Clause 37 - Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
12:30 pm

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 36, line 38, at end insert—

'(aa) that there has not been a bankruptcy order made against the person's employer, or the employer's estate has not been sequestrated, or the employer has not made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, its creditors;'.

This is a less controversial amendment. In fact, I see no reason why the Minister would not feel comfortable with it and be willing to support it, and I await his comments with interest. It concerns who should be eligible to be party to accreditation under the community safety accreditation schemes. I am worried that some definitions under the clause are a little vague. ''A fit and proper person'' may be used in other legislation, but it would benefit from amplification by the Minister. For example, it is not clear whether someone with a criminal record or spent conviction would be deemed a fit and proper person. I should like to know the exact meaning of the phrase when applied under the clause.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that it would be inappropriate for a person or organisation to be given powers if there had been

''a bankruptcy order made against the person's employer, or the employer's estate has not been sequestrated, or the employer had not made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, its creditors''.

I seek to impose a low threshold. The hon. Gentleman may recognise the words. I remind the Committee that they are taken directly from paragraph 11(1)(b) of schedule 2 on page 50 of the Police Act 1996. It relates to members of the police authority, but it applies the same principle. The concept is straightforward. The amendment is uncontroversial. Its wording has been used by Home Office draftsmen or draftswomen in the past. I look forward to the Minister giving it a fair wind.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Lewes has taken the wording of his amendment from the excellent Conservative Administration's Police Act 1996. Although my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I have not added our names in support of the amendment, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would do no harm to adopt the same safeguard that was adopted in another context under the 1996 Act. Even if the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that he may reflect on it with those who advise him and, who knows, a similar amendment may be tabled by the Government on Report. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill. It would be an extra safeguard and we shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

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

It is interesting to hear reference made to the Conservative Government when considering the amendment. Let us cast our minds back to the disastrous Conservative recession in the early 1990s when millions of people lost their homes. I recall that

a million or so small business went bankrupt. If someone had the misfortune to be bankrupted by the Tory Government in the early 1990s and has, over 10 years, built up a business in the guarding industry, for example, would we want that person to be excluded from participating in such activities because of one event in his life over which he had no control? We do not apply such a test to a wide range of organisations that provide sensitive services to the police service, such as fraud handling.

The point of principle has been referred to, and the test of a ''fit and proper person'' may include his financial history as well as criminal records, checks and so on. However, the amendment could draw into the pool a lot of people whom we would not sensibly want to exclude. I am not saying that such issues should not be looked into carefully, but the broader test of ''fit and proper'' is the responsibility of the chief officer who is running the accreditation scheme and one that should be applied.

I give the assurance that we expect companies that propose such schemes to carry out checks involving character references and criminal records, and that there should be checks of the organisation's financial standing, integrity and legitimacy. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will feel that we are meeting the spirit of his suggestion. The narrowness of the amendment might unfairly exclude some people, albeit possibly a small number.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I shall not delay the Committee unduly. I understand the Minister's point about a time scale. I would have been happier if he had said that the amendment is well founded and needed a provision relating to a time scale inserted into it in order to limit the effect to a recent bankruptcy, for example.

I still believe that the point about having the concept explained is valid, especially as we are discussing the exercise of police powers. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and find out whether an amended version that includes a time scale would be appropriate. However, in light of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.