believe that there is case for removing the requirement for a stop form, at least until it can be shown that the bureaucracy can be substantially reduced. I should like these important and controversial measures to be subject to an open review at a defined period after their introduction. They have been in place for 17 months and it is important for the sake of the whole service that that should happen and that we should have a careful debate about their effectiveness.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The new clause would remove the necessity for the police to record a stop. There is a process for seeking to amend PACE codes, so it is inappropriate to include such an amendment in the Bill. Proposed changes are subject to a lengthy public consultation and the codes have recently been revised to cover this area.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I appreciate that and I am grateful to the Minister for making the point. I tabled the amendment as a means to prompt discussion the issue, because it gives rise to great concern. I appreciate that there is a method for revising the code and that my new clause might not be the appropriate way of doing it.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

There are two fundamental elements to the stops process. The first is the bureaucracy—that word has fallen into disrepute. I remember saying during our debate on bail conditions that some bureaucracy is necessary, particularly when dealing with a service that has the power to interfere with other people’s liberty. Sometimes the way in which we use the word is derogatory, but it is important in a democracy to have proper systems to ensure accountability.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) alleges that the bureaucracy of filling in the forms outweighs the benefit of the accountability that we would gain from the process, but I believe that the requirement to fill in the details of a stop, which was a recommendation of the Macpherson report, falls firmly into the category of necessary bureaucracy. Like all hon. Members, I am keen to fulfil that recommendation in a way that minimises the time that officers spend recording the encounters; that is why we are considering electronic recording and why many officers now have hand-held computers that, in some cases, enable them to send information directly back to the police station.

The hon. Gentleman said that every stop takes seven minutes. In fact, 75 per cent. of stops are carried out in less than five minutes, which includes the encounter and the completion of the form. It is not a lengthy, bureaucratic process; it takes relatively little time. On average, as he says, a police officer has to do it once every 2.2 hours, so we are not talking about a police officer spending his whole day filling in forms; that is an unfair caricature of the process.

It is important to hold police officers to account for their actions. That is why we have a stop-and-search action team that works intensively, not just on encounters but on stop-and-search and on terrorism powers, to ensure that there is no disproportionality in the system. We also have an independent community panel, which works with the stop-and-search action team, again to ensure that the sensitive issues associated with the way in which the powers are exercised are properly taken into account. The process that is in place for stops and stops-and-searches is a key element in local accountability and in increasing public confidence in the police officers who serve their neighbourhoods.

In 2007 we shall publish the figures on the number of stops in each force area. We started collecting them in April 2005, so we will have had a chance to monitor the data. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will be grateful for that.

When the provision was introduced, the Police Federation voiced its concern about the impact on its members. However, I am delighted that, late last year, it acknowledged that the use of stops is a legitimate tool based on operational requirements combined with intelligence-led policing. Being able to record and monitor stops and knowing where the activity takes place helps its members to build up an intelligence picture of where problems might occur, so that they can target their resources to ensure that they carry out more effective policing. That is a big shift, and I am grateful to the Police Federation for having expressed that point of view. It is now working with us and a range of other stakeholders to establish how we can squeeze out the bureaucracy of filling in the forms to make it easier. It has been suggested that people might be given a receipt, and that they could get in touch if they wanted further information. That and the use of electronic equipment would enable the work to be done more quickly.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

On the subject of electronic means, would the Minister be willing to explore the use of global positioning systems, which could instantly record the place and time the second that an officer wished to start recording an incident? That might save several of the minutes involved in filling in the form.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am always willing to look at ways in which we can make our police service more efficient and effective. I am sure that that idea has been considered. If it has not, the relevant bodies will want consider whether it is a practical proposition, and I shall be interested to know whether that is the case.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned the report from the London School of Economics evaluating the impact and recording of stops and the good practice that is emerging from the different ways in which that is done across the country. I can tell him that is will be published on the popular Home Office website, to which we have previously referred in this Committee, on 30 March, so it will be available if he wants to look at it before we reach the later stages of the Bill. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to the Minister and I have a few comments on her response. First, she talked about the benefits of accountability and said that it was clear that there was a net benefit in this circumstance. The problem is that the benefits are difficult to measure; they are intangible benefits to do with giving ethnic minority communities confidence in the way in which they are policed—and, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, giving police officers themselves confidence.

Until we have seen the figures, it will be difficult to assess the impact of the stop form. However, I am not sure that I accept the Minister’s point that relatively little police officer time is devoted to the issuing of the forms. We do not know the extent to which, after 18 months, police officers are being deterred from making stops because of the existence of the forms. Going by conversations that I have had with police officers of all ranks, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to that effect.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Perhaps I should have declared an interest, having been vice-chair of stop-and-search scrutiny on the Metropolitan Police Authority. It was not a pecuniary interest.

In May 2004 Home Office figures showed that black people were eight times and Asian people five times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. When we scrutinised those figures, it was difficult to track a link between stops, stops-and-searches, charges and convictions. The two sides of the equation were not there to track, so we could not judge whether it was an effective tool. When those figures are available, if they were linked to success in terms of charge or conviction, that might add to the knowledge base from which we can make a judgment. I would be wary of stopping in advance of having all the information.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The Government have made their position clear. I am sure that the Minister will have noted the hon. Lady’s suggestion regarding the analysis of those figures.

The Minister correctly quoted the latest views of the Police Federation, which made it clear that its willingness to accept the requirement for the recording of encounters was partly because the Home Office was exploring technical solutions to reduce bureaucracy. That is a tacit acceptance that there is bureaucracy about which there is concern. We look forward with interest to the outcome of that work. It is worth reflecting on the Police Federation’s conclusion that:

“Finally, there needs to be a move away from the negative implications surrounding disproportionality promoted by critics, to the police service seeking a positive process of explanation and engagement with the communities affected.”

That is correct. I am concerned that when the figures become available and are published, we will return to the potentially divisive debate that we had before.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to explore these issues. I await with great interest the publication of the report on 30 March on the Home Office’s infamous website. I do not resile from the principle that the form should be withdrawn, but I accept that the new clause might not be an appropriate means by which to achieve that. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Schedule 6 - Amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 140, in schedule 6, page 81, line 1, leave out subparagraph (5).

The amendment is probing. The explanatory notes relating to schedule 6 explain that paragraph 2 will enable

“the appropriate national authority to add to or otherwise change the list of responsible authorities”,

and suggests that that will be possible in Wales. Will the Minister explain that provision further, given that it confers on the Secretary of State the power to do that in future? What proposals do the Government have to change the list of responsible authorities and how will that affect crime and disorder reduction partnerships?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The order-making power simply allows us to change the responsible authorities without having to use primary legislation. At this stage, there are no further intentions to amend the responsible bodies, but new organisations might well be established that could play a role in crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it would be difficult to have to use primary legislation every time we want to make a variation in respect of the type of bodies that should be engaged.

Recently, there have been discussions, which I think are ongoing, about whether the Greater London authority should be a responsible authority for crime and disorder. I certainly have no plans to bring in additional bodies, but it is important that there should be an order-making power so that we can be flexible and adapt to changing circumstances without needing always to return to primary legislation when there is an opportunity for a new body to play an important role in the wider partnership. I do not want us to lose the opportunity to draw in those partners. Primary care trusts and fire authorities are now partners, but they were not covered by the original legislation, and we had to return to legislation each time to get them involved. The order-making power will give us the flexibility to add bodies without going through the lengthy and, dare I say it, bureaucratic process.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I wondered whether there were proposals to include new bodies within the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but it appears that there are not and it is just a matter of taking a power in case it may be needed in the future. I accept the Minister’s point. If new bodies can be brought in it is sensible to do so by order rather than by primary legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a broader issue that concerns crime and disorder reduction partnerships and what is being proposed for them. The “Review of the Partnership Provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—Report of Findings” published by the Home Office prior to Second Reading stated that the merger of crime and disorder reduction partnerships was under consideration. That would be enabled not under this Bill but under the Police Reform Act 2002. However, it goes directly to the substance of the Bill, which is to reshape in part how crime and disorder reduction partnerships operate.

The report conceded:

“CDRPs have a vital role within this family of partnerships at local level”.

We would all agree. Having seen local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in operation, we appreciate the value of that localism. However, paragraph 2.9 recommended taking

“the opportunity, wherever possible, to reduce the total number of partnerships.”

Paragraph 2.12 stated that the Government were

“not at this stage thinking of compelling mergers.”

That sounds ominous, as if it may be the case in the future. The paragraph continued that the Government were considering the possibility against the background of potential change in local authority boundaries as a result of their review.

My simple point is that, if the Minister relies on crime and reduction partnerships as the way to deliver policing locally—against our accusation that larger police authorities are taking policing further away from local people—that will be substantially undermined if the CDRPs are to be much larger than they are now. In my county of Sussex, it is proposed that the local authority-based CDRPs will grow and become county-based CDRPs. Inevitably, that will take local management further away from people. I will need the Minister to tell us more about her thinking in that regard before I can agree to the proposal, which makes new provision in relation to the CDRPs.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I think that we would all agree that the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, are one of the most significant things that have happened to policing and community safety. In many parts of the country, the partnerships are working very well. The best CDRPs bring together the health service, education, social services, the police and the local authority. They share information, look at hotspots in their communities and help to task and to deploy resources to reduce a range of crime. However, it has to be said that, in some parts of the country, the performance of CDRPs is patchy. That is why we reviewed the partnership provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

We had 450 different responses to that extensive and lengthy consultation—some people thought that it was too lengthy. The recommendations took a long time to come out. However, it was a serious attempt to look at where CDRPs were working well, where they were not and what we could do to strengthen them.

Schedule 6 contains various recommendations for national standards for information sharing and community engagement. They are about ensuring that all partners take the partnership seriously. If CDRPs are going to be the engine of local policing, together with the neighbourhood policing teams and the basic command units, they have to be rigorous, perform well and deliver the outcomes that communities want.

Small partnerships might find it advantageous, therefore, to merge with neighbouring ones. That is voluntary, and not being imposed by the Government. However, we might ask CDRPs to focus on a particular issue, to come up with a strategy and to work with the police to develop tactics. The focus might be on, for example, alcohol-related violent crime, if that is a big community issue. That would be quite a task, and if a small organisation lacks the capacity, resources and people to carry it out, it makes sense for it to come together, perhaps with a neighbouring CDRP, to take that forward.

Many of the established drug and alcohol teams have merged with their CDRPs because they recognise that that makes sense. Those teams tackle drug and alcohol problems, which fuel a lot of violent and acquisitive crime, so it makes sense to bring together the bodies that deal with all those issues. In some other parts of the country, those teams have not merged, probably for good local reasons, and all I am concerned about is that those areas achieve the outcomes that we want.

The proposal to encourage CDRP mergers, where appropriate, is about ensuring that they can perform at a level that can deliver good crime reduction for their local communities. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that the proposals are not a centralised plan to dictate the landscape, but are driven by efficiency and performance to ensure that the CDRPs that, in some cases, struggle to deliver on the agenda, can get support from neighbouring CDRPs.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

How confident is the Minister that those new bodies will be accountable to local authority overview and scrutiny committees, rather than just “answerable”—the word used in the explanation of the issue on the Home Office’s website? For example, often, a primary care trust has a political leadership, and the local authority, being a stakeholder in the same partnership, will, by definition, have some sort of political leadership. The overview and scrutiny committee also will have a political leadership. Therefore, there might be answerability, but will there be accountability?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we will have a detailed debate on the role of overview and scrutiny committees during consideration of later clauses. One of our CDRP proposals is to ensure that the elected member, the community safety portfolio holder, plays an increasingly more visible role. Many CDRPs are run primarily by officers and executives, and sometimes the elected politician does not have the kind of visible role that I want them to have. It is important that a community can hold to account the person responsible for those issues.

Some of the CDA recommendations in schedule 6 are about ensuring that the elected members play an increasingly important role in setting some of the CDRP’s strategic priorities. There are also proposals to separate the strategic target setting role from the actual operational delivery, which would help to introduce into the system more accountability. Taken together, the measures would help dramatically to increase local answerability and accountability. On that basis, I ask that the schedule be agreed to.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and I accept the merit of the Bill’s provisions for splitting the strategic and operational roles of crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I am not sure that she fully took on board what I was saying about turning some of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships into much bigger units, and the effect of that on localism.

The other day, I met members of a crime and disorder reduction partnership in my constituency, and each member, from the fire service, the police service and the local NHS trust, was anxious to express concerns to me. They felt that, at the district council level at which the partnership operated, there was the local knowledge to make the planning of crime reduction, and the way in which the partners worked together, effective. It is interesting that they were sceptical about the partnership when it was first established, but as time went on they found that it was useful in bringing them together, and drawing the resources of the community together to reduce crime. They felt that they could not be as effective by operating at county level, which would take them further from local communities.

Another point that I am not sure the Minister took on board entirely is that we have a fear about whether what is happening will match the proposed reorganisation of local government, which has not yet been properly announced or discussed in the House, but which is the background against which many of the measures in the Bill will be implemented, whether in relation to CDRPs or police force amalgamation. It will be curious if district or borough councils are no longer to play the lead role in crime and disorder reduction partnerships, as they are responsible for matters such as licensing, environmental health and, indeed, closed circuit television.

The point has been made, and I believe that we shall return to it when the Government present proposals for the mergers. However, we have put down a marker of our concern, and on that basis we support the schedule.

Clause 15 - Role of local authority overview and scrutiny committees

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 15, page 12, line 13, after third ‘a’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 138, in clause 15, page 12, line 18, at end insert—

‘(aa)the councillor may refer the matter to the responsible authority;’.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 15, page 12, line 19, after ‘(b)’, insert

‘if the matter is not resolved by the responsible authority,’.

Amendment No. 109, in clause 15, page 12, line 30, after ‘any’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Amendment No. 110, in clause 15, page 13, line 1, after ‘section’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Amendment No. 111, in clause 15, page 13, line 3, after ‘other’, insert ‘criminal’.

Amendment No. 113, in clause 15, page 13, line 21, at end insert

‘; but such regulations shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 8—Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters—

‘(1)Every local authority shall ensure that it has a committee (the “crime and disorder committee”) with power—

(a) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions;

(b) to make reports or recommendations to the local authority with respect to the discharge of those functions.

“The responsible authorities” means the bodies and persons who are responsible authorities within the meaning given by section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (authorities responsible for crime and disorder strategies) in relation to the local authority’s area.

(2) Where by virtue of subsection (1)(b) the crime and disorder committee makes a report or recommendations it shall provide a copy—

(a) to each of the responsible authorities, and

(b) to each of the persons with whom, and bodies with which, the responsible authorities have a duty to co-operate under section 5(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (“the co-operating persons and bodies”).

(3) Where a member of a local authority (“the councillor”) is asked to consider a local crime and disorder matter by a person who lives or works in the area that the councillor represents—

(a) the councillor shall consider the matter and respond to the person who asked him to consider it, indicating what (if any) action he proposes to take;

(b) the councillor may refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee.

In this subsection and subsections (4) to (6) “local authority” does not include the county council for an area for which there are district councils.

(4) Where a member of a local authority operating executive arrangements declines to refer a matter to the crime and disorder committee under subsection (3)(b), the person who asked him to consider it may refer the matter to the executive of that authority.

(5) Where a matter is referred under subsection (4) to the executive of a local authority—

(a) the executive shall consider the matter and respond to the person who referred the matter to it, indicating what (if any) action it proposes to take;

(b) the executive may refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee.

(6) The crime and disorder committee shall consider any local crime and disorder matter—

(a) referred to it by a member of the local authority in question (whether under subsection (3)(b) or not), or

(b) referred to it under subsection (5),

and may make a report or recommendations to the local authority with respect to it.

(7) Where the crime and disorder committee makes a report or recommendations under subsection (6) it shall provide a copy to such of the responsible authorities and to such of the co-operating persons and bodies as it thinks appropriate.

(8) An authority, person or body to which a copy of a report or recommendations is provided under subsection (2) or (7) shall—

(a) consider the report or recommendations;

(b) respond to the crime and disorder committee indicating what (if any) action it proposes to take;

(c) have regard to the report or recommendations in exercising its functions.

(9) In the case of a local authority operating executive arrangements—

(a) the crime and disorder committee is to be an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22));

(b) a reference in subsection (1)(b) or (6) to making a report or recommendations to the local authority is to be read as a reference to making a report or recommendations to the local authority or the executive.

(10) Schedule (Further provision about crime and disorder committees of certain local authorities) (which makes further provision, corresponding to that made by section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000, about the crime and disorder committees of local authorities not operating executive arrangements) has effect.

(11) In this section—

“crime and disorder functions” means functions conferred by or under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (formulation and implementation of crime and disorder strategies);

“executive arrangements” means executive arrangements under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22);

“local authority” means—

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

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

“local crime and disorder matter”, in relation to a member of a local authority, means a matter concerning—

(c) crime and disorder (including in particular forms of crime and disorder that involve anti-social behaviour or other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment) in the area represented by the member, or

(d) the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances in that area.’.

The following amendments thereto: (a), at end of subsection (3)(a) insert—

‘(aa)the councillor may refer the matter to the responsible authority;’.

(b), at beginning of subsection (3)(b) insert

‘if the matter is not resolved by the responsible authority’.

Government new clause 9—Guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to—

(a) local authorities in England,

(b) members of those authorities, and

(c) crime and disorder committees of those authorities,

with regard to the exercise of their functions under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).

(2) The National Assembly for Wales, after consulting the Secretary of State, may issue guidance to—

(a) local authorities in Wales,

(b) members of those authorities, and

(c) crime and disorder committees of those authorities,

with regard to the exercise of their functions under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing that made by section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters) in relation to local authorities in England.

(4) The Secretary of State, after consulting the National Assembly for Wales, may by regulations make provision supplementing that made by section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters) in relation to local authorities in Wales.

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) or (4) may in particular make provision—

(a) as to the co-opting of additional members to serve on the crime and disorder committee of a local authority;

(b) as to the frequency with which the power mentioned in section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(1)(a) is to be exercised;

(c) requiring information to be provided to the crime and disorder committee by the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies;

(d) imposing restrictions on the provision of information to the crime and disorder committee by the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies;

(e) requiring officers or employees of the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies to attend before the crime and disorder committee to answer questions;

(f) specifying how a person is to refer a matter to a member of a local authority, or to the executive of a local authority, under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(3) or (4);

(g) specifying the periods within which—

(i) a member of a local authority is to deal with a request under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(3);

(ii) the executive of a local authority is to deal with a matter referred under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(4);

(iii) the crime and disorder committee is to deal with a matter referred as mentioned in section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(6);

(iv) the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies are to consider and respond to a report or recommendations made under or by virtue of section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).

(6) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (5)(a) may provide for a person co-opted to serve as a member of a crime and disorder committee to have the same entitlement to vote as any other member.

(7) In this section ”local authority”, ”crime and disorder committee”, ”responsible authorities” and ”co-operating persons and bodies” have the same meaning as in section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).’.

The following amendment thereto: (a), leave out sub-paragraph (i).

Government new clause 10—Joint crime and disorder committees.

Government new schedule 1—Further provision about crime and disorder committees of certain local authorities.

Government amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 103.

It might be helpful if I were to explain how we shall proceed. I had rather hoped that Mr. Conway would be chairing this part of the proceedings. At the end of the debate, either the Committee will vote on amendment No. 108, or it will be withdrawn in the normal way. The question that clause 15 stand part of the Bill will then be put without further debate. Government new clauses and new schedules will be dealt with without debate at the appropriate time—after we have concluded and disposed of schedule 7. Government amendments will be called formally later.

If hon. Members want a separate vote on amendments to Government new clauses, they need to make that clear during the debate. They can be called after the Government new clauses have been read a Second time.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Mr. Pope, you will be relieved to hear that we shall not call for any complicated separate votes that will make life difficult for everyone.

I shall start with amendments Nos. 108 to 110, which are essentially probing amendments on what is, otherwise, broadly a welcome set of provisions. I think that I should declare myself a supporter of the concept of the community call to action, which is an important idea that may help to improve local involvement, and people’s feeling of involvement in the policing and criminal justice process. I am also a fan of overview and scrutiny committees as an idea, on the strength of my experience of health overview and scrutiny committees.

The three amendments that I referred to are, nevertheless, probing amendments that are intended to show the possible risk in the clause, and the extent to which the community call to action could become a vehicle for unreasonable demands to be taken up by official bodies. We are not saying that there is any risk that mob justice will develop, but the risk with any call to action is that those who call loudest may be heard most. The Government should be alert to that risk.

The process could give undue weight to a particularly vocal minority, or even majority, in some communities, which might in turn place an unfair or inappropriate focus or pressure on particular individuals or minority groups in an area. We tabled three amendments inserting the word “reasonable” to give a slightly higher burden of reasonability on the process, if that is a proper word. In particular, as a local councillor decides at the first stage whether to bring something to an overview and scrutiny committee, I am sure that those who have been local councillors, as I have, would want a slightly greater legislative reason or excuse in some circumstances to refuse unreasonable requests from members of the public. It would be helpful to raise the bar slightly. I should appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that.

Amendment No. 111 would tighten slightly clause 15’s definition of a local crime and disorder matter, making it clear that it involved broadly criminal behaviour. Government new clause 8 addresses that to a large extent, so that amendment need not detain us for too much longer.

Looking generally at the model of overview and scrutiny committees, I think that they work well. My local health overview and scrutiny committee has provided an incredibly valuable forum for laying important issues before local representatives in a format that they can appreciate. They can debate openly and publicly, and the committee can use sanctions including, in the most extreme cases, referral to the Secretary of State.

It is not quite as clear that the overview and scrutiny committees laid out in the Bill have such clear responsibilities and roles. For instance, do the police need their approval to proceed with particular policing methods or strategies? Can the overview and scrutiny committee refer a matter to anyone if it is not happy? At the moment, the only sanction that seems to be available at the end of the process is the power to require local CDRP partners to attend the next meeting. That should really put the fear of God into them. It is not quite the same level of sanction that the health overview and scrutiny committees enjoy.

Which CDRP partners will be asked to respond? That too is not clear in the explanatory flow chart provided by the Department or in the Bill. Will the CDRP chair respond? Will the local councillor, the police or the police authority? Will they have the chance to say exactly which CDRP partners are to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee? The new section 21B(5)(g)(i) says that the overview and scrutiny committee can specify

“the periods within which—

(i) a councillor is to deal with a request under section 21A(4)”.

If the overview and scrutiny committee chooses to say on a substantive matter, “You shall respond within three days,” that is quite an onerous responsibility to place on a single voluntary councillor.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

My reading of the Bill suggests that it will not be the overview and scrutiny committee that sets those things; the Secretary of State will make regulations under subsections (3) or (4). Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my analysis?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

Not entirely. The hon. Gentleman is right that regulations to specify the time will be set by the Secretary of State, but it will be for the overview and scrutiny committee to request it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. In effect, the overview and scrutiny committee will be the immediate agent in deciding whether to impose that period on a councillor. That is the risk to which I draw attention.

There is also the risk of a possible confusion of accountabilities. Many bodies are involved in the scrutiny of police strategy. We have crime and disorder reduction partnerships, overview and scrutiny committees and police authorities, which are all constituted for that purpose. The police are already accountable to the police authority and the Secretary of State. In a sense, the overview and scrutiny committees are accountable to the local population. That overlapping of responsibilities and accountabilities may be a source of confusion unless the Bill or the Secretary of State makes clear who is responsible to whom for what.

Even before the Bill has been passed, the Secretary of State reserves the right under proposed new section 21B to give himself extra powers to direct those bodies. Yet again, we have potential centralisation, with the additional powers of the Secretary of State beginning to creep into a Bill that has not yet been enacted. That is the reason for amendment No. 113, which would provide an extra level of parliamentary scrutiny for such actions being taken by the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will find that amendment acceptable.

The clause has the potential to allow for more democratic involvement, with more accountability to the community. In general, we welcome the concept of a community call to action and of a crime and disorder overview and scrutiny committee. However, there is potential for confusion and frustration in the clause, which is the reason for our amendments.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am very glad that the amendment of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) came before mine. He said fluently what I was about to say, and I agree with all that he said.

My amendments address a slightly different but related issue. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the potential conflict and overlapping arrangements between the various committees. It is doubly problematic. It is potentially very bureaucratic—today’s favourite phrase—which is a danger with all such committees and partnerships. In addition, the purpose of the community call for action is to provide a clear and direct means for the public to achieve a response to their concern that crime or crime-related issues are not being addressed properly in their community and that a plethora of bodies may hinder the process.

It will not be clear to the public who is responsible for what. It is barely clear to us. Introducing an additional committee is a confusing process. That confusion is underlined by the fact that, according to the Home Office, the local strategic partnerships will remain the top tier, and the operational functions that we discussed earlier will be executed by the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. They will be setting the local area agreements. However, the crime and disorder reduction partnerships will not be accountable to the local strategic partnerships that set the strategy. According to the Home Office, the crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be expected to account to the local strategic partnerships for their contribution to the delivery of the local area agreement, but crime and disorder reduction partnerships’ primary accountability will be to the new local authority overview and scrutiny committees. I can see some confusion there. One body is setting strategic objectives, and the line of accountability is to a different body.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his broad support for what I have been saying, and I am in general sympathy with what he is saying now, but I point out that crime and disorder reduction partnerships already account to local strategic partnerships. They certainly do in my constituency.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

That is absolutely right, but the Home Office says that the primary accountability mechanism for crime and disorder reduction partnerships under the Government’s proposals, which I assume are in the Bill, will be the local authority overview and scrutiny committees. That accountability is being changed, and it appears that there will be a double accountability, both to the local strategic partnership and to the overview and scrutiny committees. That is the kind of thing that will add to confusion and bureaucracy. Where people or bodies are accountable to a multiplicity of organisations, they have no real accountability at all.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, we are creating a number of different bodies in addition to the police authorities, which are steadily being emasculated and with which a lot of responsibility should lie. I accept that the purpose of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships is to bring together a wider variety of people than just the police, for whom the police authorities are responsible. Nevertheless, I do not think that enough clear thinking has been done about how all the measures will work. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My amendment reflects a concern expressed by the Association of Police Authorities that the measures do not oblige councillors to consult first with their crime and disorder reduction partnerships when a complaint is made or an issue raised by somebody in the community. For our edification, the Minister kindly sent us the Home Office’s flow chart. I do not know whether it was available on the website, but I was grateful to be sent it, as I am pitifully grateful for all communications that she sends me. The flow chart says that in step 1, local people will report their persistent community safety problems to the ward councillor. In step 2, the crime and disorder reduction partnership and neighbourhood policing team will attempt to resolve the problem. That seems sensible, but I do not think that it is in the Bill.

Proposed new section 21A(4) to the Local Government Act 2000 says:

“Where a councillor of a local authority is asked to consider a local crime ...

(a) the councillor must consider the matter and respond to the person”.

It goes on to say that

“the councillor may refer the matter to the relevant committee”,

but the relevant committee is not the crime and disorder partnership. It is the overview and scrutiny committee. Although the Home Office’s flow chart shows a step in which the councillor tries to resolve the matter with the crime and disorder reduction partnership and the neighbourhood policing team, that step is not written into the Bill. The councillor could bypass a discussion with the crime and disorder reduction partnership.

At the risk of imposing further bureaucratic provision—I accept that that is the case, but it is not my fault that the amendments were drafted in that way—my amendments would require the councillor to raise the matter first with the responsible authority, by which I hope I mean the crime and disorder reduction partnership. He could go on to refer the matter to the overview committee if it was not resolved by the responsible authority. That places the initial burden of resolving the issue on the crime and disorder reduction partnership. It would be better if the matter was resolved there because it is an existing partnership involving the police. It is important that the partnerships are not, in effect, removed from the process and that there is a direct jump to the overview committee. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendment Nos. 138 and 139 would amend clause 15. The Government tabled a new clause, so I have tabled mirror amendments, just in case the Minister is minded to accept the sense of those amendments. I hope that by the time we get to the end of the Committee, she will have accepted one of the Opposition’s amendments. They are important issues, and I look forward to her reply. [Interruption.]

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Order. Members of the public are not allowed in this part of the Committee, which is reserved for Members only. In future, I hope that that is clear. I am sorry to have interrupted you, Mr Herbert.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I had finished, Mr. Pope.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I shall speak to amendment (a) to new clause 9. In essence, it would amend what is currently clause 21B(5)(g)(i), which makes provision for the Secretary of State to fix a time period within which councillors must respond to a community call for action raised with them by a member of the public.

The amendment is a probing one, intended to gain clarification on the expected period. That period is germane—if it is relatively short, there is a risk that a councillor might merely refer the matter to the relevant committee and add to bureaucracy, about which we have already talked, and if it is too long, the public will obviously be frustrated that nothing is being done. It is important that the Committee gets a feeling of where the Government are coming from.

On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that the power was intended to be a backstop, and that it should only be used when everything else has broken down. I take it that that is the approach. As hon. Members have said, the proposals appear to be very bureaucratic. I am grateful to the Minister for providing the flowchart, but it is not necessarily available to members of the public seeking to resolve antisocial behaviour issues.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

It is on the website.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

It might be on the website, but, owing to social exclusion and other such issues, not everybody has access to the website, particularly those in areas most afflicted by antisocial behaviour and crime.

I am confused also about how the process will sit alongside the safer neighbourhood teams. Surely, the first port of call should not be the councillor necessarily, but the safer neighbourhood team. As we know, the Government are instilling the approach of having mobile phone numbers and e-mail addresses for those in the safer neighbourhood teams. Surely, the new process will add to the confusion, because in some ways, the public should be contacting their safer neighbourhood team rather than thinking, “Ah, we have the community call to action, we will go to our ward councillor.”

That councillor would have to think about how quickly to respond, to whom they must respond, whether it should go to the committee, and if not, whether it should go to the executive committee which would then have to consider whether to take it to the relevant committee, report on it, investigate the matter and make a further report. And what happens after that? Obviously, that process has limited teeth, whereas in practice, the safer neighbourhood teams should be proactive, and have public meetings to engage with the public. The direct link is with the safer neighbourhood team and not the rather bureaucratic and protracted process set out in the Bill.

I am sure that the Minister will say that this is a backstop measure—one perhaps intended to be used in cases in which the relationship with the safer neighbourhood team has broken down or some other frustration has occurred. We could end up with the absurd situation in which people who are unhappy with what is happening in their locality through their safer neighbourhood team make a formal complaint about the police not through this mechanism but through the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A complaint could be made about a councillor if that person did not respond properly, so, again, there could be a bureaucratic mess.

I know that that is not the intention behind the provisions. However, my fear is that the practical effect could be additional delays, whereas the most effective means of dealing with the matter would be to use the safer neighbourhood team and to build a relationship with it. Ultimately, on most low-level crime and disorder, the safer neighbourhood team, working in partnership with the local authority, will be responsible for remedying of the sort of issue set out here. That needs to be the focus, rather than a somewhat bureaucratic mechanism that might do nothing other than make recommendations to the safer neighbourhood team, so the process would go full circle. The safer neighbourhood team is the key; we have already heard the emphasis that has been put on it. I do not disagree with a community call to action, but the provisions before us do not add much to having a good safer neighbourhood team. We should emphasise the importance of having effective policing in the first place rather than using a bureaucratic structure that requires us to go round in a circle.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am delighted that the proposal to introduce a community call to action appears to have widespread and all-party support, despite the final comments of the hon. Member for Brokenshire, which I shall come to in due course. The hon. Member for Cheltenham welcomed the proposals and referred to his experience, as a local councillor, of the effectiveness of overview and scrutiny committees. I, too was a local councillor for some eight years at a time when overview and scrutiny committees were just being introduced, and as a Member of Parliament, I find that my local scrutiny committee is very effective in holding a range of different partners to account. I am grateful for that initial welcome.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who is experiencing great frustration, was chair of his scrutiny committee and regularly held to account the CDRP as well as youth offending teams and the various partners involved in trying to tackle crime locally. He tells me—I cannot think of a way of saying this in parliamentary terms—that “we kicked butt on many occasions.” I am sure that he was very rigorous in his scrutiny of those organisations, but that he did it in a friendly and constructive way with his local partners.

The Government amendments are fairly straightforward. They seek to ensure that we have the same provisions for overview and scrutiny and for community call to action in the small number of authorities that have not adopted the format of a local authority cabinet and a leader. Some councils still operate a traditional committee structure. Rather than seek lengthy drafting amendments to the Bill, we have drafted some all-encompassing new clauses that deal with authorities that are organised in a range of ways. Every community should have the powers set out in the Bill.

We said in the respect action plan that we would introduce a community call to action to enable local residents to get action taken not just by the police but by a range of community safety partners if they had problems that had existed for a considerable time and had not been addressed. We are on record as having said that we view these powers as powers of last resort, not as a mainstream way of doing business. Where there is good, effective neighbourhood policing, local communities should not need to resort to the mechanisms that we have set up here. All of us want problems to be resolved at the earliest opportunity, but members of the public in some of the communities that I visit still sometimes experience problems such as abandoned cars, graffiti, gangs hanging around, and intimidation, and those problems are sometimes not properly dealt with by all the partners.

The police also sometimes feel frustration because they do not think that the scrutiny to which they are subject is necessarily applied to all the other partners. Equally, other partners may say that the police need more accountability. At local level there is consensus: all the partners want to make sure that everyone is playing their part in tackling local community safety problems. That is exactly what the powers in question are designed to do.

I am a bit disappointed in Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Brokenshire—[Laughter]—because of their lack of confidence and faith in local councillors. The thrust of the community call for action is ensuring that the councillor is the advocate for the community. That is what councillors are elected for, and that is their job. The Local Government Association was pleased that, rather than creating a different set of mechanisms to deal with the problems, we chose to put local government at the centre of the process of dealing with those problems in communities.

That is why we want people in the first instance to go to their local councillor, who then has a duty only to respond. I remind the hon. Member for Cheltenham that the councillor can take a view that the matter in question is not one that it would be appropriate to pursue through the process. The Bill requires the ward councillor to respond, but not necessarily to resolve the issue. The response could be that the matter will not be taken further, if it is considered that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or not worth pursuing. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

That gives me some reassurance, but under new section 21A(4)(b) the first thing expected of a councillor would be to

“consider the matter and respond to the person who asked him to consider it, indicating what (if any) action he proposes to take”.

There is thus an onus, in law, on the councillor to take some action in response.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The section states that the councillor

“must consider the matter and respond to the person who asked him to consider it, indicating what (if any) action he proposes to take”.

Therefore the councillor could respond, “I do not propose to take any action, because I think your complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or not worthy of a response.” As the locally elected member he or she would have the right to do that; it would be perfectly proper, which is why the provision takes that form. The subsection also provides that the councillor may refer the matter on, but it is perfectly proper for him to act as the gateway to the system.

It has been put to me that making the local councillor the centre of the matter may be difficult if the relevant councillor is not as active as one might want. However, it is important to use the democratic process to get action. If other mechanisms are set up, bypassing local councillors, the importance of local government in our system is undermined. Many of the reforms in the Bill are to do with making a stronger relationship between the police and local government, because that is the way better to tackle the problems of crime and disorder.

James Brokenshirerose—

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I give way with great pleasure to the hon. Member for Brokenshire.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I thank the Minister for her creation of what I hope will be my new seat at the next election. Brokenshire sounds very good, and I am very grateful to her.

Perhaps she could clarify a couple of points for me. What sanctions should apply to councillors who do not comply with the call to action? Does she agree that there could be a confusion in the public’s mind, given that the emphasis is on publicising the contacts with the safer neighbourhood team? Without denigrating the role of the councillor in the local community, surely the focus, including publicity, should be on the safer neighbourhood team, at least in the first instance. My understanding of the structure is that it is only if there is a problem that it should be necessary to rely on the mechanism in question.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary makes the point that perhaps Surrey and Sussex might be Brokenshire. Maybe that is dangerous territory. My apologies to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) for getting it so wrong. I have always thought of him as having a fiefdom in his own shire, like a lord of the manor.

I am delighted that he is so supportive of the safer neighbourhood teams that this Government have implemented as part of our commitment to neighbourhood policing. I am delighted, too, that he thinks that they are doing such a good job. He is right: safer neighbourhood teams will receive publicity to build relationships and contact. I hope that the community call for action will not languish on the Home Office website, but be part of a proper communication with local people about the police’s new powers to tackle the range of issues that concern them.

If we are genuinely to empower people, it is important to give them the information that they need to get the authorities they rely on to take action to tackle the problems that are important to them. I quote a statement by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on Tory aims and values:

“We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities”.

Nothing empowers communities more than the kind of power that we have set out in the respect plan, particularly the community call for action. It is radical, innovative, new, creative and imaginative, and it is about shifting power from the institutions of the state—the local authorities and police—into the hands of local people, so that they can challenge and get action on the things that are important to them.

The Government are doing something practical about the words “empower communities”. In marked contrast with the Conservative party, this Government are introducing practical mechanisms, so that local people who have been the subject of antisocial behaviour for far too long can get the authorities to respond properly. It is not a mainstream way of doing business. Because of the improvements that we are bringing to neighbourhood policing and our massive investment, particularly in safer neighbourhood teams, hopefully, people will not have to resort to that power every day.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The Minister said that some councillors might be more rigorous and responsive than others. What if a councillor believes that there is no action to be taken? What if they are not very responsive? What will the community member do who can get no action?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

There are two things to say about that. If the councillor does not take action, the local residents will have the right to refer that directly to the executive of the council. We will set that out in guidance, with time scales and periods in which they must respond.

It is a democratic process. If the councillor, from whichever party, is not doing their job, the remedy lies in the elector’s own hands. Local authorities can also take measures. If people are not performing the duties that they are there to do, councils have internal mechanisms to deal with them. There is a series of ways to make it work.

Several hon. Members have questioned whether the overview and scrutiny committees will be effective. A recent survey of health service scrutiny found that 71 per cent. of issues raised with overview and scrutiny committees led to policy or decision changes resulting from the committees’ input. Overview and scrutiny committees are not bodies without teeth. They will not simply be talking shops. In many cases, although not all of them, the committees’ ability to examine the performance of a service leads to performance improvements and changes how the service operates. Another recent survey found that 45 per cent. of people who raised issues felt a significantly higher satisfaction level as a result of getting in touch with the committees.

The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the partnership in his area was initially sceptical about partnership working, but it has developed over a number of years and the people involved now feel that it is the best way—those are his words—to bring all the partners together at local level to tackle such issues. Equally, we shall have the same kind of scepticism about—

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Why are they going to be abolished?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

They are not going to be abolished.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Why merge them, then?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

They are not going to be merged. The crime and disorder reduction partnerships will decide for themselves the most effective way to come together and to serve the local community. That is localism.

I can tell the hon. Member for Cheltenham that overview and scrutiny committees were initially viewed with scepticism, but as they develop more capacity and as the system becomes more rigorous, they will gain the same kind of respect that crime and disorder reduction partnerships have gained for the way in which they operate.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139, tabled by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, would insert an extra step and allow the councillor to resolve matters with the responsible authority. Given the assurance that the guidance will include a provision that councillors should attempt to resolve the issue with the relevant responsible authority, the amendments are unnecessary. It is important that the councillor tries to deal with the matter informally and at an early stage.

Amendment (a) to Government new clause 9 would remove the ability to specify the periods within which councillors would need to deal with a request. It is vital that such periods should be in place, otherwise a councillor could sit on an issue and not take action. It is important for the community that the councillor should act.

Finally, I turn to the accountability of the local strategic partnership and the CDRP. For the sake of clarity—such matters can be full of jargon and technical detail—the CDRP will be accountable to the LSP for delivery of the commitments that it has made through its local area agreements. The LSP is the overarching partnership that considers local area agreements. Publicly accountability will be through the overview and scrutiny committee.

It is not impossible to have a different set of accountabilities. There does not have to be simply one line of accountability. The police have direct accountability at force level to the police authority. Equally, with local government, they will make an important contribution to the community safety agenda. We do not want a silo of police accountability, which is simply about policing. We also want horizontal accountability, input into community safety policies and a much closer relationship, with local government, the elected member for community safety and the portfolio holder having a much more visible role, together with the borough commander.

That system of accountability will give the public a sense that those groups are responsible for delivering crime and disorder policies. Such accountability and answerability will make the system stronger and more rigorous at the local level, and it will give the community the assurance that those people are responsible to them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I thank the Minister for her comments. I am reassured on some matters, although I am not sure that she has addressed some of the specific problems that I pointed out, such as the risk that vocal minorities might sometimes overwhelm the process, and the fact that onerous responsibilities will be placed on ward councillors. I hope that she will take those into consideration.

Speaking as a former ward councillor, I am aware that many responsibilities and duties, and much casework have already landed on councillors’ desks. I was quoting my experience in that context; I have attended overview and scrutiny committees only since becoming an MP. Far be it from me to give campaigning tips to members of other parties, but it is extremely useful to attend the local overview and scrutiny committee. Even as an MP, one can find out a lot of useful information from that forum.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—in the county of Brokenshire—when he appeared to reject the idea of using an overview and scrutiny committee. I apologise, but I meant to say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch, not with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.

The hon. Member for Hornchurch nevertheless raised an important point about the novelty of involving local ward councillors in law and order. It is not something that members of the public would naturally know about or understand. I look forward to a Government advertising campaign enlightening us about that. As I said, however, I support the basic model of involving a ward councillor and using an overview and scrutiny committee.

I have much sympathy with the attempt by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to add further detail to the Bill. However, if guidance can be provided less formally than in the Bill, it is not necessarily right to lay out a cast iron process in legislation on how things should be done. If, for instance, a ward councillor is asked to deal with an outbreak of antisocial activity in, say, Carnarvon park or Naunton park, they might realise that they could resolve that by first talking to local officers or the crime and disorder reduction partnership, without having to be told to do so by the Bill.

If, however, there is a riot in the councillor’s constituency that they feel has been mishandled by the local police, they might have to take that immediately to the overview and scrutiny committee for an inquiry. I think that common sense ought to have some role, and therefore I am not sympathetic to amendments Nos. 138 and 139, although I am slightly concerned by the Minister’s response, which was that yet more guidance, timetables and timelines will be issued to local councillors. I hope that those will be measured and will not place disproportionate responsibilities on local councillors.

In summary, I am content to seek to withdraw the amendment, but I think that the debate has highlighted the potential for confusion. The Minister said that we do not want to have responsibilities in silos, but there is a risk of it looking less like a silo and more like a haystack. Clarity of function and purpose is needed, although we should retain the overview and scrutiny committee and community call to action models, which have great value.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that mergers of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, about which I expressed concern, will not be compelled by the Government. I think that that is what she said, and that is important. It will reassure members of successful crime and disorder reduction partnerships at a district level. They should be allowed to maintain that configuration if they judge that that is right for the local community.

The Minister said that guidance on the initial referral to the crime and disorder reduction partnership would do, and that it was not necessary to put it in the Bill. I have some problems with that. First, all the other steps are written into primary legislation, yet that step, which should be the first and an important one, because if at all possible, the matter should be dealt with by the crime and disorder reduction partnership, will be subject to guidance. That is anomalous. Either all the steps should be the subject of guidance, which presumably would not be satisfactory, or they should all be in the Bill. As it is, some steps are in the Bill, and some are not.

On a more substantive point, if something is only a matter of guidance, it is not necessarily enforceable. All the other steps are enforceable. The councillor and certain committees must take action, but referral to the CDRP, although desirable, will not be enforceable. That is an important matter. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) is shaking her head—I do not know whether she is shaking it at me.

Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)

I just think that the hon. Gentleman is repeating his speech.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am not. I had not mentioned enforceability—the specific point that I am now raising, and which was raised by the Association of Police Authorities. That is a serious matter and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be shaking her head. I am entitled to respond to the Minister’s dismissal of my suggestion.

I was not entirely persuaded by what the Minister said about accountability, because she used different words from those used in the Home Office’s guidance, which says that the primary accountability for crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee. I think therefore that we have successfully made the point that there is a potential conflict. Her response did not seem to be consistent with the Home Office’s guidance, which we will read carefully. The potential bureaucratic overlap will have to be examined.

Finally, I shall respond briefly to the Minister’s general points about community empowerment. We are happy to support the mechanism for a community call to action. However, it is subject to our earlier deliberations in Committee that it was no substitute for proper local accountability, which should be achieved through the ballot box. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position, “Elected chief constables.” We have never suggested that chief constables should be elected.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I was referring to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), who has said that his policy is to have elected chief constables.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am happy to tell the right hon. Lady that the proposal, as she knows, is for either directly elected local police authorities or an elected official to whom the chief constable will respond. I am talking about the substitution of local accountability for the national direction that chief constables are increasingly under. That would be a form of community empowerment.

We are discussing a reserve power. The Minister conceded that it is only to be used, she hopes, in exceptional circumstances. It is different from a direct form of local accountability. To suggest that it is in some way a dramatic new form of accountability is to over-egg the proposal considerably. By its nature, it will be bureaucratic and highly procedural. Complicated steps are built into it. It will not be a satisfactory alternative to the sort of local accountability that we have proposed. While we are happy to support the provision as a step in the right direction, I want the Minister to be clear that we have worries about it.

James Brokenshirerose—

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

I am tempted to call James Hornchurch.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

I want to clarify a couple of points. I have emphasised that my amendment was a probing amendment. I do not oppose local councillors playing an active role in their communities. I believe strongly in that. I do not want the provision in some way to detract away the need for effective local policing. That should solve the problems. It is the key element. If the safer neighbourhood teams are being effective, they will be holding public meetings and will be hearing loudly and clearly a call to action.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The hon. Gentleman is a little puzzling. He earlier welcomed the concept of a community call to action, but he now seems to be suggesting that that can be done under the current structures and without using an overview and scrutiny committee as the model. As a result, not much will be left of a community call to action. What form will it take without the proposals?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

My reading of the Bill is that the measure is intended as a back-up and that it should be used only when the existing practical mechanisms of policing on the ground and the crime and disorder reduction partnerships are falling down. That is my understanding of what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading and from everything that I have heard the Minister say today. The measure is supplementary; it sits alongside the policing model.

Given the practicalities of safer neighbourhood teams in operation, I know that they will be holding public meetings. In many ways, if matters are working effectively, the public will already be directing their attention to particular problems within their local community. I certainly support practical, effective policing on the ground. The issue is whether the safer neighbourhood teams will be properly funded and supported, and whether they will have the protection in the wards that is envisaged at the moment, but which may start to be watered down. The call to action is a fall-back measure to act against that.

I welcome the proposal, but it needs to be a fall-back measure. It should not be seen as detracting from effective neighbourhood policing, which is what we all want in communities throughout the country.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 16 - Parenting contracts: local authorities and registered social landlords

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 16, page 14, line 23, leave out

‘, or is likely to engage,’.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 51, in clause 16, page 14, line 26, at end insert—

‘(c)the local authority has undertaken an assessment of need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)’.

No. 52, in clause 17, page 16, line 28, at end insert—

‘(c)the local authority has undertaken an assessment of need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)’.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The introduction of parenting contracts is yet another possible tool in the increasingly large armoury that includes acceptable behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour orders, which if used appropriately are broadly welcome steps that can add flexibility—[Interruption.] No, I think that this is established Liberal Democrat policy, I am afraid. I refer the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) to our recent manifestos and policy statements.

We welcome a range of flexible approaches to police and criminal justice, and if used appropriately such tools can do a lot of good. However, it is important to understand that they are not the whole solution. The solution to antisocial behaviour has deeper roots and involves a range of agencies and approaches that do not all involve the criminal justice system. As I have said, extensive use has been made of ASBOs in my own constituency. I have examples of ASBOs being promoted without the young person’s school or the youth service team appropriately being consulted. Since a large number of ASBOs are placed on younger people, that is an important issue when we look at other models such as acceptable behaviour contracts or parenting contracts.

The British Institute for Brain Injured Children has drawn attention to the example of a 14-year-old boy who was given an ASBO that included a curfew. He had to stay in at a particular time, but he had a mental age of less than seven and could not tell the time. There are risks to the new approaches, and we have to guard against their inappropriate use.

The clause provides for counselling and guidance programmes, which are very welcome. The amendments seek further safeguards, including a formal assessment of need and the removal of the targeting of a child or young person who

“has engaged, or is likely to engage, in anti-social behaviour”

as set out in proposed new subsection 25A(1)(a). I know that the Children’s Society has drawn attention to that point and is worried about it. It says:

“it is of great concern that a contract could be sought even though a young person has not actually displayed any anti-social behaviour, especially since refusal to sign one can be cited as grounds for application for a parenting order, breach of which can lead to a level 3 (£1,000) fine.”

It is quite a serious issue. The Secretary of State may have many talents, but the ability to foretell the future and predict antisocial behaviour is not one of them. The intention behind these probing amendments is to discover whether the Government are prepared to put a few more safeguards in the clause.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

This clause allows local authorities and registered social landlords to enter into parenting contracts. “Contract” is the important word. The contract is not a parenting order, but an entirely voluntary agreement between a local authority and the parents to have a contract setting out steps to be taken to support the parents in ensuring that their children do not get involved in antisocial behaviour. Amendment No. 50 would prevent local authorities from providing such support to prevent problems from escalating. A whole strand of our approach in the respect action plan was to do much more prevention, early intervention, and diversion, rather than wait until problems have got to such a pitch that ASBOs or dispersal orders—the harder set of powers—become necessary.

We want to ensure that support is offered at an early stage, both for the benefit of communities and for the sake of the families concerned. That is why we have made £52 million available through the respect action plan to support parenting interventions across the board. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his party would have welcomed the Government’s approach. Our aim is to give support, and our proposals are supported by the Youth Justice Board. I know from the hon. Gentleman’s opening comments that his party has changed its policy and supports many of the measures that we have introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I had hoped that, on this occasion, he would also want us to help children in that position; however, his amendment would undermine our policy.

Local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that careful assessments are made of children’s situations. Such assessments will examine the interaction of risk and protective factors in children’s lives. If they provide evidence that the children are likely to offend, the local authorities will first attempt to engage the parents on a voluntary basis to steer the children away from criminal or antisocial behaviour. We all know that involving parents at an early stage helps to prevent such behaviour from becoming entrenched. The statutory guidance that is published will reflect the importance of the assessment of need, so that an holistic approach is taken and underlying problems are addressed.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The Minister knows that I support the use of early intervention to tackle such problems at an early stage. One of the Government’s best initiatives since they were first elected has been the Sure Start programme, which has done enormously good work in trying to tackle problems at an early stage. It is mischievous of Labour Members to interpret certain votes in the past, which related to other parts of legislation that was under consideration at the time, as opposition to ASBOs. My party has never opposed the appropriate use of ASBOs, and the record will show that—I can probably send it to the right hon. Lady.

The Minister seems to be objecting to things that I did not say. The amendments suggest making an assessment of need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Why does she think that that cannot form a part of the early intervention process?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am about to come to the hon. Gentleman’s other amendments. In the first, he seeks to remove the possibility of having a parenting contract if somebody is likely to engage in antisocial behaviour, so he is saying that we have to reach a point at which antisocial behaviour is already taking place before we can have a parenting contract. If he genuinely believed in early intervention, he would not have tabled that amendment.

In the hon. Gentleman’s second set of amendments, he makes a serious point. We have a responsibility to children and their families to provide support at the earliest possible stage. In amendments Nos. 51 and 52, he talks about an assessment under section 17 of the Children Act. That assessment is very detailed, whereas we want the flexibility for the people on the front line to be able to carry out an assessment. The existing common assessment framework should be the first assessment used unless there are concerns that suggest an urgent need for a specialist assessment to be made without delay.

The assessment in section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a more detailed and specialist assessment than the common assessment framework that is in place and which, in these circumstances, should be sufficient to give the background, evidence and information that are necessary in order to enter into a parenting contract or a parenting order. We recognise that parenting orders, in particular, can have an impact on a families. Of course, we would encourage local authorities to consider whether there is a need for further specialist assessment in relation to the individuals concerned.

The common assessment framework is a nationally standardised approach to conducting an assessment of the needs of a child or young person. It has been developed for use by practitioners in all agencies to allow them to communicate and to work more effectively together, meaning that an assessment carried out by an education welfare officer will not differ from that carried out by a social worker. It is important that there is common framework for assessment because work can be done in a more integrated way. The framework has been designed to encourage greater sharing of information among practitioners and it promotes early intervention if additional needs are observed.

All local authority areas should be preparing for and implementing the common assessment framework, and resources such as guidance and factsheets are in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the framework is a more appropriate way to proceed than the lengthy and detailed assessment that would be required under section 17.

On that subject, by highlighting a particular case that involved restrictions in an antisocial behaviour order the hon. Gentleman sought to discredit some of the powers used in this area. So far, he has taken a more constructive approach than many members of his party. However, to use a completely atypical case to undermine the antisocial behaviour powers illustrates, yet again, that although the Liberal Democrats always say that they support the ends, they will not support the means. They say that they support tackling antisocial behaviour. They say that they are on the side of the community and that they want the problems to be addressed, but when it comes to the means to achieve those objectives, when it comes to being prepared to tackle the issues that are most important to antisocial behaviour, very often they are prepared to will the ends but never the means.

The Liberal Democrats opposed the use of antisocial behaviour orders and dispersal orders tooth and nail. They voted against our antisocial behaviour legislation. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more honest, rather than quote such atypical cases in an attempt to undermine the Bill. The public do not want that. We have a responsibility to the children and their parents to ensure that we intervene early. We must give them support and ensure that parenting classes are offered. We must help people to change their lives and to have the chance to live in a much better way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I agree that early intervention is a good method and that antisocial behaviour need not have reached such a level as to require an antisocial behaviour order before a parenting contract is introduced. However, that is not what clause 16 says. It says the

“local authority has reason to believe that the child or young person has engaged, or is likely to engage, in anti-social behaviour”.

It does not say what level of antisocial behaviour. Surely, to justify that kind of action, there must have been some kind of antisocial behaviour. Just to say

“is likely to engage”

implies clairvoyance on the part of the authorities. There needs to be some evidence of antisocial behaviour to require a parenting contract. Otherwise, the legislation seems open to abuse.

The Minister referred to amendment No. 51 on the requirement for an assessment of need. I appreciate that section 17 of the Children Act may not be the most appropriate methodology and my knowledge of it is not deep enough to justify that amendment. I am therefore content to withdraw it. The Minister should accept, however, that a process will be required and she may wish to table amendments at a later stage.

I defend the use of atypical cases. In any legislation where civil liberties might be at risk, atypical cases are important. An injustice done to one person is an injustice none the less. When introducing new legislation, it should always give us pause for thought if previous legislation on the same model—as was the case with ASBOs—has led to several cases that were undoubtedly unjust to the individuals involved. The case I referred to is not the only example. Liberty will provide us with many, many more. That does not mean that ASBOs are wrong or inappropriate and that we should reject them, but it puts an onus on us, as law-makers, to introduce the safeguards that we can. I hope that the Minister will consider these points more seriously in future.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 16, page 15, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 16.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in clause 17, page 17, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 18.

No. 116, in clause 17, page 18, line 12, leave out

‘or registered social landlord (“a relevant authority”)’.

No. 117, in clause 17, page 18, line 21, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 118, in clause 17, page 18, line 24, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 119, in clause 17, page 18, line 28, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 120, in clause 17, page 18, line 30, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

No. 121, in clause 17, page 18, line 33, leave out ‘relevant’ and insert ‘local’.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The amendment relates to the proposal to give the powers set out in the clause to social landlords. It would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to provide by order for local authorities to subcontract their powers to enter into parenting contracts or to apply for parenting orders.

The question is one of appropriateness. Social landlords often have a wide role. I know that Cheltenham Borough Homes in my constituency has a role in considering the behaviour and social environment of the housing for which it is responsible. Nevertheless, its expertise is in housing management; that is its primary function. It is important that we take such issues seriously and that we have mechanisms to tackle antisocial behaviour and the need for better parenting—and better behaviour in general—but I am not sure that it is appropriate to extend such powers to social landlords, because they do not have the necessary training or expertise.

I refer the Minister to the comments of Children’s Society, which refers to the respect action plan—that should bring a warm glow to her heart. It states:

“As the Respect Action Plan stated, evidence from Sure Start and youth offending programmes shows that the level of skill and training of the member of staff delivering a parenting intervention is crucial. Appropriate and effective decisions on making or implementing parenting contracts or orders requires expertise in assessing parenting skills and delivering parenting support. Such specialist resources and skills are generally not located within social landlords but within local authorities and other agencies.”

I agree.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Mention of the respect action plan brought a warm glow to my heart because, as I explained in relation to previous amendments, it puts a real emphasis on early intervention, trying to nip problems in the bud and generally trying to support parents in tackling the sometimes difficult issues that they have to face.

The respect action plan is about continuing our action on antisocial behaviour, but it is also very much about deepening and sustaining the measures that we can take so that families can genuinely change their behaviour. That helps the rest of the community; it has a huge impact on the quality of life for all families in the area. That is why parenting contracts and parenting orders are so important. We want to extend the range of agencies able to enter into parenting contracts or apply for parenting orders. The remedy is one that is considered far more frequently, and rather being confined to local authorities, social services and education, it should come to the minds of a range of agencies involved in improving the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. That is why we want to extend it to others with a role in tackling antisocial behaviour.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Does the Minister accept that, on Second Reading, Members on all sides of the House expressed doubt about registered social landlords being an appropriate outsource agency, as they did not have the training? Although the Home Secretary gave assurances on the Floor of the House that there would be training, I hope that the Minister understands the reason for those reservations.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes, I well recall the debate. I indicated then that it would be appropriate for people to have proper training to deal with young people and families if they were going to be active in that field.

Many social landlords do not carry out their functions in a narrow, defined way, restricted to housing, collecting the rent and doing repairs. Many take their responsibilities seriously, extending their activities to tenant management and ensuring that people behave properly, as well as the traditional housing management functions. Many want to be able to train their staff to have the skills and manage their estates properly. That may include entering into parenting contracts as part of their wider management responsibilities, to ensure that neighbourhoods and estates are managed properly, meaning that everybody can live their in peace and quiet without the prospect of antisocial behaviour taking place.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Has the Minister considered that a registered social landlord may consult the youth offending team or experts from the local authority who already have that expertise, so that they, rather than the registered social landlord, may enact the order?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

It is perfectly open for registered social landlords to work with the local authorities and many of them will do that—particularly the smaller ones that do not have the facilities and capacity to train their staff to deal with such issues. However, that is not a reason to prevent registered social landlords that genuinely want it to have the responsibility and the powers, because that will help them to manage their estates better. We should not prevent them from doing that.

At the moment, registered social landlords have the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders. Entering into parenting contracts is much less of a sanction than applying for an antisocial behaviour order. Again, it is a voluntary process—an agreement between the parents and the landlord—and I am sure that the landlords will seek the expertise of the local authorities already involved in this area.

I genuinely think that trying to spread the responsibility for tackling antisocial behaviour beyond the traditional enforcement and support agencies is important; in that way, there will be a sense that antisocial behaviour is everybody’s business. The problems of solving antisocial behaviour are such that every agency should be thinking about it in their strategies and training and considering whether they have the staff to deal with it. Giving wider powers to local authorities and registered social landlords to enter into parenting contracts and to apply for parenting orders is useful.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

What guarantees can the Minister give that those would not be used for the wrong reasons? What would be the checks and balances for a social registered landlord that took a dislike to a family?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The checks and balances are that the contracts would be voluntary—a person does not have to enter into a contract—and an order would be made by the court, which will make such an order where it thinks that it is appropriate to do so. It is not a matter of the landlord imposing an order on a family: the landlord would have to make an application, and the question whether it was appropriate would be considered. I think that even the hon. Lady would think that the court’s oversight would be a sufficient reassurance and safeguard.

I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I think that intervention in family life is a serious, sensitive matter and the state should tread lightly and cautiously. As I have said, we Liberal Democrats welcome the idea of parenting contracts as an addition to the range of tools available to local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. However, to extend and expand those responsibilities to a whole range of agencies would go beyond proper caution and would, potentially, hand to agencies extremely sensitive, delicate powers that would be quite outside their comfort zones and range of experience. In fact, when the Minister said just now that such agencies could draw on the expertise of local authorities, she implicitly accepted that they do not have that expertise at the moment and thinks it unlikely that they will have it.

The Minister also asserted that many registered social landlords want these powers, but I am not so sure. If I were an officer of Cheltenham Borough Homes, or another registered social landlord, I might hesitate before getting involved in parenting matters. One can imagine the kind of liabilities that might arise from intervening wrongly or inappropriately and the kind of complexities that might be added to an already challenging job. I should be interested to know if the Minister has any evidence for registered social landlords demanding these powers, but I should be surprised if many of their officers on the ground are demanding them very loudly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, registered social landlords often work well in partnership with local authorities and other agencies in providing a measure of broader scrutiny of estates and housing under their responsibility, with a view to trying to contain antisocial behaviour. I have seen that done well in my constituency. But, as my hon. Friend also said, they can always call on the expertise of other agencies such as local authorities to impose parenting contracts at that time. They do not need the responsibility themselves. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 19 - Anti-social behaviour injunctions

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 123, in clause 19, page 20, line 19, leave out

‘(who need not be a particular identified person)’.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 124, in clause 19, page 20, line 41, leave out

‘Without prejudice to the generality of the court’s power under subsection (2), a kind of conduct may’

and insert

‘A kind of conduct must’.

No. 125, in clause 19, page 20, line 43, leave out from ‘reference’ to end of line 45.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The purpose of the probing amendments is to test the appropriateness of clause 19’s wording. It is good for those with a liberal conscience or liberal tendencies to beware of crimes without victims. I understand the purpose of some of the wording, particularly in subsection (4), which would protect the identity of particular individuals. In my constituency, quite a large number of local people were victimising one family, and the conflict had racist elements. It would have been extremely counterproductive for that family to be named. The amendments would not make that impossible, because they are carefully framed.

The amendments would remove the ability of antisocial behaviour injunctions to refer to “persons generally”, which we believe is too broad, but would leave the ability to name individuals if appropriate and to describe people, as in subsection (4)(b), which refers to

“persons of a description specified in the injunction”.

It would still be possible to protect the identity of local residents and of individuals or families.

It is risky to allow injunctions for behaviour that an authority believes to be antisocial, but for which no evidence has been received. In other words, someone could effectively be found guilty of a crime with no victims. On one occasion when I was canvassing locally, I was told by neighbourhood people about antisocial behaviour. The antisocial behaviour that they were referring to was local kids playing football on the green space nearby. I was as sympathetic as I could be, but I could not see what possible harm there was in such behaviour.

By allowing that to be regarded as antisocial behaviour, even though no one was prepared to come forward to put their name to a complaint, the Bill would allow the risk that those children might be unfairly treated under an injunction for doing something that really offended no one and caused no real harm. The amendments would remove the references to “persons generally”, but would leave the reference either to specific people or to people by description.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

It is Thursday afternoon at the end of a heavy week, and I shall do my very best to be kind and polite to the hon. Gentleman, despite his provoking suggestions that antisocial behaviour is about kids playing football in the street. I do not know what kind of community he lives in—I am not familiar with his constituency—but I must say to him that antisocial behaviour problems in many communities are of a significantly different order.

I have visited communities up and down the country, and in all kinds of areas—market towns and rural areas as well as inner-city areas—problems of antisocial behaviour are significant and, in many cases, of long standing. They have blighted the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people, many of whom are elderly or vulnerable. The proposal will ensure that we can take action but at the same time protect vulnerable people from the prospect of reprisals and intimidation, which often occur and which make them feel extremely frightened. This is a small provision, but the powers that it gives will help to protect those worried individuals.

The proposal is intended to try to give clear guidance to the courts that there is no need for the victims of antisocial behaviour to be specified in injunctions taken out to offer communities respite and protection. That should be the case, but the courts unfortunately sometimes interpret such legislation very narrowly and insist that if a housing-related injunction is taken out, it has to name the individuals. In terms of the general law, that should not have to be done, and the proposal makes it clear that it does not have to be the case. Naming individuals tells the perpetrators who is complaining about them and significantly increases the likelihood of reprisals. We want to avoid such situations if we can, which is why we have tried to make the clause as clear as possible.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s illustration, when an injunction is applied for, it is the court that makes the order and has to be satisfied that what is going on is sufficiently serious to merit the granting of an injunction, which is quite a significant court power. I am not aware of any court that would grant an injunction lightly or frivolously on the basis of information that did not constitute behaviour that was causing people significant problems.

I say to the hon. Gentleman again, as politely and gently as I can, that when we discuss antisocial behaviour we should be aware of the depth of the problems that people experience and how important it is to protect them. I have come across many people in their 70s and 80s who have shown great courage when they have been exposed to horrific situations. They have been prepared to go to court and take a stand, to give evidence and be a witness in a case that has caused them huge personal distress. When decent people are prepared to stand up and come forward, we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to protect them and to ensure that they are not unnecessarily exposed to the possibility of intimidation, harassment and reprisals from the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. That makes our position very clear indeed, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I think the Minister has badly misunderstood what I was saying, but that may be due to my inadequacy in explaining it, for which I apologise. I referred to an example of racist victimisation and intimidation in my constituency, so I think the Minister should understand that I appreciate that there is a great deal of antisocial behaviour, which causes very serious problems for people and communities. Unfortunately, some of it is in my constituency, and it is quite serious.

The risk in the Bill is that because people perceive antisocial behaviour differently, there is a possibility that inappropriate action might be taken against someone in a situation where there is no real victim. However, I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s remarks.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but subsection (2) states:

“The court on the application of a relevant landlord may grant an anti-social behaviour injunction if the condition ... is satisfied.”

The court will make the order. If no damage is being caused to people, I do not think a court, of its own volition, would want to make an order if there was no one to protect.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

That may be one of the Minister’s reassuring comments. On the other hand, I quoted an example at the opposite extreme to the more serious case of antisocial behaviour, which I did not regard as very serious and where I saw no victims, but the perception among some local people was that there was antisocial behaviour. I suppose we have to trust the court to make the right judgment in the circumstances.

The Minister also misunderstands the purpose of amendment No. 125. The idea was not to have to name individuals or to leave courts with the misapprehension that they had to name individuals in antisocial behaviour orders, but to remove the reference to “persons generally”. There has to be a middle ground between that very broad description and the naming of individuals. That middle ground is set out in subsection (4)(b), which refers

“to persons of a description specified in the injunction”.

The middle ground is there in the Bill; we are simply trying to remove the even more general description, which we felt was open to abuse. I hope that the Minister will take that into account and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 102 and 104.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The purpose of the Government amendments is to give power to the Welsh Assembly to bring clause 19 into force, bringing it into line with clause 20, for which a separate commencement provision for Wales is already included. It is consistent with the devolution settlement.

Clause 20 - Injunctions in local authority proceedings: power of arrest and remand

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 20, page 21, line 25, at end insert ‘on bail’.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 127, in clause 20, page 21, leave out lines 34 and 35.

No. 128, in clause 20, page 21, line 36, leave out ‘in any other case’.

No. 129, in schedule 7, page 84, leave out lines 37 to 39.

No. 130, in schedule 7, page 84, line 40, leave out ‘him’ and insert ‘the person’.

No. 131, in schedule 7, page 85, line 21, leave out

No. 132, in schedule 7, page 85, leave out lines 26 to 28.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The amendments address what we see as the possible blurring of the line between civil and criminal law, and the risk of increasing the use of custody when it may not be appropriate. The amendments would remove the court’s power to remand a person in custody if they were arrested for breach of an anti-social behaviour injunction. The amendments would not restrict the court’s power to remand a person on bail where they had breached such an ASBI.

The explanatory notes state that

“the court may attach a power of arrest to the injunction in certain cases, namely where the conduct in question consists of or includes the use of violence, or there is a significant risk of harm. That means that a person who is suspected of breaching the conditions in the injunction can be arrested.”

I am a little surprised by that, because surely if violence is involved, the conduct ought to be classified as a criminal offence. I should be grateful if the Minister could expand on that.

The Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out the risks of the clause sucking larger numbers of people into custody who otherwise would not be there. Their comment say that:

“More than 6,000 ASBOs have been issued and over 40 per cent. are breached.”

They continue:

“To give the courts the power to remand in custody pending a court appearance would inevitably lead to a significant number of people spending months in crowded local prisons to await trial, a few of whom would receive a short custodial sentence, but many would be given a community sanction. There appears to be no estimate of the cost for the increased use of custodial remands.”

So the risks in the clause are pretty clear. There may be an appeal to the Labour party at this moment in the political cycle, but there are obvious cost implications to legislation that may draw more people into custody willy-nilly. As the Howard League pointed out, there are the risks of overcrowding in local prisons, and of an over-harsh remedy for people who would otherwise not be taken into custody at any stage. That seems to undermine the whole value of such alternative means of implementing criminal justice and tackling anti-social behaviour, such as anti-social behaviour orders, parenting contracts and the like.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I did not think that in opposing the hon. Gentleman’s amendments I should find myself quite such a defender of the legal system, but clearly I shall be, yet again.

The amendments would tie the hands of judges, so that they would not be able to use their discretion based on the facts of individual cases to decide whether a suspect should be remanded in custody or released on bail. It is entirely proper that the judge should be able to look at the circumstances in which an injunction is sought. There may be insulting and abusive behaviour that causes distress, or violence may indeed be involved—sometimes disputes can have that element. It is right that the judge, having heard the facts, should have discretion as to whether somebody should be released on bail or remanded in custody.

Some of the circumstances in which injunctive remedies need to be sought can be extremely challenging, to say the least. Therefore, I do not think that it is right to have a rigid position that someone has to be released on bail in every single case. That person could then go out and repeat exactly the behaviour for which they were brought before the court on injunction in the first place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment. The courts are perfectly able to determine which cases are appropriate for custody.

The hon. Gentleman’s second amendment would remove from the courts the power to adjourn a hearing for more than four weeks should a medical report have been requested. There is a similar provision in the Housing Act 1996, and we want to bring local authority injunctions under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, in line with that. Again, we should not take a rigid approach. We should ensure that sufficient time is allowed for the preparation of reports—if a medical report cannot be produced in four weeks, the court will probably have to decide the case without it. However, if mental health problems are a factor, the details should properly be before the court when it decides whether to make an injunction. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments unreasonably restrict the ability of the court to make a proper decision in such cases, so I ask him to withdraw them and to place a little more faith in the legal system.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I am impressed by the Minister’s faith in the system and her belief in the courts. There is an argument for retaining a level of flexibility, but I commend the idea of attaching some kind of restraint to the process, which might draw far more people into custody than I think she would want. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 8 - Local Authority Scrutiny Of Crime And Disorder Matters

New Clause 9 - Guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters

New Clause 10 - Joint crime and disorder committees

New Clause 1 - Children subject to asbo proceedings: reporting restrictions

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in schedule 14, page 137, line 18, at beginning insert—

‘Crime and DisorderSections 1(10D), 1(10E)

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The purpose of the new clause and the amendment is to provoke a debate about the fact that the Bill is increasingly drifting away from the assumption on which some of the original legislation in this area, including the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and even the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, is based. In cases covered by those, it is assumed there is a benefit to anonymity for children and young people in criminal and similar proceedings. The lifting of reporting restrictions and the ability to name and shame pose certain risks.

We see value in antisocial behaviour orders, as I have repeatedly said, despite the scepticism on the Labour Benches. However, the attendant publicity is sometimes counterproductive. I have heard about kids coming out of the courts in my constituency and going up to reporters from the local paper, the Gloucestershire Echo, and asking, essentially, “Will this get me my picture in the Echo?” To be named and shamed almost becomes a badge of pride in some families—it is seen as a mark of achievement. That is counterproductive. I can see the value of antisocial behaviour orders if they apply to an immediate local area, and of a level of publicity being given to a particular offender in the area, so that people going in to a particular newsagent or shop know that person’s identity and that they should not be in that immediate local area. However, the wider use of publicity and naming and shaming gives cause for concern.

It is worth revisiting a few issues. First, the Children and Young Persons Act originally imposed restrictions to protect the identity of children who are at a formative stage in their lives. In some cases, we are talking about children as young as in their teens, and perhaps younger, and who are still capable of being directed down more positive paths in their lives and able to respond to positive intervention, support and some of the other methods we have talked about, of a more supportive nature. The naming and shaming begins to set in stone the pathway down which those children are going, and risks placing them on a one-way path to further antisocial behaviour and perhaps ultimately criminal behaviour.

The Government and this country are signatories to the UN convention on the rights of the child. It is worth revisiting some of the clauses that we have signed up to in that convention because they should give us pause in the headlong rush to name and shame young people. Article 3 of the convention states:

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

In other words, it is not a matter of weighing up the interests of the children concerned against the wider interests of the community. We have to treat the child’s interests as a “primary consideration”, and if there are other ways of meeting communities’ justifiable concerns, without naming and shaming, perhaps we should be looking at those more often.

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on occasions, punishment can be beneficial for children, and if naming and shaming is part of that punishment, that they might actually benefit from it?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

I think that authorities need to retain the flexibility to respond appropriately to individual cases. Personally, I am more an enthusiast for supportive and more positive approaches, than for punishment as a first option. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for punishment.

Article 19 of the UN convention states:

“Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation ... while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”.

Again, there is the risk that by naming and shaming children in that way, we are putting them at risk of, for instance, reprisals from other families or children in the community. Those are serious matters that should give us pause for thought.

Finally, Article 40 states:

“Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.”

Mark Pritchard (Conservative, The Wrekin)

I hope that you will indulge me for one moment, Mr. Pope. Can we really take seriously that statement from an organisation that saw tens of thousands of children killed because of its inaction in Rwanda and Burundi?

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

The hon. Gentleman may like to know that I worked for Oxfam at the time of the Rwandan genocide and was involved in raising millions of pounds to support the victims. Oxfam field workers, who might have been critical of the actions of particular UN, or other international agencies—although there were mitigating circumstances—are extremely supportive of the UN convention on the rights of the child, and take it very seriously. It is an important convention to which everybody has signed up. The United Kingdom is a signatory, and it is very important that we take the convention’s provisions extremely seriously. I think that that was a slightly ill-judged intervention.

The article to which I was referring mentions treating any child accused under penal law

“in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth”.

With the naming and shaming for which there is great enthusiasm, we can sometimes forget the damage that might be done to individual children—we are still talking about children—by a process that sets them on a pathway and fixes their sense of themselves in a negative way. The amendments are designed to probe the Government’s attitude and response to that point.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Sometimes antisocial behaviour is caricatured as emanating simply from the activities of young people. It is important that the Committee is aware that more than half of antisocial behaviour orders are on adults. There are some nasty adults out there who think that they can behave in whatever way they like without the prospect of any action being taken against them. People sometimes think that every bit of antisocial behaviour is about young people, which it is not.

At least 95 per cent. of our young people are good and decent and make a fantastic contribution to the community. Hundreds of thousands are involved in volunteering, and we are trying to get another million volunteering in the next few years through the Russell commission and the youth and community service, into which we have put £100 million. That is a fabulous opportunity for young people to get involved in their communities and do something positive. A huge amount of Government policy has been about investing in young people. Some £115 million will shortly go into new youth facilities to be designed and shaped by young people. The thrust of our policy is not about being punitive towards young people or demonising them in the way that they are sometimes caricatured by various individuals and organisations. However it is important that where a small minority of people are engaged in antisocial behaviour, the public should have confidence that steps are being taken to address that and ensure that it does not happen in future. That is why ASBOs have broadly been welcomed across the country. They give people a bit of peace and respite and allow them to get on with their lives in a way that most of us take for granted. Unfortunately people in a few areas do not have that luxury.

New clause 1 would repeal the sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that removed the automatic imposition of reporting restrictions, but gave the courts discretion on the matter, in proceedings against juveniles for breaching their antisocial behaviour orders. Publicity in such cases is sometimes an integral part of tackling antisocial behaviour in an area. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not about naming and shaming, as he put it. Publicity is not to punish or shame the individual, but is there to let the community know that action has been taken and to engage local people in helping to monitor the conditions that have been set out in the ASBO. If the conditions are breached, people can get in touch with their local neighbourhood policing team and say that they have seen a person in an area who is not supposed to be there, or that somebody has carried on harassing someone. The police can then take action to enforce the ASBOs. The orders must be taken seriously and enforced whenever there are breaches, so that the community can continue to have confidence.

If there is no publicity at all, the process will be hidden and people who have been very brave in coming forward and giving evidence in court will have no sense that an order has been made. They will not know that conditions have been imposed so that people have to behave in a decent and proper way, or that if they do not, the breach will be taken seriously and sanctions will follow. It is important that each of those elements is in place if the system is to have proper public confidence.

The courts can still impose reporting restrictions if they believe that the situation warrants it. That is the right position to be in. The court will look at the individual case, and if there is somebody who is particularly vulnerable, and there are real reasons why reporting restrictions should be imposed, the court has the power to do so. To remove that ability would undermine the use of the orders and the public’s confidence in those orders being imposed.

I take our responsibilities under the convention on the rights of the child very seriously; in fact, the whole country does. We have a proud record of making sure that we support and look after young people in this country. However, it is also important that we consider the interests of the victims of antisocial behaviour. If we went through the record of the previous sitting of the Committee, we would probably find half a dozen occasions on which I told Liberal Democrat Members that they had been considering the issues from the point of view of the perpetrator, not necessarily the victim and the community. This whole debate has been about getting the balance right. All that I would say to Liberal Democrat Members is that they draw the line in the wrong place. Most people in our communities would agree that our priority should be making sure that we protect the decent, law-abiding majority who play by the rules and just want to get on with their lives.

Martin Horwood (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham)

In response to the Minister’s last comment, the record will show that I have talked quite a lot about the victims today. I have given several examples of how crime and antisocial behaviour blight people’s lives, and I take the issue extremely seriously. There is a slight tendency for the Minister and Labour Members to put words into the Liberal Democrats’ mouths. For instance, I did not say that anything in the legislation demonised or caricatured young people. I did not even suggest that all ASBOs applied to young people. It is simply that the amendments relate only to young people. That is why young people were the subject of my earlier comments.

I agree with the Minister that it is important that breaches in ASBOs be tackled, and that the community have complete confidence in the process. With the amendments, we are urging a pause for thought about not just the benefits resulting from the provisions, but the damage that they may do to some individuals.

The Minister is confident that there is no difficulty with the UN convention on the rights of the child, but that view is not shared by the current chair of the Youth Justice Board, who was asked by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in February 2005 whether the provisions constituted a breach of human rights principles. He said that he thought that they did. Therefore, there is a risk with publicity, although, as I said earlier, I accept that publicity in the immediate local area, communicating the nature of the ASBO, may have value. As the Minister says, that helps the community to have confidence in the process.

I hope that, even if I withdraw the motion, the Minister will look into possible ways in which the administration and use of publicity could be more sensitive and subtle. I hope, too, that the kind of problems that I have addressed can be considered. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Schedule 1 - Further provision about crime and disorder committees of certain local authorities

Clause 21 - Appointment of Chief Inspector

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 21, page 22, line 13, at end insert ‘and’.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 143, in clause 21, page 22, line 14, leave out ‘and Custody’.

No. 145, in clause 29, page 28, leave out line 6.

No. 146, in clause 29, page 28, line 11, at end insert—

‘(1A)Subsection (1)(a) shall only apply—

(a)after a period of at least five years from the commencement of this Act;

(b)if an independent review commissioned by the Secretary of State concludes that it would be desirable for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons to be replaced by the Chief Inspector; and

(c)subject to an order to be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

These amendments are about the proposed creation of a chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody. No doubt our clause stand part debate will give us the opportunity to discuss the overall merits of creating the combined inspectorate. We will come later to amendment No. 44, which will enable us to discuss the independence of the inspectorate, but the amendments before us deal specifically with whether it is right to subsume the inspectorate of prisons into the new, combined inspectorate. Considerable worry has been expressed outside the House that that will compromise the independence of the inspectorate of prisons. The inspectorate has a special place and therefore needs to be treated differently. I shall explain why.

First, it should be clear that special conditions are attached to the inspection of prisons. It is obvious that they are closed environments in which neither we, as parliamentarians, nor the public know what happens unless someone explains what is going on. That makes the operation of the prison inspection system different from other aspects of the criminal justice system that may be more visible to the outside world and media scrutiny. We therefore rely absolutely on having a robust, independent prisons inspectorate to fulfil that task.

Secondly, prisons, by definition, have great power over the lives of individuals, so the inspection process needs to take particular care that prisoners are treated properly and that their human rights are observed. The director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Frances Crook, observed that

“The primary purpose of prison inspection should be to consider human rights and the implementation of internationally agreed standards. When dealing with the loss of freedom the very highest standards of accountability are necessary.”

I am sure that we all agree.

Thirdly, the chief inspector of prisons reports directly to the Home Secretary and Parliament. The worry is that, if the chief inspector had broader responsibilities and a wider brief, that would reduce the intensity of their focus on the treatment of prisoners, which, as I explained, is particularly important. The chief inspector of prisons has a right to go unannounced into any prison in the country at any time. In fact, half of all inspections are unannounced. This week, I asked a former chief inspector of prisons what notice he gave for the inspection of prisons. He said that he gave no notice, and that he would descend on prisons. I am sure that we all agree that that is the right practice to adopt.

The chief inspector of prisons has not only the right to speak directly to Ministers and the Home Secretary, but the right, which the current inspector and her predecessors have exercised, to speak apart from Ministers and to express worries about the condition of prisoners. That right makes Governments uncomfortable, but I am sure that we all respect it and recognise that it is necessary.

Fourthly, there is a major difference between the prisons inspectorate and the other chief inspectors. They tend to come—I think that they almost always do—from the services that are being inspected. That is how they arrive at the positions to which they are appointed. The chief inspector of constabulary is a former chief constable. Other chief inspectors act as principal service advisers to Ministers and sit on departmental management boards. That makes them rather less independent than the prisons inspector, who generally does not come from the Prison Service, but is an independent person of high standing. The prisons inspector does not act as a principal service adviser to Ministers and does not sit on departmental management boards.

I am sorry that the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety has just left the Committee because I was about to raise a particular point. When I met her recently to discuss police reorganisation—I was grateful for the briefing that she offered me—to my surprise, one of the inspectors of constabulary was present. I had not been given notice of it, although I was grateful to meet him and to be briefed by him and the Minister, but it indicated the extent to which the inspectorate and Ministers sit together. In that case, the inspector of constabulary was specifically advising the Minister on police reorganisation, but that is not the relationship that an inspector of prisons would expect to have with the Home Secretary or other relevant Minister.

Fifthly, the proposed inspectorate is designed to deliver the Government’s principles of inspection, which are drawn up by the Audit Commission, but that body does not inspect; it audits. It is designed to provide public assurance and service improvement that is proportionate to risk, and it offers value for money. However, regulation and audit are different from inspection. Regulation and audit can reasonably be carried out by internal teams. Especially in the arena of human rights, inspection cannot and must not be carried out internally. It is essential to separate the two.

Our concern about the provision is reinforced by the fact that, under clause 25, Ministers will be given powers to direct the chief inspector, and that includes the prisons inspectorate. It seems dangerous to ignore the history of the independent prisons inspectorate. Its independence arose from an Act of Parliament of 1835. It remained unchanged until 1962, when the Prison Commission was abolished. Significantly, it was replaced by a prison department within the Home Office.

Home Office inspection, which was not independent, continued until 1981, when a report chaired by Mr. Justice May specifically recommended the re-formation of an independent inspectorate, not least because of the loss of pubic confidence in the objectivity of in-house inspection. The danger of creating a combined inspectorate, of which the prisons inspectorate will be part and which is capable of being directed by Ministers, is that we will recreate a system of prisons inspection directed by the Home Office of the sort that so undermined confidence in 1981 that a judicial inquiry recommended that it cease. We do not seem to learn the lessons of the past.

The concern that I express has been raised by a number of organisations. The Prison Reform Trust and Action for Prisoners’ Families say that there is little doubt that the Bill threatens to dilute the authority and independence of the prisons inspectorate—just at the point when such bodies would be needed to meet new UN requirements and when international criminal justice delegations are preparing to adopt the British model. Similarly, the Howard League for Penal Reform has expressed concern about the provision. It said that, ideally, it would like clause 23 to be dropped from the Bill. Clause 23 gives the prisons inspector specific duties, and I suspect that the Howard League for Penal Reform means that it would like the prisons inspectorate to remain independent.

Our position was expressed elegantly by the former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbottom, in a letter to The Times of 17 March, which was co-signed by Lord Hurd of Westwell, the former Home Secretary, and Lord Dholakia, the Liberal Democrats spokesman for foreign affairs in the other place. They wrote:

“We deplore the suggestion and request the Government to withdraw the Inspectorate of Prisons from the proposed merger, allowing it to continue to carry out the role for which it was designed, and which it has carried out to the apparent satisfaction of everyone other than those who fear the accuracy, objectivity and content of its reports.”

Amendment No. 143 would remove the word “Custody” from clause 21(1), meaning that the prisons inspectorate would not form part of the new combined inspectorate. Were the amendment to be agreed, there would plainly have to be subsequent amendments to the rest of part 4.

As an alternative, amendment No. 146 proposes a delay in the establishment of the prisons inspectorate element of the combined inspectorate. In other words, the combined inspectorate could go ahead, but the prisons inspectorate would remain separate. However, if an independent review commissioned by the Home Secretary concluded that it would be desirable for Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons to be replaced by the chief inspector, that could happen, but only after a minimum period of five years and only subject to an order to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Parliament would have a proper vote on whether it considered that to be a good thing. By agreeing to that amendment, the Committee would allow the combined inspectorate to be established unhindered, and it may judge that it would like to do that.

These are very serious matters. We shall come to the justification for the combined inspectorate; the Government have serious questions to answer about whether they are confident that the independence of the inspectorate, so important for the reasons that I set out, is going to be maintained under the provisions. We fear that it is not.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am glad of this opportunity to end the Trappist silence that has characterised my presence here today. I assure the hon. Gentleman that his fears are not well founded. It is important that members of the Committee be clear that our ambition is not to diminish in any way the impact, independence and effectiveness of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, but to ensure that the qualities that so powerfully characterised that inspectorate are infused through all the inspectorates in the criminal justice field.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a meeting that he attended with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at which a member of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was present. To some degree, his attendance—he was there merely to advise—reflects the fact of an unreformed inspectorate that has development and advisory functions, rather than independent inspectorate functions, within the police. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing the national police improvement agencies and other bodies that will provide those functions, so that the inspectorate function can have the very qualities of independence and sharpness of focus to which he alludes.

It is clear that the degree to which that quality is admired in Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons is a beacon for the rest of the criminal justice inspectorates. We do not hear about the quality of inspections in other areas, but we ought to. There is a particular quality about the inspection of people in custody. That is why in a separate clause we give a particular duty for inspecting the treatment and conditions of those in custody. We recognise that it is not enough merely to do it as part of a seamless, end-to-end criminal justice system, although of course we need that.

One of the weaknesses of our present inspectorate system is the way in which bits of the criminal justice system operate in silos, so that, for example, an inspection of someone’s treatment in custody does not carry through to their treatment under probation during the same sentence. When the police deal with an offender on his journey through the court system into custody or a community sentence, there is no mechanism to inspect any part of that process that might contribute to the likelihood that that person will not reoffend. That is important, but there is no way to do it.

It is unacceptable that we can inspect the operation of little bits of the process but not the whole. That is why we created an end-to-end inspection process, but we recognise that there is something particular about custody. The duty to inspect and report on the conditions of people in custody is different, to some degree. It is a human rights inspection rather than an inspection of the general process. Therefore, we need to ensure that it is properly dealt with, and we have done so with the proposed special duty.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a ministerial power to direct special inspections. That power already exists. It was used most recently when the Home Secretary directed Her Majesty’s chief inspector of probation to inspect how the probation service treated the cases of Messrs. Hanson and White—the men who murdered John Monckton. It is right to retain such a power with the Home Secretary—the power to request independent inspectorates to conduct an inspection of a particular case, incident or matter that should properly be examined on the public’s behalf. That power will work only if the inspectorate has the independence that has allowed the best of our inspectorates to be admired. That is why we intend to ensure that that independence is maintained.

The hon. Gentleman referred to his alternative amendment, which might enable the custodial element of the end-to-end inspection to be introduced after a time. He will notice that we have retained the power to commence different changes at different times in order to maintain some continuity—to ensure that the rigorous inspection of treatment and conditions of those in custody continues seamlessly, so as not to damage the high regard in which the inspectorate is held. I assure him that we will not abolish the post of chief inspector of prisons until we are certain that her role has been incorporated adequately into the new inspection system. We will allow the chief inspector to operate in parallel with the growing new inspectorate arrangements in order to sustain quality.

The new independent inspectorate depends on the qualities of independence, distance and rigour—the principles of excellence in inspection that are why the prisons inspectorate is so widely admired. Rather than bury that quality in others, we intend to ensure that the whole of the inspectorate reflects that quality in the way that it conducts its business.

Inspection of these areas is good, and can do its job, only if it is independent, and if inspectors are able to turn up unannounced. We have preserved the power to turn up unannounced and provided that the inspectorate will be able to determine its own inspection criteria, so that it can be absolutely independent and maintain the skills that it requires. I am confident that the advantages of having an inspections system that can inspect the whole of the criminal justice system from start to finish and that sustains the present independent qualities that are at the heart of the best of inspection will improve the way in which we conduct inspections.

It is clear that we need to move beyond an inspection regime that focuses on places—on the bits of the system—to one that can examine what happens the whole way through the system. If it examines only what happens to an individual when they are in prison and relies on another inspectorate to tell it what happens before and after, it cannot report credibly on the process of offender management from start to finish.

Assurances and recommendations that are based on an inspection regime that is not as unified as the system that it inspects are at best incomplete and at worst misleading. For example, it is no longer enough to assess the provision for an offender’s educational need by reference to the facilities available in prison without considering the provision in the wider community before and after custody. It would be possible to provide for the justice inspectorate to inspect offender management from end to end, including the custody element, and still leave the prisons inspectorate to inspect the treatment and conditions of prisoners as a separate issues. That would create a substantial risk of duplication and of conflicting recommendations.

The implementation of the national offender management system brings a new focus on reducing reoffending within the context of close working between prisons, probationers, other Departments, and the voluntary and civic sector. If we deliver this, we can really make a difference.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am afraid that I do not find it all persuasive. I shall give two examples to illustrate why our fears are well founded. She said that the inspectorate of prisons was a beacon and that the other inspectorates should rise up to that standard. It does not make sense to subsume the inspectorate of prisons in a system that is not operating as effectively as the independent inspectorate of prisons currently does.

Let us consider one example. The whole strength of the independent inspectorate of prisons is that the individual is appointed as a person of high calibre who does not necessarily have any prior expertise or knowledge about prisons. If we were to move to the proposed system, the overarching chief inspector would be appointed as such a person. The deputy, who would be responsible for prisons, might have particular expertise of prisons. Immediately, independence is lost. If that person were of independent calibre, why should they want to deputise for a chief inspector when they could not speak out independently or go directly to Ministers. They would only be deputising for the chief inspector. Therefore, people of the calibre of the current chief inspector or her predecessors would not wish to be deputies to the new chief inspector. As a consequence, the system will be captured in a way that it is not now.

Finally, on the Minister’s point about silos, of course it is important that inspectorates have a dialogue, but when the chief inspectors of the various services got together with Ofsted in 1999 and asked the Government to fund a secretariat that would co-ordinate joint inspections and process joint inspection reports, the Government refused to offer funding. There are perfectly sensible ways in which the inspection could proceed without combining the inspectorate.

I feel sufficiently strongly about the matter, as I know others do outside the House, that I believe the amendment should be pressed to a Division.