Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 35, line 37, leave out 'consult with' and insert 'obtain the approval of'.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

With this we may discuss the following: Government amendment No. 214.

Amendment No. 145, in page 35, line 38, after 'and', insert

'before giving such approval, the police authority in question must consult'.

Amendment No. 146, in page 36, line 23, at end insert—

'(6A) It shall be the responsibility of any police authority which has approved a scheme under this section to undertake a full review of the workings of the scheme 12 months after its establishment 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.'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise for being marginally late this morning. I was accompanying a school in my constituency on a walking bus, which arrived on time. Unfortunately, the train from Lewes to London did not, hence my slight delay.

It would help the Committee if I were to set out briefly our vision for policing in so far as it affects accredited officers, who are the subject of the clause and the amendment. My colleagues and I have said on several occasions that we would like a system that is as simple and accountable as possible. One of our concerns is that the arrangements that the Government would like to put in place would lead to myriad bodies with unclear responsibilities and differing powers. The public would not know where they stood.

We are keen to have a two-tier system. One tier would consist of properly trained full-time—and part-time, if necessary—police officers and specials. The second would consist of everyone else, and would include CSOs, accredited community safety officers and traffic wardens, all of whom would have the same powers. That would have the benefit of simplicity and accountability. However, that is not what is proposed in the Bill. Through the amendment, we are trying to make the best of a bad job. I hope that the Minister does not think that it is unduly impolite to put it in those terms, but that is how we think of it.

Amendment No. 144 seeks to increase accountability. I will not speak for long on the subject because we discussed it when we considered the accountability of CSOs. In some respects, accredited officers are one stage further removed in the accountability process than CSOs proper. It seems from the Bill that virtually anyone can accredit officers to do virtually anything in any area. Although that is

a slight exaggeration, there is considerably more flexibility in this scheme than is afforded to the arrangements for CSOs in previous clauses.

The Government propose that accredited officers will be employable by the private sector and will operate in the interests of the private sector in many ways. We see that in more detail in Amendment No. 12, in the next group, which increases the need for accountability and approval by the democratically accountable police authority. That is why amendment 144 seeks to require the chief of police to obtain approval from the police authority rather than simply consulting it. Otherwise, the following scenario is possible. A group of people, a private company that may be controversial in some respects, may wish to have accredited officers. The chief of police may agree and even though the police authority may be wholly opposed, it could not do very much about it.

As the Minister said last week—and I agree—any chief officer would be foolish to go down that road against the clear wishes of the police authority. Nevertheless, the Bill as drafted would allow that to happen. It is better to prevent errors and problems than trying to correct them subsequently—perhaps by getting rid of chief officers using the wide powers that the Minister is giving himself. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to that argument.

I welcome Government Amendment No. 214, which increases consultation. It seems to go further than our amendment No. 145, so I have no problem with it. Amendment No. 146 seeks a review period after 12 months. The Government propose to embark on a new form of policing that is a radical departure. It involves the private sector far more than previously and involves a new tier of officers or wardens, or whatever the public comes to call them. It also involves a range of different and new powers for people who did not have them before. Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to have a requirement to stop and take stock after 12 months, and see whether the scheme is working.

We should see whether the scheme has delivered a safer environment. Do people feel better on the streets? Has it dealt with the problems of vandalism and disturbance that we all want to see tackled? Or, has it led to a withdrawal of police in favour of second tier officers, or whatever the official term will turn out to be? Has it led to problems for those people in their interface with the public? Has it led to the police being called to deal with more argy-bargy between accredited officers and members of the public? In other words, has it exacerbated the situation that it is meant to deal with?

The latter is a pessimistic scenario, and the optimistic one may turn out to be true—doubtless that is what the Minister will argue. Either way, I am sure that he will accept that the scheme is a radical departure. Under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask for a review after 12 months, which I hope would involve not only the police authority but the community at large. Indeed, if the Minister is right and the officers will be welcome in the

community, he should welcome a review, because it would help cement the relationship, ensure that the foundations that have been built are secure, and that the roots go deeper into the ground.

It is not unreasonable to ask for a review. In many ways, to refuse it would be a sign of weakness and a lack of confidence that the system will work. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept the logic of a review. At various junctures in their contributions to the Bill, the Conservatives have suggested pilot schemes. In a sense, our amendment would make this a pilot scheme to be reviewed after 12 months. We should proceed carefully, slowly and with proper monitoring procedures rather than go hell for leather and regret mistakes afterwards.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

My party has more sympathy with some of what the hon. Member for Lewes has said on this matter than with several of his other proposals. At the end of his remarks, he rightly stressed that Conservative Committee members have repeatedly said that this entire new system should be properly piloted. If we were to persuade the Government to go down the route that we have consistently suggested of having a few pilot schemes that are sufficient to assess the system, it would be desirable to have a review of those schemes. Therefore, we have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about reviews.

However, we are concerned that many of those who have been looking at the way that community safety schemes have been operating, and the way that the Government's existing system of links between police authorities and local authorities are working, feel that there is a danger that the whole thing could be consulted to death. One can have too much of a good thing, and there is a lot of feeling—particularly among Conservatives in the local authority world—that so much consulting is going on that not much action can be taken. Therefore, we have less sympathy with the suggestion that everything must be consulted on, and approved of, before there is any action.

However, we appreciate that the hon. Members for Lewes and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole have genuine motives for proposing the amendments, and we will listen with interest to what the Minister says about them. The Bill talks about police authorities being consulted, and that might not make much difference in practice. The Liberal Democrats propose that the Bill should specify that there must be prior approval: if there were a big difference between having a consultation and having to obtain prior approval, that might indicate that there is something seriously wrong with the relationship between the chief officer and his police authority, because if a chief officer is going to be consulting anyway, he might not be willing to go ahead if the result of that is unfavourable.

I accept that it makes things much more explicit if the Bill refers specifically to prior approval. However, we have worries about issues such as consultation to death and consultation with everybody. Many of us have come across situations in which the views of the majority party in a local authority about the best way

to move forward are not in accordance with those of the chief constable, or many members of the police authority. We would not want the requirement for still further consultation between the police authority and the local authority to strangle the whole thing at birth, and to lead to a log-jam. Perhaps the Minister will refer to some of those points?

We have much sympathy with what the Liberal Democrats have to say on reviewing, but we also want the Government to move much further in our direction by agreeing that the new system should be properly piloted first.

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

The three amendments strengthen the whole concept by tying the police authority into the tripartite system—or the whole picture.

Although amendment No. 144 is crucial, I shall specifically talk about amendment No. 145. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that one can consult too much, and there is some truth in that. However, the scheme's objective is to establish neighbourhood policing, which is about involving all of the relevant authorities. It is about everybody working together to look at the whole picture, so that the reasons behind, for example, antisocial behaviour can be understood. It is isolationist to have individual wardens chasing litter without any communication about how that problem can be solved; the requirement to consult strengthens local crime and disorder partnerships. The key to success is to change behaviour, as well as to stop it. That is why consultation is helpful.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I do not think that anyone would have a problem with consultation because that is how to get the best policies. However, the Liberal Democrats propose a veto on the actions of the chief constable. Is it not a radical departure from the tripartite arrangements that we have previously discussed if the police authority and other parties may veto the operational independence of the chief constable? Is the new Liberal Democrat line to tie the hands of chief constables?

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

My background as a teacher makes me want to come out with a comment, but I shall try to bite it back. I made it clear that I was addressing amendment No. 145. That is about consultation, but not holding anything up or seeking approval. I addressed that in such detail that I cannot see any problems.

I reinforce the point that amendment No. 145 would strengthen a local crime and disorder partnership. We should examine the issue holistically rather than go around saying, ''Stop, stop, stop.'' We should change behaviour as well.

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

The issues are fairly straightforward. Let me deal first with consultation. There is no question but that the chief officer should consult with the police authority and, indeed, local authorities. Government amendments will tidy up the definition of the principal local authority. Undoubtedly, consultation will occur among crime and disorder reduction partnerships, local authorities and the police

authority when an accreditation scheme is proposed. However, that is not the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) pointed out, the issue is whether a police authority should have a veto on an operational decision by a chief constable. We rehearsed the arguments on that last week when we discussed community support officers. Consultation should take place, but a police authority should not have a veto, and we resist the amendment on that basis.

I come to the question of review. The process of drawing up the annual policing plan, which involves consultation among the local community, the chief officer and the police authority, provides an appropriate vehicle to review the success and progress of an accreditation scheme after not only the first 12 months, but every year. I am reluctant to write a requirement for a separate process to do the same thing into the Bill because police officers and others would be diverted to that activity. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes that it would be helpful to examine how the accreditation scheme worked in practice and to find out whether there were any problems and whether the scheme was delivering its intended results. It is appropriate to do that through the annual policing plan. We should avoid having a bureaucratic responsibility to do something different.

A couple of things should be clarified, and we might be able to debate them at greater length when we consider other amendments. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for setting out his vision. We shall resist the idea that accredited officers who work for non-police employers should simply be merged with community support officers who work with the police. There is a good reason for having a differential between the powers and responsibilities of those officers because their accountability is clearly different.

The hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that it appears that almost anybody may accredit a scheme. He continued to say that that was a slight exaggeration—I think that the expression that he was looking for was ''a total travesty''. The only person who may accredit a scheme is the chief officer. The chief officer is constrained by the requirements themselves and by whether the employer of the relevant group of employees wants to participate in an accredited scheme. The chief officer's power is by no means untrammelled. Nobody except the chief officer may agree that an accreditation scheme should exist in an area.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Does the Minister envisage that most of the neighbourhood warden schemes that currently exist will become accredited schemes over a period of time? Alternatively, does he expect a two-tier system of schemes in which some are accredited and some are not?

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

If I can rely on the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase ''over a period of time'', I anticipate that the majority of neighbourhood warden schemes and street warden schemes will come within accreditation. It is too early to be sure how many such schemes will take advantage of additional powers,

such as issuing fixed penalty notices or dealing with alcohol, and at what stage that will happen. For example, I suspect that the power to remove abandoned vehicles will be taken up widely at a fairly early stage. When considering other CSO powers that we discussed last week, people will look at those who first try using the powers to see whether they work, and they will make a judgment on whether the powers are appropriate for their area.

The advantages to an area of having a kite mark standard through which people who carry out the role have a common badge and accreditation system and a statutory framework to link people to radio communications and information systems lead me to believe that the take up of accreditation will be widespread over a period of time, which was the phrase that the hon. Gentleman used. The public will welcome that.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Will the Minister clarify further that no pressure will be put on local authorities and other organisations to push them into accreditation even over a period of time? Many schemes do not currently want accreditation or to be nationalised as part of a great national accreditation scheme.

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

There will not be pressure other than that which comes from the spread of good practice and knowledge of what works throughout the country. There will not be a national accreditation scheme because the schemes will operate at force level, chief officer level or even within part of a force. My impression—this is not from a scientific study—after talking to representatives of schemes throughout the country is that the concept of becoming accredited and having a formal legitimacy as part of the extended police family is widely welcomed.

We have always acknowledged that the greater debate is about the extent to which additional powers should be taken up as part of the accreditation system. It is possible to have an accreditation scheme that examines issues such as common training, common insignia and shared communications without adopting the full range of formal powers in the Bill.

I should make a final point. We are actively considering tabling a further amendment on Report relating to consultation on accreditation schemes. It would relate to a consultation right for the Mayor of London because of his role in several London issues. Obviously, I shall write to hon. Members if that is likely, but I thought that it would be helpful to flag up our current thinking.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that the Minister's last point is a sensible idea. We look forward to his amendment on Report, although I am not sure whether fixed penalty notices should be given for falling off balconies. We shall examine the details of the amendment closely.

I turn to the Minister's response to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I tabled. I did not utter a travesty, to use his words. I used poetic licence—poetic

exaggeration—to make a point and underline my worry about the direction in which the process is going.

It is insufficient to say that everything in the Bill is hunky-dory and that we need have no worries. The Minister conceded that there is a case for a review but that he does not want to build in a formal 12-month period. The danger with his informal approach is that areas in which the system works well—if such areas will exist—will be keen to have a review to pat themselves on the back and demonstrate that everything functions brilliantly and the decision to implement the system was right. An area in which the system does not work well might be tempted not to have a review in case it throws up problems, and the area might hope that if it carries on, the problems will go away and a review could be held when it would give the right results. I do not think that the Minister's informal approach will necessarily work. However, as the issues have been exhaustively discussed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 214, in page 35, line 38, leave out 'and the principal local authority for that area' and insert '; and

(b) every local authority any part of whose area lies within the police area.

(3A) In subsection (3)(b) ''local authority'' means—

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

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 36, line 11, leave out from 'with' to end of line 14 and insert,

'any local authority falling within the police authority area'.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in page 36, line 15, leave out 'employers' and insert 'local authorities'.

No. 14, in page 36, line 19, leave out 'employers' and insert 'local authorities'.

No. 15, in page 36, line 23, at end add—

'(7) In this section ''local authority'' means the relevant local authority, that is to say—

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

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

No. 16, in clause 37, page 36, line 27, leave out 'any employer' and insert 'a local authority'.

No. 17, in page 36, line 28, after 'employees', insert 'or sub-contractors'.

No. 18, in page 36, line 28, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 19, in page 36, line 30, leave out 'person' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 21, in page 36, line 31, after 'employee', insert 'or sub-contractor'.

No. 22, in page 36, line 31, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 23, in page 36, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 24, in page 37, line 8, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 25, in page 37, line 17, leave out second 'person' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 26, in page 37, line 18, leave out 'whom' and insert 'which'.

No. 27, in page 37, line 20, at end add—

'(9) In this section ''local authority'' means the relevant local authority, that is to say—

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

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

No. 36, in clause 38, page 37, line 37, after 'time', insert,

'(and in case of accreditation under section 37, after consultation with the local authority)'.

No. 37, in page 37, line 43, leave out 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 38, in page 38, line 2, after 'employees', insert 'or sub-contractors'.

No. 39, in page 38, line 2, leave out 'person' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 40, in page 38, line 8, leave out first 'employer' and insert 'local authority'.

No. 41, in page 38, line 8, leave out 'or employer'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

We are addressing many amendments, but most of them are consequential to amendment No. 12, so I shall focus on the principle of accountability.

During the Parliament that ended in 1997, I imagine that this sort of amendment would have been eagerly tabled by Labour hon. Members. They would have been frothing at the bit to object to the Conservative Government's introduction of powers to extend policing to the private sector without accountability. They would have leapt up and down about such a proposal. However, I suspect that they will all vote against my proposal to put controls on how far the private sector can be involved in policing in a way that I regard as unaccountable—Labour Members have not yet convinced me that that is not the case.

Committee members from all parties have frequently said that accountability is a key issue. The central question is whether it is right or in the public interest to extend policing powers—albeit relatively minor ones—to those who are not directly accountable to the police, or to an elected body such as a local authority, or even to housing associations, or other bodies that have pseudo-respectability.

The Minister envisages that a private company can, for its own reasons, deploy members of staff, who are answerable to it and acting in its interests, to undertake what is effectively public policing. There may be an argument for the accreditation of individuals, where they are solely on private property—for example, in supermarkets—although whether they should have police powers is another matter.

We are all in favour of bringing up the standards of those who act as security guards, or in similar capacities. However, we are talking about a different matter when, first, they are given police powers and, secondly, they may be operating in public areas.

Newhaven town centre, in my constituency, is privately owned, apart from the high street that runs through the middle of it. It is not covered; it looks like any other highway. However, I presume that the owners of Newhaven town centre will be able to apply for—and would receive—authorisation from the chief constable for an accredited scheme to be operative there. If that were to happen, if someone was cycling in the town centre in an area that they regarded to be public land, an individual who was employed by a private company—and who was, predominantly, looking after its interests, rather than the public's—would be able to stop them and give them a fixed penalty ticket for riding on a footway, or for consuming alcohol, or for any of the other categories of powers that are set out in schedule 5.

They include the power to require the name and address of a person who is acting in an antisocial manner. The Minister has, under pressure, withdrawn the right of accredited persons to detain people, and I welcome that, but that does not go far enough. His current line is inconsistent, because he now proposes to allow these people to require a name and address, but not to give them any powers to enforce that. It would be better if they did not have that power because, at present, there is no sanction if someone says, ''Get lost.''

There could be a situation in which a private company has interests divergent from those of the public, and rather than acting in the public interest such people would act in the interests of the company concerned. The type of restrictions that they wish to put in place and the sort of behaviour that they wish to engender within the area of the scheme in which they are operating, may not be ones that the public at large would wish to see. However, having got past the hurdle of the chief constable, the private organisation would be able to have the powers.

The chief constable is the only publicly accountable safeguard within the scheme because the Minister has rejected our view that the local police authority should be able to determine whether the scheme should be set up. We are relying on one person—the chief constable—to ensure that private individuals who have police powers and act in a private company's interests are also acting in the public interest. To some degree, that is policing for profit.

I draw the Minister's attention to the view of the Police Federation of England and Wales. He may choose to paint it as one of self-interest, but they are police officers on the ground and know the realities of policing better than either the Minister or myself—they fill a space at it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The federation says that it is totally opposed to the powers conferred in the Bill on accredited safety officers. It believes that the public will be even more confused about the role and powers of ACSOs, and

that the involvement of the private sector opens up a series of nightmare scenarios, including infiltration by those minded to further criminal activities.

We have discussed the view that arrangements for handling complaints against ACSOs lack transparency and accountability, which the federation also believes. It is concerned that chief officers could also end up facing civil action arising out of ACSO schemes.

The federation raises serious concerns. Why does the Minister not envisage a system of policing in which police powers are enforced by people directly accountable to the police or to a local authority? When we discussed CSOs in an earlier debate, the Minister was keen to say that their powers were comparable to local authority powers. We did not necessarily buy that argument, but he raised, by way of defence, the powers of environmental health officers, trading standards officers or planning officers going on to sites to look at planning applications. The difference between those three and the scheme proposed is that they are all accountable to the local authority. At the end of the day, there is a proper complaints system that is publicly accountable. There are elected councillors who will lose their seats if anything goes wrong. There is a local government ombudsman and a system in place that people respect. That will not happen under this arrangement.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

I am somewhat lost by the argument pursued by the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, the schemes would have to be approved by the chief constable and their effectiveness monitored. The amendment seems to imply that the safeguard of democracy is somehow to have them under the control of the local authority. The conclusion of the argument would be that the police authority should come directly under the same control, or that we should have directly elected police authorities. As he knows, the police authority is not solely made up of councillors, and the only way to have the accountability that he seeks would be to have them under control or directly elected.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

That is a red herring, although I do not know whether it is a deliberate or well-meaning one. The Government recognise that there is a major role for local authorities in policing. They introduced crime and disorder partnerships. I give credit to the Government for that good idea, which seems to be working well. It combines the benefit of police experience and professionalism with the opportunity for locally elected councillors who know their patches well to have an input into what happens on the streets. It works well and I give the Government credit.

However, both those elements are accountable and the hon. Gentleman misses the point that what is proposed comes outside the crime and disorder partnership—it is at one stage removed. There may well be arguments about how the police authority is constructed—whether it should be partly elected, and what the democratic accountability should be—but that is a separate issue to that proposed today. We are discussing the accountability of privately employed people having police powers.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

Such people come under the control of the chief constable. Let us imagine that the chief constable was accountable to the local authority. Surely that will create confusion. The hon. Gentleman is proposing that the policing in an area should be politicised.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The concept of policing that I set out at greater length on Second Reading would have been more simple and accountable than what is proposed in the Bill. People who exercised low-level police powers would be subject to local authority control, but they would have to go through a police-approved scheme. The chief constable would have a big say in such matters through the crime and disorder partnership. Such a concept is my preferred vision. Because it is absent, I am trying to make the best of Bill as it is drafted.

The Minister will have to deal with the fact that the only gatekeeper who will ensure that the process of private company individuals having police powers will work is the chief constable. I am sure that chief constables will look carefully at whatever scheme is proposed and that they and the police authority will do their best to monitor the situation. They are being dealt a weak hand under the Bill, as a result of which public accountability will suffer.

All political parties in the House can sign up to the majority of the Bill. It will lead to an improvement in policing.However, if the Minister introduces an element that does not command public support—lack of accountability is one possibility—that may undermine confidence in the rest of the Bill. I do not want that to happen nor I am sure does the Minister. We are concerned about a matter of principle, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider those provisions that I consider are dangerous and ill-founded.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Miss Widdecombe. It will not come as a surprise either to the hon. Member for Lewes or to other members of the Committee that we do not wholly agree that the accredited schemes should operate only for local authority employees. We are not favourably inclined to such amendments. However, the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to issues that are of concern to us, particularly that of accountability.

We are worried about how such schemes will be accountable and how they will be managed, controlled and monitored. The hon. Member for North Durham referred to monitoring, and one of the issues that I want to ask the chief constable—I mean, the Minister—[Interruption.] Everything comes to he who waits. Bearing in mind that the Government are planning to take over the powers of the chief constable, my remark was probably not as Freudian as it appeared.

How does the Minister envisage the chief constable knowing what is going on? There are to be codes of practice under clause 40. Will the hon. Gentleman share with us the contents of those codes? Our root

worry is who will control the people in a day-to-day fashion. Who will deploy them and decide where they will operate? How will their operations be monitored? Will the local authority be responsible for private sector operations or if such activities were sub-contracted? Will the police be responsible if the local authority were not involved in the sub-contract arrangement? If such officers use the police powers that are given to them under schedule 5, will the use of those powers automatically have to be reported back to the chief constable, along the lines of, ''Here is a civilian who has used the power of a police officer,'' a statement from which events may flow?

Those are important and worrying questions to which we do not yet fully know the answers. We have discussed the complaints procedure and the role—or, in this case, lack of role—of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in previous sittings. I hope that the Minister will expand on the few sketchy words in subsection (6) that deal with how the complaints procedure will operate, and will say what element of independence will be involved when a complaint against one of those officers is considered.

I am conscious that I am straying slightly from the amendments and into matters that would normally come under a stand part debate. I hope that you will indulge me and allow me to do so, Miss Widdecombe, as the subject fits together with the issue of accountability, which the hon. Member for Lewes made the centrepiece of the amendments under discussion. The issue of training does not even appear in the clause. We are talking about people who will have considerable police powers. Will the Minister tell us about the training given to people before they are allowed to use those powers?

When we discussed the previous group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made a point about the link between accredited community safety schemes and the myriad successful schemes across the country to which hon. Members of all parties have referred both in Committee and on Second Reading. Neighbourhood warden, street warden, ambassador and other terms are used to describe those involved in such schemes. I was pleased to hear the Minister tell my hon. Friend that there will be no compulsion on local authorities or others to incorporate such people into accredited community safety schemes. However, I hope that he will further explain what guidance will be issued to local authorities.

Many of those involved in neighbourhood warden type schemes have gained some experience but have very little training. According to the evidence that I have picked up, we are talking about a few days of training. There is no way, even adding the experience that some of them have gained, that they have enough to move straight into accredited community safety schemes, and to have police powers. There would need to be a lot more training involved.

I was interested to learn that new recruits to the Parks police in Kensington and Chelsea who have not come from the Metropolitan police have to undergo 10 weeks of training. I know that that is not a direct

analogy; a Parks policeman has more power than an ACSO will. Nevertheless, 10 weeks is a benchmark against which we can measure the amount of training that ACSOs have before they get interventionist powers, including those for the confiscation of tobacco and so on.

Those are important points, and I hope that the Minister will answer them. We have no philosophical objection to local authorities using private sector sub-contractors, as some already do for street policing. I have seen that done in Camden. Nor do we object to the police directly accrediting an external organisation and making it part of the police family. However, I am concerned about accountability, the level of management control, how ACSOs use police powers and whether the chief constable is aware of how they are using them.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough) rose—

Norman Baker rose—

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I give way first to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe).

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. Most of his questions will be answered by the arrangements into which the chief officer enters.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right; we certainly hope that that will be the case. However, we are here as legislators. Before we allow a Bill giving the chief constable such powers to be enacted, the least that we can do is challenge the Government about their precise intentions, not least because it is important to know what we are legislating for.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right, but as legislators we must also provide legislation that gives the chief constable sufficient powers to enter into appropriate arrangements. The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the breadth of those powers.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman's argument does not follow through, because a substantial part of the Bill relates to making decisions for chief constables. Part 1 of the Bill is all about telling chief constables how to run their force. The theme that the hon. Gentleman espouses does not run through the Bill.

One of the issues involved is complaints. There is total inconsistency between the vague statement in subsection (6) and the complaints procedure that we discussed for police officers and community support officers—civilians employed by the police. There will be one arrangement for a civilian employed by the police who confiscates alcohol and a completely different complaints procedure for the accredited safety officer who does so. That is not right. Although the Minister refused to accept our amendments to add to the remit of the independent commission, he owes us a duty to explain more fully the complaints procedure that he envisages, including independent scrutiny.

I apologise for having taken a long time to give way to the hon. Member for Lewes. I was responding to the previous intervention.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I understand.

Reliance on chief constables will weaken accountability further, as we shall not know what decisions chief constables are making when the Bill is passed. There may be wide variation in what chief constables do, and inevitably there will be good and bad practice. In the worst areas—by definition, there are bound to be worst areas—there will be unsatisfactory arrangements that have not been approved by Parliament.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There will certainly be huge variation, which, certainly in the early years, will in itself be a strength, inasmuch as we shall be able to find out a little more about how things work and iron out the wrinkles. Like the Minister, I hope that best practice will spread quickly under the arrangements that will ultimately be in the legislation.

I understand the view expressed by the Local Government Association, although I appreciate that the Minister may say, ''They would say that, wouldn't they?'' It is worried about the funding implications of introducing the accreditation scheme. The costs associated in training staff, monitoring performance and establishing vetting procedures cannot be met from existing budgets.

All those points relate to accountability, and some comments from the Minister about that would be helpful. Perhaps on this occasion he will rule out what he flatly refused to rule out, and effectively ruled in, when we discussed CSOs—the idea of a ring-fenced budget, to encourage the development of CSOs. I hope that he will assure us that there will not be a similar ring-fenced budget to encourage accredited community safety schemes.

Thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to stray beyond the amendments, Miss Widdecombe. All those issues are directly related to the clause and to the powers and development of accredited schemes, and I hope that the Minister will respond.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

Before I call further Members, I should say that, having listened to the scope of the debate, I am now not minded to allow a debate on clause stand part. Members may want to take that into account in deciding whether to contribute to the debate on the amendments.

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

I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, which I shall not repeat. I agree with every word that he said.

I shall examine another aspect that is relevant to the amendments. I have spoken to representatives of housing associations, which also require careful consideration. We worry about the private sector, but what about housing associations, especially when there has been large-scale stock transfer? I know that some housing associations feel that local authorities have left them on their own to deal with all the issues on the streets. In that sense, they want community safety wardens, and I appreciate that.

I return to a point that I made earlier, although I suspect that it is more relevant now. All the local bodies should be pulled together. If housing associations are given a power that is not tied into the local authority, they are being given policing powers without other strengths to tackle behaviour on the estates. Clearly, there is currently isolation. We should use the Bill to try to tie things together.

I am cheating a little because I have a few quotes from a report that monitored antisocial behaviour orders. We could translate them across to this issue; I am not trying to be devious, but to underline my point. The report refers to registered social landlords and, in the context of ASBOs, says:

''The 2000 guidance recommends that they are included in drawing up the local crime and disorder strategy''.

However, it also says that registered social landlords are often left out of the equation, and that one solution proposed by more by one person was to compel partners—

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

Does the hon. Lady accept that we shall deal with the part of the Bill that addresses registered social landlords and ASBOs during a later sitting? Registered social landlords might have been left out of the equation at the time of the review of ABSOs, but they are certainly not today.

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

I just need to clarify that I am referring to accredited safety officers. I suggest that the points made in the review translate over to that context if we are considering a holistic approach to policing on estates. I am aware that we shall pick up on those points and that they shall be relevant. I am being honest by saying that the quotes are out of context.

A local authority representative said:

''I think that something else needs to be put in place to facilitate a requirement on the crime and disorder partnerships...There needs to be something that actually directs the crime and disorder partnerships to include RSLs''.

If a problem of working together exists in that context, it is even more important to tie in all relevant bodies when we consider the broader agenda of community safety officers. Will the Minister address that—if he has followed my argument across contexts? Undoubtedly, we need community safety wardens on our large estates that are managed by housing associations. My personal preference would be to accept the amendments that would tie in local authorities firmly and ensure that everybody works together.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe, after working with you closely over recent years. May I take advantage of the licence that you kindly gave us to explore more broadly the accredited community safety schemes?

I begin by joining the hon. Member for Lewes in noting the irony of the Labour party giving private companies policing powers. I can imagine the song and dance that you, Miss Widdecombe, would have heard

from Labour Members in Committee—perhaps including several in the Room today—had you proposed such a scheme when you were a Home Office Minister. There we go; the world has moved on.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who is not present, teased the hon. Member for Lewes about elected police authorities. Of course, elected police authorities formed part of the Labour party's policy for almost two decades, but the world has moved on from that as well.

I share some of the worries raised by the hon. Member for Lewes and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I would like the Minister to explain the types of employers to whom the clauses refer more specifically than as outlined in the Bill. If the provisions address social landlords, I am happy that they have the option of using such schemes. For example, the schemes in place at the Longridge and Coleshaw Farm housing estates in my constituency work extremely well. Social landlords should certainly have powers to apply for accreditation. How far does that go? Who does the Minister have in mind? Is he talking about store detectives in supermarkets and shopping centres? Does he mean private security firms that may patrol private or industrial property? It would be interesting to know whether nightclub bouncers fall within the definition?

I realise that I am straying slightly into clause 37, but will the Minister say whether the onus is on the chief constable to accredit someone unless he is not happy that that person is fit and proper in line with various parts of the clause? Alternatively, will the chief constable be given complete freedom to say that he does not want private security companies in his area to have accredited schemes? Could a private security firm take a chief constable to court and say, ''We have met all the criteria under the Bill, but you are not accrediting us''? Will the Minister clear up my worries?

The Bill is taking many good neighbourhood warden schemes—a Burkean myriad of little platoons—and, in effect, nationalising them by forcing them under the umbrella of local police accreditation schemes. I have mentioned the Stockport town warden scheme before, but it was a pioneering schemes. It is close to my constituency and two people involved in it have expressed worries about the provisions. Dave Curtis, the manager of the scheme, said:

''The police have a different recruitment and training system. We are taking unemployed people and we receive applications from a different type of person to the police force.''

He said that he was worried about such people having police powers.

Stephen O'Hagan, the head of estate management at Stockport borough council, agreed with that and said:

''In the limited consultation we've done, we've found that people are wary of the powers of enforcement. There's a feeling it might create a barrier between the community and the wardens.''

That is an important point. One reason why the warden schemes have worked well in my constituency and elsewhere is that local people do not see the wardens as police officers. As a result, the wardens have built up a different bond of trust with local

people. When most of the schemes are accredited, there is a danger that that bond of trust will be weakened because such officers will become part of the policing family and, in the process, will lose some of their informal relationship with the local community.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

I share the pleasure of my hon. Friends at serving under your chairmanship, Miss Widdecombe. The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that the clause is widely drawn in allowing community safety schemes to be set up. Under the clause, any business can be given a community safety scheme. Let us suppose that a struggling magazine, albeit with a steeply rising circulation, came under attack from a powerful and determined Government in the form of a director of communications and strategy who was determined to assail the magazine. The editor of the magazine felt it necessary to recruit a community safety officer. He went to the chief officer and said, ''I have a man called Bruce Anderson. He is a fit and proper person. I undertake to give him the requisite training. He will command awe and respect from all who survey him.'' The chief officer would agree to that.

To return to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, this part of the Bill is so widely framed that it will be susceptible to much confusion. That is the main problem.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Is it not right that, in any application for accreditation, we will vest in the chief constable the discretion to decide whether to approve? Therefore, is it not right that we should presume that that discretion, vested in appropriately appointed chief officers, will be sensibly and reasonably exercised?

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

That is the point. I am sure that it would be sensibly and reasonably exercised, and I have no doubt that a chief officer would want to give this hypothetical magazine the protection that it deserved—and that, therefore, the scheme would be allowed to go ahead.

However, there would be several points of ambiguity that would be left entirely up to the employer. What nomenclature will be given to this warden? Will he be called a community safety officer—which is not a very catchy name—or will he be called a Denham? That will be left entirely to the discretion of those who are responsible for the schemes.

What uniform will he wear? [Hon. Members: ''Denim.''] Denim has been suggested; that is brilliant, and it is a joke with which the Minister may well be familiar.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

Order. I hesitate to interrupt this entertainment, but the hon. Gentleman is addressing issues that will more properly be dealt with when we discuss clause 38. Therefore, I ask him to bring his interesting speech back within the scope of the present topic.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

Thank you, Miss Widdecombe. My intention is to point up the danger of confusion. The Minister has said that best practice will gradually roll

out across the country, as one scheme learns from another. That is an interesting Darwinian view of how this might work. However, I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has cogently said, there will be confusion between different schemes, and that very good existing warden schemes will be replaced—and that they will be crowded out by a nationalised variety of warden.

The most important thing is that CSOs—or whatever we are going to call them—should have respect, and that people should know what they are doing. Much as I approve of private involvement at all levels, I fear that the legislation is too widely drawn, and that it will lead to a dangerous incoherence in the public's image of CSOs.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I welcome you, Miss Widdecombe, and I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship.

The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) frequently gets carried away by his own rhetoric, which is amusing for us all. He seems to be suggesting that there is something mandatory about all these powers. The legislation merely empowers a chief constable to look at his own operational area, and to decide whether accrediting any schemes would be useful to him. If he shares the hon. Gentleman's reservations about some particular schemes, he simply will not accredit them.

As far as I can see, there is no prospect of a judicial review leading to anybody being compelled to accredit a scheme, because that is entirely within the chief constable's operational discretion. The chief constable is the person with the best view; I would have thought that the courts would readily accept that.

I wish to raise another concern by, once again, sheltering under the licence given by the Chair. It is inappropriate that these schemes should be limited to local authorities, for the many reasons that have been set out. However, although I do not advocate that limit, there would be an advantage to imposing it; local authorities are at least public authorities, within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, whereas many other people who can be accredited with the powers to have officers will not, on the face of it, be public authorities within the meaning of that Act. It is inappropriate to say that the answer is to confine those people to local authorities.

It is hugely important that crime and disorder partnerships, neighbourhood renewal, housing associations and registered social landlords—even in my constituency, the single regeneration budget group—should be able to have enhanced power to take responsibility for their own communities. Surely, the issue is one of devolving the power to produce a scheme that fits into the local community at its most local level, and is best assessed by those concerned.

In my view, it is out of the question and of no use to the people who are suffering crime and disorder on the ground to limit the scheme to local authorities. However, the Human Rights Act protects individuals' human rights only against public authorities.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am extremely interested in her point. Is it not true that, once an organisation is accredited—even a private sector one—through exercise of the statutory powers to exercise certain public functions in law enforcement areas, it then falls within the remit of the Human Rights Act as a public authority?

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest. He is also a lawyer and aware that the definition of a public authority includes any person who carries out functions of a public nature. I was going to come to that point later.

Human rights are not enforceable against anyone who is not a public authority. It is clear that, above all other types of agencies of the state, people with police powers should be subject to the Human Rights Act. If there was any real point in introducing that measure—and there were many—that was one of the most important. The fact that the officers will not have detention powers takes the worst bite out of any risk that they are not covered by the Act. None the less, they will have powers to demand names and addresses and seize alcohol. Also, the schedule allows the Home Secretary to increase or alter their powers. In a sense, we are legislating in the dark as to how future Home Secretaries may decide to empower such officers.

It is hugely important that officers fall within the ambit of the Human Rights Act. Not surprisingly, the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the issue in its 15th report. I am a member of that Committee, as is the hon. Member for Lewes. We wanted reassurance from the Government about whether, in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough suggested, private employees could be public authorities. It is hard in any ordinary sense to countenance somebody running a shopping centre as being a public authority. The shopping centre near me in Middlesbrough is owned and run by Legal and General, which does not readily fall into the category of public authority, so we sought reassurance. The Government's provisional answer was that,

''The decision on which bodies are public authorities for the purpose of the 1998 Act is a matter for the courts.''

The trouble is that the state of current decisions is pretty chaotic—a clear finding at Court of Appeal level found that the Leonard Cheshire Foundation is not a public authority but that that the Poplar Housing Association is.

By extrapolating the notion that a Leonard Cheshire home could be a sheltered accommodation of a fair size, one might imagine that a warden scheme would be desirable. However, at present, such wardens would not be employed by a public authority, so would not be subject to the Human Rights Act, whereas a housing association would be. That is pretty chaotic. It is not satisfactory to legislate and then say, ''Even if the courts don't know what it means, we can leave it to them to decide in due course.'' The report states that

''in the Government's view, those private employees who enter into arrangements with the chief officer of police to accredit employees and accredited persons themselves''

—the employee and the accreditor—

''would also be held to be 'public authorities' within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act''.

I deduce from that response that it is the Government's intention that anyone subject to an accredited scheme should be a public authority according to that definition. The only way that that will happen is if the Government say so, preferably in the Bill. If they are not willing to say that all accredited schemes must be public authorities, will the Minister make it clear that any ambiguity in their status could be cleared up? That way, if a legal case were to follow on from the issue and the powers, the now well-known authority of Pepper v. Hart would allow the parties to bring up his remarks in support of the assertion that the schemes are public authorities. I urge him to help with that clarification.

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

I am grateful for your tolerance in accepting wide-ranging debate, Miss Widdecombe. It has been helpful, as several important issues have been raised.

It might be useful if I set out the slightly wider context to the debate. I shall draw on the example given by the hon. Member for Henley, who would like to ensure that his hypothetical magazine does not employ anyone with a dubious background, or anyone who might have been responsible in the past for telling tall tales and spreading malicious rumours or gossip about third parties—the sorts of things that a respectable magazine would wish to protect itself against. However, he should not be looking to the accreditation scheme to protect himself—

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

He's got Black Rod.

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

An important part of the wider background to our discussion on the private sector is the establishment of the Security Industry Authority. From next April, it will progressively bring the private guarding industry into a system of national regulation and will apply some basic minimum standards to that occupation. We anticipate that any private sector company covered by accreditation will be registered with and regulated by the SIA. However, chief constables will wish to build upon the basic minimum standard that the SIA would bring into play. I mention that because issues were raised about accreditation and tasks such as checking employees' histories. Such things certainly need to be done, but might already be fulfilled by the registration requirements of the SIA. They might mean additional local responsibilities.

The first big point of interest is whether accreditation schemes should extend to non-local authority schemes. As far as housing association and other schemes are concerned, it is worth recognising that 35 per cent. of the neighbourhood warden or street warden schemes that we have identified are not local authority schemes; they are run by other organisations, typically housing associations and registered social landlords. To exclude those schemes—and I suspect that they will exist in greater

numbers in future—from accreditation does not make sense, as they already involve some liaison and co-operation with the police. Bringing them into a formal accreditation scheme will strengthen rather than weaken their role.

Private sector schemes were mentioned. In places like Bluewater shopping centre or Trafford Park industrial estate, which was mentioned in the police reform White Paper, there is already a working relationship between police and the private sector in order to develop the best use of the extended police family. It is in the public interest that there should be a framework that formally acknowledges that co-operation locally and ensures that there are uniform minimum standards across the police force before someone takes part in an accreditation system.

Removing the private sector from accreditation schemes will not stop co-operation between the private guarding industry and the police; it will just remove the possibility of bringing that relationship within a consistent legal framework if the chief constable chooses to do so. I do not believe that it is to anyone's advantage to exclude the private sector. I shall deal with issues relating to accountability and complaints, but I do not believe that an issue of principle is involved that private-sector organisations or non-local authority organisations should be excluded from accreditation schemes.

Several issues have been raised that follow on from that. First, would an organisation or private security company apply to the chief constable for accreditation? The hon. Member for Lewes said that people would apply to the chief constable and no doubt be approved. It is not a system that provides a right to apply for accreditation. The chief constable has total discretion over that.

Secondly, there will be only one accreditation scheme for an area. The Bill does not set out a series of bilateral relationships between the chief constable and local organisations. To have coherence, the accreditation scheme will be a scheme for the area in which the organisations that the chief constable approves under the Bill can formally participate. That may help the Committee understand the Bill.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked who will control or deploy those covered by the accreditation scheme. Clearly, we would expect the exact working relationship between the police and members of the extended police family to be covered by the local accreditation scheme. However, the day-to-day responsibility for deploying neighbourhood wardens, for example, will lie with the local authority—the employer. Nevertheless, one might expect an accreditation scheme to set out the arrangements and availability of neighbourhood wardens, for example, to have briefing meetings with the police. Hon. Members who have spoken to local neighbourhood wardens will know that it is usually part of the system to have, on a weekly or fortnightly basis, an hour or so briefing meeting involving police and neighbourhood wardens. Such matters might be covered by an accreditation scheme.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Will my right hon. Friend clarify a matter that is troubling me? It relates to the legal nature of the arrangements that he envisages will be entered into under subsection (5). Who will, ordinarily, be the parties to those arrangements? If they were breached, would any legal sanction be available?

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

The arrangement would be between the police and the employers. The Bill provides for the chief constable to remove accreditation at any point if he is not satisfied that standards are being met. I shall take the opportunity to find out whether any further advice arrives, but the emphasis in drafting the Bill was that the chief officer would be able to end the scheme at any point at which he felt that the standards were not being met, and, similarly, would have the discretion to remove from accreditation schemes people who do not meet the standard.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, it would be impossible under judicial review to compel an exercise of discretion, but it may be possible to quash an exercise of discretion. If the chief constable ceased the arrangements, might the matter come before the courts?

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

As always, in the case of every matter that we discuss in every Bill these days, with the growth of administrative law, public servants such as chief constables have a general duty to act reasonably. We believe that a chief constable's responsibilities in the Bill in relation to satisfying himself about complaints about training and other matters should be sufficient for him not to be—I suspect that this is my hon. Friend's fear—backed into a corner where he is deeply unhappy with how a scheme is operating but feels unable to do anything about it.

In drafting the Bill, we tried to make the chief constable's responsibilities clear and ensure that each of the points on which he needed to be satisfied were points on which he could say, ''I am no longer satisfied'', so that that scheme, employee or employer would no longer be part of the operation. Although I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, I hope that we have structured the provision—

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

Order. I know that it is difficult from the Front Bench, but if the Minister turns his back entirely to the Chair, that confuses not only the Chair but the Hansard reporters.

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

I apologise, Miss Widdecombe. I hope that we have avoided the situation about which my hon. Friend was concerned.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I want to pick up the Minister on his point about there being only one scheme. Most of us had recognised that there would be only one scheme in a whole force area, so in London, there would be only one scheme for the whole Met.

I challenge the Minister on his point that there will be no bilateral arrangements. Clause 37 makes it clear that a chief police officer will make direct arrangements with employers and with every individual accredited community safety officer. Each ACSO will be approved. Therefore, there will be many bilateral arrangements among separate employers under the scheme's umbrella. That point also relates to powers. I am not sure whether each officer within the scheme automatically has the same powers or whether, as clause 37 suggests, separate arrangements will exist to determine which powers are allocated to each officer.

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

The hon. Gentleman has picked me up on a perfectly fair point. Although I was right to say that there will not be separate individual accreditation schemes between different employers and the police, the Bill clearly provides for arrangements with employers in the way that he described. Indeed, that is important when considering the private sector and, perhaps, warden and guard schemes that relate to registered social landlords. The Bill will enable accredited individuals' powers to be restricted to not only their working duties, but their place of work. For example, an accredited person employed as a guard in a major shopping centre might be able to exercise his powers only when at work and in the centre. All accredited individuals under a London scheme, for example, would not be able to exercise their powers everywhere in London. That is important because it would make no sense if the Bill allowed a security company's employees who guarded a specific shopping centre to have a range of police powers in circumstances in which they were not accountable to their employer or not at work. The hon. Gentleman was right, which allowed me to clarify my earlier statement about bilateral powers.

I turn to the complaints procedure, which is covered by subsection (6). As schemes develop and guidance is issued, the model for the complaints procedure might vary within a scheme from employer to employer. For example, if a local authority had a well-established complaints system that covered their employees, the chief officer might choose to build on that system for people employed by a local authority. The chief officer would need to be satisfied that adequate complaints procedures were available to people working for a registered social landlord or a private sector employer.

I think that the subsection is a part of the Bill about which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that it is reasonable for law makers to ask whether we have sufficient detail at this stage. The Bill contains sufficient responsibilities because it is clear that the chief officer has responsibility for ensuring that there is an adequate complaints procedure. The Bill provides sufficient levers to ensure good practice, notably through a later clause that will allow us to issue codes of practice. We should be able to ensure that a good complaints procedure is in place for each case. It would be a mistake, however, to expect that a single national

complaints procedure should be prescribed from the centre to cover the entire range of organisations that could come within a local accreditation scheme.

Training is covered by clause 37(4)(d). Again, it will need to be appropriate to the powers that are being exercised. We expect Centrex—the central police training and development authority—to establish training packages. It will build on the work that has been undertaken successfully over the past year and examine the responsibilities of police officers and others, and the type of training that is necessary to deliver those competencies and responsibilities. We shall set down in the training packages for accredited staff—as for CSOs—what skills they are expected to exercise and show how they have been trained to carry out such skills in line with training procedures. It is much more important to concentrate on the content of training in that logical way rather than on whether it was undertaken for three, five or seven weeks. It is critical to identify the powers and responsibilities that will be exercised to make sure that the training is appropriate. As experience develops, we shall be able to use the powers under later clauses to impose a binding code of practice.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Newark, Conservative)

How will the success or otherwise of the training be assessed? If it is found to be unsuccessful and the ACSOs fail their exams, will they be made to take them again?

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

At present, there is constant feedback between the police service and training bodies about the quality of training. When deficiencies are identified, they are addressed within that process. I expect it to be similar under the Bill. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about the exercise of police powers. The Bill does not require each exercise of police powers to be reported to the chief constable any more than each parking ticket given by a local authority traffic warden is reported to the chief constable, even though such activity was carried out by a police employee a few years ago. As part of their self-assurance about the operation of the schemes, we expect chief constables to have in place adequate monitoring to show how the accredited community safety officers were working, the effectiveness or otherwise of their powers and the overall impact on levels of crime, antisocial behaviour and public reassurance. I do not believe that it would be sensible or necessary for the Government to prescribe those mechanisms in the setting up of the schemes.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Newark, Conservative)

The reason why I asked that question is that a detention officer in Newark said that, while his job was useful, worthwhile and relieved a regular police officer, his training lacked in depth and quality. He acknowledged that he was part of a new scheme and that, as it developed, it would improve. I wanted to bring that officer's remarks to the attention of the Minister.

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

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is still the case today that several police officers in specialist roles have not received the level of

specialist training that we would have liked them to receive. The police skills standards organisation is developing a competence-based framework for appraising and assessing the development of police officers. That framework gives us confidence that the new police powers can be identified and that appropriate training is being given. Over the past few years, a much more systematic approach has been developed to tackle the sort of problems identified by the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that I have covered many of the issues that have been raised, and I now turn to the point about compliance with the European convention on human rights, which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar—although she has also anticipated much of the response that I am about to give to that, as I would expect from a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

With regard to potential liability under the Human Rights Act 1998, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledged, many of the potential employers of accredited persons—such as local authorities—will be obvious public authorities within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. It is for the courts to decide which bodies and persons are public authorities for the purposes of the 1998 Act. However, in the Government's view, those private employers who enter into arrangements with the chief officer of police to accredit employees and accredited persons themselves would also be held to be public authorities within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act, which refers to

''any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature''.

They will be held to be public authorities when they exercise powers and duties that are conferred on them under the provisions of the Bill.

The Government would be reluctant to make express provision that employers under community safety accreditation schemes are to be regarded as public authorities within the meaning of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act. That is because the approach taken by the Human Rights Act to the definition of public authorities was a matter of deliberate policy; and although it may be true that some aspects of the case law on this topic remain to be clarified, it is likely that employers of community safety accreditation schemes would be regarded as public authorities when performing functions in connection with those schemes.

I do not wish to rehearse further the debates that were held during the passage of the Act, and subsequently, on the pros and cons of listing public authorities in the legislation. I would prefer to rest the Government's case, but I hope that I have given at least some of the clarification that my hon. Friend was seeking.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

Does the Government intend that these people should be public authorities, regardless of any speculation about what the decision of the court might ultimately be? Is it the Government's intention that they should be public authorities?

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

Today, my intention is not to go any further than what I have said, and to repeat the position that we gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, I hope that I have been helpful by giving the clearest view that I can on what we think these employers' position will be in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough, Labour)

Are the Government seeking to continue to legislate in the current terms because it is their view that these employers will be subject to that Act?

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

We are continuing to legislate in a manner that leaves us confident that we are not extending police powers in a way that lays us vulnerable to the charge of ignoring or stepping around human rights legislation. However, for reasons that have been rehearsed elsewhere, the Government have chosen not to attempt the task of naming every single organisation that could be a public authority in relation to specific bits of the legislation.

If I have overlooked any of the issues that have been raised, I hope to be able to respond to them in a moment.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The last few minutes of the Minister's speech were very interesting, and I will turn to the matters that he addressed shortly.

The Minister has not really discussed the philosophical issue as to whether it is right for private sector bodies whose interests are, necessarily, their own, to be exercising police powers in the public interest. He has also failed to address the point that members of the public who might accept being given a ticket for littering by a police officer—or even by a CSO—might not accept being given one by an employee of an organisation such as Tesco. I think that he is in danger of undermining respect for the law through the exercise of the powers that he wishes to hand over to private sector employees. He also failed to pick up on the point that there may be a conflict of interest between the private company and what the public wish to see in, for example, the complaints procedure. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire touched on that.

The Bill establishes the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That has been widely welcomed by everyone in the country as going some way towards dealing with a problem that everyone recognises: the fact that the police are judge and jury in their own courts. It was for that reason that the Government brought forward the proposals, but having introduced the concept into the Bill, they are now undermining it by excluding a range of officers from the provision. In some ways, excluding private sector employees is worse than excluding public sector employees.

What will be the reaction of a private sector company if it receives a complaint about one of its employees and their activities? Will it say, ''Yes, that employee was wrong; we have a major failure in our company. We are happy to take the knocks in the local

paper, and see our reputation diminished. It is absolutely right; there was a problem here''? Or will the reaction be ''We got that wrong. Let's try to cover it up''? I suggest that in many cases, the latter will be the reaction. The Minister is simply wrong not to include those people under the umbrella of the IPCC.

The Minister is also wrong not to recognise the potential conflict of interest in smaller matters. Let us suppose that a shopping centre had a street cafe that was licensed to sell alcohol. That street cafe might be happy to pay more rent if there was to be no other alcohol consumed in that area. It would be in the interests of the persons running the shopping centre, who might be agents of the accreditation scheme, to be hard on anyone consuming alcohol in that area. That may not be necessary for public safety reasons or to prevent public disorder, but may simply be convenient in order to please someone paying rent to that company. All sorts of conflicts could arise, and the Minister has not dealt with them.

The Minister mentioned existing schemes, and seemed to use them as justification for saying that everything will be all right on the night with them, but the hon. Member for Tatton correctly said that those involved in existing schemes do not have police powers. Such schemes operate voluntarily with the consent of the public precisely because they do not have police powers. The Minister is proposing a marked difference in the way that those schemes operate, but assumes that there will be no difference in the public response to that.

The Minister also talked about the necessity for co-operation with the private sector, as if any hon. Member suggested that that should not occur. Of course it should; it does and it must. However, that is different to giving private employees police powers, and that is the issue that I hope I addressed when I spoke to the amendment. The Minister has given some colour to the idea of what an accreditation scheme might be, but it is still not clear to me—I do not know about other hon. Members—exactly how it will operate.

There is to be one scheme per area, but it is not clear how big an area is. Will it be a police authority area, or a town centre, or something else? Nor is it clear how many employers from private sector organisations could be involved in a scheme. He has not effectively addressed the issue of the conditions for ending the scheme. The hon. Member for Wellingborough intervened on the Minister on the subject of the difficulties that a chief constable could face if an organisation running a scheme did not want to be removed. It might say that it had lost respectability, or that its share price tumbled at a particular instant. It may think it necessary to protect its public reputation by taking action; that seems to me to be quite a likely scenario. We do not know what the exit strategy is. It is not clear from clause 36 or 37. We are going into the scheme in the dark.

We are also going into the dark and hoping for the best with our fingers crossed in regard to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar about the relationship of accredited schemes to the Human Rights Act. We will have a topsy-turvy upside down world in which private employees will be classed as public authorities, according to the Minister, although that is not definite. We are assuming that the court may take the view that the Minister's interpretation is right. However, that may fall apart and we may find that they are not public authorities at all. Although I am not a lawyer, deciding that private organisations and employees are actually public authorities takes some stretching of the imagination.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee that there are no circumstances in which private employees would be regarded as public authorities? Does he think that it sets a precedent?

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

It is precedent setting in the sense that some real issues have been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar about the relationship between the powers proposed under the Human Rights Act. A whole new body of people will have police powers for the first time, so there is no precedent. We are moving into unknown territory, and the Minister is taking unnecessary risks.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a specific provision in the Bill that allows for a private body to be dealt with as if it were a public authority. It is not as if one must impossibly transpose Lloyd's bank or whoever owns the shopping centre in my constituency into a public authority. If such organisations carry out public duties they will be deemed to be public authorities, and it was the vagueness surrounding that point that required clarification.

I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has put his finger on the point: if the Government introducing the legislation express their expectation that the courts will find that what have been created are public authorities, it means that they intend them to be that, and they will have difficulty escaping that later on. Frankly, I do not think that they will want to escape it. It would be surprising if the Government who introduced the Human Rights Act wanted to exclude vast chunks of people from its remit.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I very much hope that that is the case. I regularly give credit to the Government for introducing the Act, which is a major step forward for civil liberties. However, the hon. and learned Lady asked whether all the accredited schemes would involve public authorities, and the Minister replied that he did not wish to go further than the comments supplied to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He said, ''It is likely.'' We have heard the intentions—the Minister nodded during the intervention, which I put on record, but we have little more than that.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Perhaps he was nodding off.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps.

The Home Secretary may subsequently alter the powers. The Minister relied on the Security Industry Authority, and I respect its work. Is he saying that no organisation will be allowed to be part of an accredited scheme unless it is a member of the Security Industry Authority? It would be helpful if he did say that, but I am not sure that he did. The organisation is an umbrella body in a sense, paid for by companies that are subject to its oversight. Therefore, it is not entirely independent and could be compared with the Press Complaints Commission, which is not without criticism for the way in which it operates.

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

On the point about the SIA, in the information that I gave the Committee, I said that it existed and that I believed that chief constables would be likely to build upon it. It is right that there is no requirement in the Bill for the scheme to depend on the SIA. However, given the existence of a regulatory body, there is a reasonable expectation that chief constables would think twice before putting into accreditation a scheme that was eligible to register and had been rejected by the SIA.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Again, we have been told by the Minister that it would be likely that schemes would be subject to the SIA and that it is unlikely that a chief constable would go ahead without SIA approval or membership of a body of the SIA's code of practice, or whatever. We do not know that it will definitely happen. If the Minister believes that membership of the SIA is the appropriate way of dealing with the various bodies, why does he not make it a requirement? He seems to be leaving open the option that a chief constable may decide that the SIA is a jolly good body, but someone who wants to exercise powers does not have to be subject to its requirements. I do not understand why he leaves the loophole open.

I have told the Committee about some grave reservations that my colleagues and I have about the powers being handed over to the private sector in the way proposed by the Bill. I accept the well-made point of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar that the term ''local authority'' could be slightly narrow and it might be more appropriate to use ''public authority''. Nevertheless, the objections that my colleagues and I have to the proposals are so deep that I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

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

That ragbag of assaults on the Bill should not go unchallenged. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Lewes talks about devolution of the police forces when it suits him. However, although it is clearly reasonable to rest on the judgment and explicit legal responsibilities of chief constables set out in the Bill, he portrays a world in which chief constables are never to be trusted and cannot be expected to comply with their legal duties or carry through their responsibilities. That is ridiculous.

The hon. Gentleman conjured up a situation in which a private security company was bribed by a shop to enforce the law in a certain manner. Under the Bill, the chief constable will be able to terminate such an

arrangement immediately. It is clearly an offence to act outside the responsibilities in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman's claims have no credence.

It would be wrong to prescribe every element of the procedure. The Bill sets out that the chief constable will be responsible for the complaints procedure. That lays a requirement on the chief constable to assure him or herself that the complaints procedure is established and maintained. Therefore, the chief constable must monitor how the procedure is working to comply with the responsibilities in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's idea that that part of the Bill does not exist and that a letter from a company saying, ''We've got a complaints procedure. Leave it all to us and don't worry about how we do things,'' would satisfy the Bill's requirements is wrong. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has done himself no credit by conjuring up a series of situations that do not have credibility.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As the hon. Member for Lewes appears intent on dividing the Committee, I want confirmation that the amendments on which we shall vote would mean that a significant number of existing warden schemes would be ineligible for accreditation. Will the Minister put on record whether that is the case because if it is, I am afraid that we shall not be able to support the hon. Member for Lewes?

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

Our best estimate—there is no central register of schemes—is that the amendments would put 35 per cent. of existing schemes outside accreditation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 18.