Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 34, line 6, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (11),'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 140, in page 34, line 6, at beginning insert—

'Subject to subsections (9A) to (9H) below,'.

No. 141, in page 34, line 15, at beginning insert—

'Subject to subsections (9A) to (9H) below,'.

No. 142, in page 35, line 13, at end insert—

'(9A) Before exercising his powers under this section, a chief officer of police of any police force or a Director General must submit to the police authority maintaining that force (the relevant police authority) or, as the case may be, the Service Authority a draft scheme (a ''designation scheme'') setting out—

(a) the purpose of the proposed designation scheme relating to the designation of persons under this section and the expected benefits for the policing of the area;

(b) how the designation scheme contributes to the 3 year strategy issued by the authority under section 6A of the Police Act 1996 and the local policing plan issued by the authority under section 8 of that Act or in the case of a Service Authority how the scheme contributes to the Service Plan issued by that authority under section 4 or section 50 of the Police Act 1997;

(c) the extent and nature of the powers he proposes to confer on designated persons;

(d) how the suitability and capability of persons to be designated under the scheme will be assessed;

(e) the arrangements for the provision of training to such designated persons;

(f) the arrangements for the provision of equipment to such designated persons and any health and safety implications of the proposals; and

(g) an estimate of the direct and ancillary costs of the scheme to the police fund kept by the police authority or, as the case may be, the service fund kept by the Service Authority.

(9B) The Chief Officer or Director General shall not exercise his powers under this section until the relevant police authority or Service Authority has approved a designation scheme for this purpose.

(9C) Before approving any scheme, or any modified or revised scheme, which differs from the draft scheme submitted by the chief officer or Director General, the relevant police authority or Service Authority shall consult the chief officer or Director General.

(9D) Before approving any such scheme, a police authority shall consider any views obtained by the authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 96 of the Police Act 1996.

(9E) Before approving any such scheme, a Service Authority shall consider any views obtained by it in accordance with arrangements made under sections 41 or 85 of the Police Act 1997.

(9F) The chief officer or Director General may from time to time submit to the relevant police authority or Service Authority a revised or modified scheme for its consideration.

(9G) After a scheme has been approved by the relevant police authority or Service Authority, the chief officer or Director General shall bring into force.

(9H) It shall be the responsibility of the relevant police authority or Service Authority which has approved any scheme under subsection (9B) above to undertake a full review of the workings of the scheme 12 months after it has come into force and in particular to—

(a) seek the views of the principal local authority for the area; and

(b) monitor the impact of the scheme on public confidence in the force maintained by that authority.'.

No. 98, in page 35, line 25, at end insert—

'(11) Any proposals by the chief officer of police under this section must have been included in his annual policing plan and have been approved by his police authority.'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

This group contains two amendments tabled my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I, and three amendments that were tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. Our two amendments run very much together, the most crucial one of which is amendment No. 98. That proposes a new subsection (11). We hope that the Minister will accept it, because it is vital that whatever is put forward is discussed and agreed by the police authority, and is part of its annual plan. I am sure that he will not be unsympathetic to the spirit of our proposal, even he cannot accept its exact words.

It would be lovely to imagine that, if the Minister cannot accept our amendment, he may introduce a similar amendment on Report. It would strengthen the clause's detailed provisions. It is difficult to understand why specifying that in the Bill would be a problem. Amendment No. 94 simply states that everything in the clause must be subject to proposed subsection (11).

The hon. Member for Lewes will speak to the Liberal Democrat amendments in a moment. I entirely understand the intention behind his proposals, but we shall listen with interest to his description of the background to them.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

As the hon. Gentleman correctly predicted, I intend to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I am sure that the Minister recognises that the introduction of designated persons who exercise police powers on the streets and the extension of the number of people in police stations who can do so represents a fundamental change in the nature and style of local policing.

The amendments have three aims. The first is to ensure that, before replacing police officers with designated persons, the chief officer prepares a proper strategy for their use, training, equipment and the costs involved so that all the implications of such a step are fully thought through.

The second is to ensure that such a step is taken only with the approval of the local police authority

following consultation with the local community—that is only right, as it is that community's police area, force and authority—and relevant local authorities, bearing in mind the requirement to work closely with local authorities, which the Government have properly recognised with local crime and disorder partnerships, which have been a significant step forward. The third aim is for the impact on community confidence of the use of designated officers to be properly monitored and reviewed fully after a year.

The amendments may seem complex, but I hope that their purpose is simple—to put in place safeguards that my hon. Friend and I believe are lacking in the Bill. The decision whether to designate a particular member of police support staff and what power to give that person is an operational one for the chief constable. That is a point that I might be expected to make and is consistent with my other comments. I am delighted that the Minister agrees. I was also delighted when the Home Secretary, in response to Home Office questions, recently declined the invitation to comment on particular activities in one part of London, for those reasons. I am pleased to say that the concept of operational independence is still well respected. However, the principle of whether to have community support officers on the streets and the strategic oversight of such initiatives are properly the business of the police authority.

Most Committee members will have read the briefings on the Bill produced by the Association of Police Authorities, which make the point forcefully. The Metropolitan police and their Commissioner strongly back the Government's proposals for community support officers. Indeed, they seem so keen to do so that they have taken action to introduce CSOs before the Bill comes into force, albeit without the powers provided in the Bill. However, the Government have not yet produced much evidence to show that the public want quasi-police officers on the streets, rather than real ones. When I go around knocking on doors or talking to people in the street, they tell me that they want more bobbies on the beat. They do not want second-rate police officers, plastic police men or whatever else they might be called, as substitutes for police officers. The community view is important. It is a key element of the amendment.

If we are to have community support officers with the powers that the Home Secretary wants to give as part of his proposals in the Bill, like regular police officers, they will need the support and confidence of local people to proceed. That will be a key element that determines whether they succeed and whether the concept of CSOs is accepted by the public. Therefore, local accountability and approval is key to this part of the Bill, and to our entire policing system.

However, such confidence or consent will not be secured if local communities feel that they are being fobbed off because they consider that CSOs are a way of providing policing on the cheap. Therefore, they will need to be fully involved in decision-making, and to sign up to the concept that I think that the Government want to promote, which is that CSOs are

a support to police officers, rather than a replacement for them. There is doubt about whether that is the case: the Minister is aware of the genuine concerns of police officers, for example, that CSOs are a way of providing alternatives to them—in other words, that they will allow for a reduction in the number of police officers, rather than an extra tier on top of the existing number, or, hopefully, on top of increased numbers.

I hope that Committee members agree that local people should have a say in whether CSOs should police their neighbourhoods and what powers they should have, and that the decision should not simply be—as appears to be the case in clause 35—one which can be taken quickly, succinctly and without such deep consultation and involvement being necessary. Consultation with the community is the responsibility of the local police authority, under section 96 of the Police Act 1996. Therefore, police authorities will wish to consult with local people and other key partners before they decide whether to give approval to the use of CSOs.

The Bill sidesteps the huge range of issues that needs to be addressed before police powers can be given to support staff and the community can reach a conclusion about whether it is appropriate for CSOs to be deployed in its area. That is the reason for the comprehensive—I hope that it is not too exhaustive—list that is set out in amendment No. 142, in particular. That gives an indication of the sorts of tests and requirements that we would require before the decision to proceed could be taken. I am sure that any chief officer or police authority will want to have a clear, fully worked-out strategy as to what these officers will be used for, and how they will be trained, equipped, and so forth.

It would simply be common sense and good management practice to adopt the sorts of proposals that are included in this amendment. It is intended to ensure that the police authority and police force have properly developed plans to show how CSOs, and other designated staff, will contribute to better policing in the area, and what the costs of that will be. The amendment is intended to buy public confidence and support—it is intended to get people to buy into the Government's project.

The Minister might refer to clause 36. If he does so, he will see that clause 36(4)(d) states that the chief officer must set out in the policing plan details of how the provisions in clause 35 have been used. That is all that it does. It is not a replacement or an adequate substitute for amendment No. 142—and for amendments Nos. 140 and 141, which are necessary precursors to it. There is no requirement in clause 36(4)(d) for the chief officer to get the police authority's prior approval to consult local people, or to have a properly worked-out strategy. Therefore, it could all be a fait accompli that is merely recorded in the plan after the event, in which case there would be no say for the police authority, or for local people, in a fundamental change in policing in their area. There would be no safeguards of the sort that I have set down in amendment No. 142.

The Minister might say that no chief constable would embark on the process without gaining the

support of the local police authority and, perhaps, the local authority and maybe even the local community. However, that is not how the Bill reads. A chief constable might be wholly sold on the idea of community support officers but his police authority might not share that enthusiasm.

Without the requirement to go through the process and safeguards that are set out in the amendment, the Bill opens the way for the chief constable to have an unfortunate disagreement with the police authority after the decision to use CSOs rather than before. That would not be good for local policing, police morale or the local community. Notwithstanding my unhappiness with the powers that are given to CSOs, which I have addressed in other amendments, I allow for the fact that if the Bill is enacted, they will be employed. I want to ensure that if that happens, CSOs will be introduced and used in a way that commands proper support from the police authority, the community at large and all other people or bodies that might have an input, such as local authorities. I am trying to help the Government to ensure that the Bill works rather than causing problems after its implementation. That is the spirit in which I moved amendments Nos. 140, 141 and 142, and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on them. If he does not do that, I hope that he will not accuse me of playing to the Gallery for moving them in the way that I did—there is no one in the Gallery in any case.

Amendments Nos. 94 and 98 have some force and common sense behind them. They are not absolutely essential but they would improve the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on them. They are a less detailed way of securing the same ends that I have described. They would tie the activities of the chief officer into the local community and the police authority by the use of the annual policing plan. It would be wholly unobjectionable and uncontroversial to proceed in that way.

It is clear that the Bill does not contain the tie-in that the Conservative amendments set out briefly or the detailed tie-in set out in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. A tie-in should be explicitly present.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

One would hardly know that the hon. Gentleman is the person who, addressing the House of Commons on 8 March 2002, said:

''The Liberal Democrats are happy with, and will support, the concept of CSOs—indeed, we included such a provision in our last manifesto.''—[Official Report, 8 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 560.]

This group of amendments is not the worst that he has moved in an attempt to wreck the entire concept of CSOs—we shall come to worse in later sittings. One would hardly have thought that such enthusiasm was that of a political party that claimed to include the concept of CSOs in its manifesto. Perhaps, in due course, we will find out where the Liberal Democrats stand—

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

This week.

Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)

Yes, I could hardly ask for more than knowing where the Liberal Democrats stand this week.

Knowing where they stand next week would be asking too much.

The question of whether the operational decision for chief constables on the designation of staff should be subject to the prior approval of the police authority is at the heart of the amendments. The amendment would give the decision a status that does not apply to other operational decisions by chief constables. For example, I am sure that the decision to switch traffic police in London from traffic policing duties to the street crime initiative was discussed with the Metropolitan police authority but not subject to its approval. That significant switch of roles was the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. We must recognise that it would be a major step of principle to say that operational decisions should be subject to prior approval by the police authority. Although amendments Nos. 94 and 98 are somewhat more ambiguously worded, that is what I take to be the intent of this series of amendments.

Of course, we are all happy with the idea that there should be proper consultation between the chief constable and the police authority—and, indeed, at a wider level, between the police authority and the community—about a policing strategy. However, there is already a mechanism for doing so that is supported in the Bill, and that is that consultation should take place between the chief constable and the police authority about the draft policing plan, and that discussions should take place in the wider community. That is clearly the vehicle by which a range of issues, including the development of CSOs and their future deployment, should properly be discussed. That is a different principle from saying that the set of procedures should be subject to prior approval by the police authority.

Clause 36 already requires that plans to designate support staff under schedule (4), or to set up a community safety accreditation scheme, should be set out in the annual policing plan, and that drafts of that document should, as they are now, be submitted by the chief officer to the police authority. I believe that the annual policing plan is the best way to undertake the consultation. It is a local plan adopted and published by the police authority before the beginning of each financial year. The process for producing it is well established; the chief officer prepares the drafts and submits it to the police authority. If the police authority disagrees with the draft plan, it cannot publish a version that differs from it without first consulting the chief officer on the proposed modification.

With regard to the more detailed amendment No. 142, clause 40 allows us to set out a code of practice for the exercise and performance of the chief officer's duties under chapter 1. I am sure that consultation with stakeholders will be required before extending police powers to civilians. The issue comes down to an important point of principle about whether the police authority should have prior approval for the development of CSOs. I would resist that suggestion on the grounds that I would resist many other specific

policing operational matters being made subject to the veto of the police authority.

Of course, consultation with the police authority and the wider community on the procedures that we already have is highly desirable. Indeed, I believe that police constables will regard consultation with the police authority as absolutely necessary. We know that the chief commissioner in London took great care to ensure that the Metropolitan police authority was fully behind him when he was developing the CSO scheme. That is a different matter from saying that prior approval should be required, and that is what I take the amendments to mean.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Without deviating too far from the amendment, I should like to say that the Liberal Democrat position on CSOs is abundantly clear, as Ministers frequently say of the Government's position in response to questions put to them from across the Dispatch Box. We have always supported the concept of CSOs, and did so at the last election. However, we disagree with the Government significantly on the powers that they should have for reasons that I shall explain under later amendments.

There is harmony on this side of the Committee between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, but I urge the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not to chortle when inconsistencies over CSOs are alleged. The wholesome opposition to CSOs put forward by Conservative Members contrasted markedly with the statement made by the shadow Home Secretary, who said that the Conservatives had always supported CSOs. That went by without notice on Second Reading.

I understand exactly why the Minister takes the view that he does. The matter is finely balanced. I am the first to defend the operational independence of chief constables and I do not want the police authority or anyone else to be involved in day-to-day activities. However, the decision to employ such people for the first time is a matter about which chief constables should have more say than perhaps the Home Secretary and the Minister may envisage. After all, a fundamental change is being made to the nature of policing.

I would have said the same about the employment of traffic wardens some years ago. Whether or not a chief constable wanted that to happen should have been subject to approval. When such people are approved, they are for the chief constable to deploy. Such a significant change is so fundamental to the policing of our country that it is not right to leave it in one person's hands. No chief constable will act in the teeth of opposition from the police authority—at least, I hope not. The Minister is right that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis was

assiduous in making sure that he had support from the Metropolitan police authority before he took the action that he did. That is how a chief officer should behave. However, it is possible for a chief officer to be unwise in the way that he or she proceeds and my amendment would avoid that.

The Minister did not respond to the need not only for the decision to be up to the chief constable or the police authority, but for local authorities, for example, to be included. They will work together in crime and disorder partnerships. That is important, given the powers that CSOs are to be given, if the Minister has his way. The wider community must feel that it supports CSOs rather than have them forced upon it, which was another matter with which the Minister did not deal. I am pleased that he recognised the need for a code of practice. That goes some way towards meeting the aims of my amendments. It is not up to me to withdraw them because the lead amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I hope that he understands why I tabled the amendments.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I certainly do not want to go into some of the wider issues that will be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire when we discuss the next amendment. If I were to respond in tremendous detail to what the hon. Member for Lewes said, I would be trespassing on that territory. Suffice it to say that we understand his suggestions. We have also listened carefully to the Minister. We gained the impression that, while there are great worries that the Home Secretary may be wanting the opportunity to micro-manage, the Minister's response was that we cannot have a police authority that micro-manages. That seemed the wrong way round. The hon. Member for Lewes, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I share the belief that, if anyone is to undertake pre-clearance or micro-managing, it is better that it should be the police authority at local level than the Home Secretary of whichever political persuasion in the future. We shall refer to that general worry when discussing other parts of the clause.

I understand the Minister's response to our amendments. We do not resile from the fact that it would be helpful to have such issues in the policing plan. It may be a matter to which we shall have to return, but I do not want to detain the Committee on the amendments, because we shall have more lengthy debates on subsequent groups. At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 20 June at half-past Nine o'clock.