Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 12, line 34, at end insert

'; or

(d) he is an accredited person for the purposes of section 37'.

This morning, the Under-Secretary said that he was pleased that I was not about to pursue the complaints procedure because it went beyond his brief. I do not know whether he was hoping that the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety would be here by now, but we have now reached the point at which I wish to pursue the matter.

The purpose of the amendment is to bring people who are serving within an accredited community safety scheme within the remit of the IPCC. That is a straightforward objective and there is no getting away from it. Assuming that new clause 9 is included in the Bill, and on the basis of what the Under-Secretary said about the complaints procedure for contracted-out staff, if there is a complaint against a police officer, clearly, it would go to the IPCC, as would a complaint against a civilian support officer. Complaints against contracted-out escort or detention officers would also be—to use the Under-Secretary's words—within the remit of the IPCC.

However, if there is a complaint against an individual employed within an accredited community safety scheme, frankly, the complaint procedures are extremely vague. We have not yet reached clause 34 and schedule 5 which bring those officials into being. The chief officer simply has to be persuaded that the employer—whether a local authority or anyone else—has a satisfactory complaints procedure. That means that the complaint would be heard only by that employer, so there would be no level of independence. Clearly, the complaint would not be anything like as rigorously investigated or resolved, as would be the case if it were referred to the IPCC.

With your forbearance, Miss Widdecombe, I will refer to later clauses and schedules because they specifically relate to the amendment. Schedule 5, sets out the proposed

''powers exercisable by accredited persons''.

I am the first to accept that those powers are not as wide as those being given to community support officers. I am pleased that the Government agreed with the view expressed in the other place and by both Opposition parties that accredited persons should not have powers of detention, and that the Government decided not to reintroduce that measure for members of accredited schemes.

Nevertheless, significant police powers are granted within schedule 5, all of which will also be held by community safety officers. A contradictory situation could arise whereby, in the same borough, town or village, a community support officer could be employed by a police authority, be wearing the appropriate uniform, and do something that gives rise to a complaint. A member of the public knows that any complaint would ultimately go to the IPCC.

In the next street, however, an official within an accredited community safety scheme, who is also attired in an official uniform and using identical powers—confiscation of alcohol, for example—may also do something that gives rise to a complaint. If a member of the public wishes to complain, they have only the assurance that the complaint will be investigated by the employer. That is an inconsistency within the Bill, and extremely confusing to the public. The same power misused by one person is investigated by an independent commission, but misused by another person, it is investigated simply by that person's employer.

The situation becomes even murkier when we take into account this morning's amendments. As I understand it, the contracted-out staff may be employed by organisations such as Group 4 or Securicor—I readily accept that there could be others. From studies and visits we also know that accredited community safety schemes may involve the same organisations. I know that on that aspect there is a difference of opinion between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. That debate will take place at a later date. However, under the Bill is drafted, accredited community safety schemes could be run by employers such as Securicor or Group 4. We could face circumstances in which some members of staff of Securicor who are contracted out could ultimately have misconduct reported to the IPCC, whereas other members of staff employed by the same employer using police powers granted under schedule 5 would have allegations of misconduct investigated only by Securicor or Group 4, or whoever is involved.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Even worse, it could be the same member of staff, who is transferred within the organisation on different tasks and on one day is under the IPCC and on another is under his employer.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right. It makes matters even murkier that the same member of staff could be involved.

The amendment is intended to encourage the Minister to consider consistency and transparency. First, there should be consistency in the accountability for the use of police powers. If people with police powers are accused of misconduct in using them, ultimately they should all be investigated by the same authority with the same rigour and independence.

Secondly, on transparency, such people are there to serve, as are we. The public must understand the line of accountability and consideration of complaints. We cannot expect members of the public to understand all the ins and outs of the different members of the police family. The ordinary person in the street, if such a person exists, will know that there is someone in a

uniform acting in some way as a policeman. They will probably know that that person is not a proper policeman, but we cannot expect them to know that the powers that such people have depend on who employs them, and to whom to complain. The public need transparency and should know when someone in uniform is using police powers, exactly whom to complain to and that that complaint will be considered in the same way regardless of who the person may be—it could, as the hon. Gentleman says, even be the same official.

There are two fundamental reasons—one of which relates to consistency, the other to transparency—why it is essential for people who use police powers and serve in an accredited community safety scheme to be brought within the remit of the independent commission. The Under-Secretary may say, as he said this morning in answer to challenges from Opposition Members, that it is not possible to specify that in the Bill, as we have in the amendment, because of different employment law, for example. If that were the reason, I would happily accept that I might be technically wrong. However, I hope that he will not try to dismiss the issue on that technicality. A huge distinction is involved. He is taking powers in new clause 9 to issue regulations to deal with the anomaly—to repeat his words, regulations to bring contracted-out staff within the remit of the independent commission. There seems no reason why the Secretary of State could not issue regulations to bring accredited community safety officials within the IPCC's remit.

I do not want us to get too bogged down in the precise wording of the amendment. The issue is whether such people should fall within the independent commission's remit. I believe that they should, and the Government will be hard pushed to persuade me otherwise.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

The last thing that I would try to do is slide out from under the argument on the basis of a technicality. The issue has been around for some time and was debated at some length in the other place, so it is not new, and was already on the table.

Clearly, there must be a robust mechanism for redress if a member of the public wants to make a complaint against an accredited person, and the public will want to be satisfied that the organisation's complaint system is satisfactory. That will be secured through the arrangements under clause 36(6), which places a duty on the chief officer responsible for accreditation to ensure that the employers of those people

''have established and maintain satisfactory arrangements for handling complaints''

made against them. If those arrangements are not applied satisfactorily, clause 38(3) allows the chief officer to withdraw the accreditation. Clause 38(6) is also relevant. It makes the accredited person and their employer jointly liable for unlawful conduct.

It is worth noting that local authorities already have their own complaint systems for people that they employ as neighbourhood, street and dog wardens, park keepers and environmental health officers. Such people have been exercising similar powers to those of accredited community support officers for many years. To my knowledge, no one has suggested—although I may well be wrong because all kinds of suggestions are made in the House—that that category of person should be brought within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority. No one is suggesting that complaints against such persons should fall to the IPCC.

As my noble Friend Lord Rooker explained in another place, if it is inappropriate to use the new IPCC for existing local authority employees, it is surely equally inappropriate to bring accredited community support officers within the commission's jurisdiction. Far from stopping or minimising confusion, the hon. Gentleman's proposal is likely to cause even more. Accredited persons will not be able to use reasonable force; indeed, as he says, we have now accepted that they should not have the power to detain. They are therefore not on a par with community support officers, who will be subject to the new complaints system. They will have limited powers to deal with public nuisance including litter, dog fouling and environmental concerns such as abandoned cars.

Accredited persons fulfil a complementary role to that of the police and community support officers, and will not be thought of by members of the public as part of the police service; we are trying to guard against that.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

That is important, and it is why I raised the issue of the powers given to accredited persons on Second Reading. Would not the Under-Secretary accept that to give those officials powers such as those of confiscation of alcohol, tobacco and so on could bring them into conflict with members of the public, and that that is a different matter to an environmental health officer going into a restaurant and saying whether it is fit for opening?

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

Other local authority officers might come into such conflict and have powers to deal with various sections of the community. It has never been suggested that those officers should be brought within the remit of the IPCC, and it is our contention that accredited persons should not, either. It would be burdensome, and counter to the point of these proposals, if the police and the commission were involved in complaints against such accredited people. It would divert police and commission resources away from handling complaints against officers and police authority support staff, which should be the core business of the commission.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I have concerns, despite the Under-Secretary's protestations that these people will not be seen as police. At the first appearance of the proposed community support officers alongside the Met, their uniforms were almost indistinguishable, and the media expressed concern and surprise that the commissioner, Sir John Stevens, had not seen the new uniforms before that great launch. Ministers—including the

Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who is not present—have frequently talked about the police family including the community support officers. I do not think that it will be like that. If their uniform is very similar to that of the police, they may be brought into situations of conflict, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Lewes have said. If that is what happens, they should come within the remit of the IPCC.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman should not pray in aid half a story. He ought, at least, also to say what the commissioner did on that occasion, and the changes that he sought to make because of the potential for confusion.

Accredited persons will be accountable to their employers: they will need a disciplinary code and a satisfactory mechanism for dealing with complaints to enable them to gain or keep their status of accreditation and fulfil their role within the remit of the local chief officer, who has the power to remove that accreditation.

The chief officer has a duty to ensure that a satisfactory mechanism of that kind is established and maintained. If there is an allegation that an accredited person has committed a crime, the police will be able to investigate the matter in the normal way. If an allegation of misconduct is made that breaches the relevant employers' stated disciplinary code, the chief officer will be able to insist that appropriate action is taken, otherwise the accreditation can be removed.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether his argument is consistent. Why was it necessary this morning—rightly in my view—to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for contracted-out staff to come within the remit of the IPCC, when it is not necessary with regard to the matter now under discussion? In both cases, we are talking about people employed by third parties outside the police force. In both cases, he could have said that the employers must have their own complaints system and all the subsequent back up, but in one case he has chosen the IPCC, and in the other he has not. Where is the consistency in that?

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I do not believe that there is any inconsistency whatsoever. This morning, we were talking about contracted-out personnel who would be working within a police station environment, and performing a role that is carried out by police officers under the direct control of the local police force and, as I said, if the appropriate standards are to be maintained and if the interests of clarity and the public are to be met, such people should come under the same regulation.

We are now talking about accredited persons who will operate under a very different environment, who will be identified in a different way, and who will have a different employer. Therefore, we are talking about two very different circumstances.

I see no inconsistency in what I am saying. If we consider the other people who are employed by such organisations—which are, in the main, local authorities, which have various types of powers—

there is potential for confusion. The size of the burden would be a considerable problem that would take the commission and the complaints system away from what we all want: an independent complaints system for police officers and those who work in police areas carrying out duties otherwise performed by police officers. The amendment would have a detrimental effect. The arrangement should be retained as proposed and the responsibility should remain with the employer.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary is not very convincing on that point—I hope that he does not mind me saying that. There is inconsistency and if the Under-Secretary cannot see that, there is something wrong with his logic. There is inconsistency if one part of the police family is subject to the IPCC and another part is not. There is inconsistency if some people who work for Group 4 are subject to the IPCC but others are not. There is inconsistency if a person who works one day at a police station is subject to one formula but a person who works on another day is not. There are inconsistencies all over the place.

The Under-Secretary has failed to grasp that the amendment is an attempt to regularise and bring coherence to the disparate groupings of people in the wide police family. That is set out in the Bill although it is somewhat complicated in itself as an attempt to bring order. The Under-Secretary's insistence on different arrangements is perpetrating that disorder rather than providing coherence.

The suggestion that the situation is comparable to that of local authority employees does not wash. It might wash if the Under-Secretary noted the comments of his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who has been reinstated in ministerial office. On Second Reading, he said that if all CSOs and officials are given powers, they must be treated in the same ways as police for training, complaints and similar matters. If they remain as street wardens with local authority powers, that is an entirely different matter. If they are at that level, they will not come into conflict with local people in the way in which they will if they are given the powers in the Bill. I hope that you do not mind me referring to the powers, Miss Widdecombe, because they are relevant to our discussion.

If street wardens do not have powers, evidence shows that they are seen as part of the community. They are welcomed and considered to be the person living next door who is doing a job for the public good. If those people, who do not receive proper training in the way in which police officers do, are given powers, that might bring them into conflict with volatile members of the public such as youths who have been drinking alcohol or who have tobacco that they do not want confiscated. Such youths will not welcome a person who they consider to be an elevated park keeper coming along in a mock-up uniform to tell them that they must hand over their tobacco or alcohol. There is a considerable possibility of conflict in that situation. Additionally, the good will that would be present for a person without the powers will evaporate.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Newark, Conservative)

Is not the point that there will be confusion in the exact circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described? Whatever the mock-up uniform, the difficulty of the circumstances or the clarity—in theory—of the delineation, by the time that such people get on the ground, youths who have their tobacco or alcohol taken away will object strenuously. Those people will need powers in order to be complained against.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

Order. Before the hon. Member for Lewes responds, may I draw the Committee's attention to the scope of the amendment? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to that.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I have three objections to the Under-Secretary's comments, which are the reasons why I support the amendment. I have referred to my first and second objections, which are inconsistency and potential conflict. My third objection relates to confusion. We need to bring order to the wide and disparate family. We will not be able to do that if there are different systems for various people, and the position is not widely understood.

Surely the Under-Secretary sees the logic of my argument. I hope that he thinks about the matter as he did this morning, and accepts that, because Group 4 or Securicor employees at police stations are fulfilling a quasi-police role, they should be subject to the IPCC, as should others who are fulfilling a quasi-police role. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, the consequences will be that, if complaints are made about such people, Group 4 or Securicor will not have the same determination to deal with these matters because they involve their employees. The IPCC is independent and will consider such matters dispassionately. If a complaint is made against an employee of a private sector company and the employer concludes that the employee has behaved inappropriately, the employer will consider how to deal with that and try to ensure that no opprobrium is heaped on the organisation that would bring it into disrepute. That should not be possible.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

Whether Group 4, for example, was the employer of two different people in different situations is neither here nor there. That is the point. There would be different contracts, exercising different powers in different circumstances. As for those to whom we referred this morning, there would be a real danger of the public becoming confused, because such people would be working in close proximity with the police, often in a police station environment, and under the direction of a senior officer. It is right that they should be covered by the same conditions.

Accredited people will not necessarily be working closely with the police. They will be out in the community and identified as people who are different from police officers.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary has missed the point. More complaints will be levelled against community support officials on the street because they are in regular contact with the public than against those who are employed in police stations, who will be subject to disciplinary procedures within the police

station. If anything, the complaints procedure should be better—not worse—for such people.

If a private sector employer receives a complaint about one of its employees, when it considers how to deal with the complaint—notwithstanding any protocol or agreement that may have been signed with the chief constable of the area—the employer will assess the consequences for the organisation. That factor should not be taken into account, but it will be. For those reasons, it is appropriate that such officials should be subject to the IPCC. I have not heard any arguments from the Under-Secretary that have convinced me to the contrary.

Mr Ian Lucas (Wrexham, Labour)

There has been some confusion in the debate. I hope that I am not the only one who is confused. We are not talking about community support officers. That ct is understood by some Opposition Members, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred specifically to community support officers. The important aspect is the nature of the powers of the individual, and that should determine whether he falls within the remit of the IPCC rather than that of his employer.

The powers that we discussed this morning when talking about Group 4 employees relate to detention and escort under clause 35(2)(c) and (d). Those powers are exercised by support officers. If private contractor employees exercise those powers, it is appropriate for them to fall within the remit of complaints to the IPCC.

We are now discussing people who are employed under community safety accreditation schemes. They are entirely different animals and do not have the powers of community support officers. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says, such people will have similar powers to those currently exercised by warden-type people. For example, they might have similar powers to environmental health officers, who I believe are entitled to seize evidence in particular cases, and no doubt will seize evidence from people who do want to give it to them. People already operate effectively under that remit. The rationale for retaining such people in the current structure is that they already operate effectively. That is why they fall outside the IPCC umbrella.

I understand the Opposition's point about consistency. However, their argument has lacked clarity. Some of them have been referring to community support officers when in fact we have been discussing people involved in community safety accreditation schemes. [Interruption.] Certainly—I made a note—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to community support officers in his intervention.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am not sure that any Member did that, but if a Member did confuse community support officers with accredited persons, does that not show that even among a group of people who have spent a great deal of time studying the Bill there is confusion? Does that not underline the case for clearing up the confusion in the Bill?

Mr Ian Lucas (Wrexham, Labour)

It is not necessary to consider the description of the person involved. The important

point is the power that that person exercises. The powers that we discussed this morning are those of detention and escort. Those powers will be exercised by the community support officer, who will be employed by the police authority. They will also be exercised by people employed by third-party contractors. That is why they fall within the remit of the IPCC. If something does not need fixing, why change the current system? Environmental health officers exercise similar powers effectively and have not fallen within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority before. There is no reason to change that.

Ms Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's points about local authorities, but later we shall discuss accreditation by bodies other than local authorities. Will he have the same confidence in the complaints system of Tesco, for example, or other bodies that might accredit officers?

Mr Ian Lucas (Wrexham, Labour)

I shall continue to focus on the important issue—the extent and nature of the individual's power.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I have heard nothing to counter the strength of the argument that he, I and my hon. Friends have advanced. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) rightly referred to the nature of the powers, which are, however, slightly different from his interpretation. He refers to environmental health officers, but as far as I know no environmental health officer or other local government official can go up to a group of youths drinking in the street and confiscate their alcohol. That is one of the powers that is proposed to be given to accredited community safety officials.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

Park wardens have a statutory duty to confiscate tobacco from under-age children. For the sake of consistency, if that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, is he suggesting that park wardens should come under the police complaints arrangements?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am not aware of any park warden who has confiscated tobacco from somebody under age—not even in the days when it was me. The Under-Secretary's point is somewhat far fetched.

I want to take the matter a little more seriously. Let us consider the powers of escort officers. The Under-Secretary said that we were discussing people who are working closely with the police and in police stations. An escort officer will not do that. Most of the time an escort officer will be working with only the individual who is being escorted. An escort officer's powers are extremely limited. There are just two powers: the power to take an arrested person to a police station and the power to escort persons in police detention. However, a member of an accredited community safety scheme has six powers, which include the confiscation of alcohol and tobacco. Of course, that confiscation is not only from people who are under age, but from people of all ages. There is a clear distinction, but we are putting escort officers with limited powers under the remit of the IPCC but not accredited community safety officials. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, we are telling the employer simply that it must have its own complaints system.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that such an accredited organisation would work very closely with the local police force? That has been established with Covent Garden street trader wardens and Leicester square wardens. Additionally, the ultimate sanction is to remove the accreditation. There will be a close working relationship with the police and, ultimately, the powers could be taken away. What further assurance does the hon. Gentleman want?

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was going to make, although he has used a reverse emphasis. The Under-Secretary said that accredited safety officers will not work so closely with the police but escort and detention officers will work closely with the police. There is a split in the Government ranks.

The Under-Secretary referred to clause 37(3) and clause 38(6). Yes, of course they allow the chief officer to withdraw accreditation. Equally, the chief officer could withdraw a contract that applies to the people who we discussed this morning. My point is about inconsistency. In one case it is—rightly—necessary to involve the IPCC, despite the fact that the chief officer could withdraw the contract, but in another case it is not.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

Although I have limited experience of the matter, I was fortunate enough to spend an evening three or four weeks ago in Leicester square to see the way in which the warden system works hand in hand with the police. The police are not directly involved with the system, but the interrelation between the police and wardens is fundamental. The police have a vested interest in making the system work effectively. It might surprise the hon. Gentleman that the wardens look forward to an increase in their powers from the Bill because they currently feel restricted. Although the relationship between the two groups is not formal, it is very close.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I have visited many similar schemes, although not that specific one, and I share the hon. Gentleman's recognition of their value. I must admit that I have yet to meet a warden who wanted the powers because most of them told me that they would be a disadvantage. The question of whether wardens should have the powers is a separate issue. However, the question is that if they have the powers in schedule 5, to whom should complaints be made and who should investigate them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they will often work closely with the police. However, that does not negate the point that if they use the police powers that they will be given if schedule 5 is approved, the complaint of misconduct resulting from the use of those powers should ultimately, having been through a sifting mechanism, go to the IPCC.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

In justifying the decision that I made this morning, I said that the people whom we are talking about will be working within a police environment under the direct control of the police, and will be doing work that the police have traditionally done. The hon. Gentleman seeks to

ridicule that by saying, ''Well, that does not apply to escort officers,'' but escort officers will often be, if not within the confines of a police station, then in a police vehicle escorting someone in police custody. That is quite different from accredited persons, who will be working for another organisation out in the community.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

But they will still be working under a policing umbrella because the chief officer will have approved the scheme. The Under-Secretary says that accredited persons will not be doing things that were formerly done by the police, such as escort duties. However, until now, the confiscation of alcohol in the street, to take an example—we keep using the same one, but there are others—was done only by the police. Under schedule 5, accredited officers will take on, in some aspect, the role of police officers, so the channel of complaint for misconduct should be the same as that for police officers.

I suspect that the Under-Secretary is not prepared to budge on the issue, but I believe that my argument was well-made, although I say so myself. I have heard nothing to counter it, so I beg to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.