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

I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 136, line 16, at end insert—

'Power to require giving of name and address

1A (1) Where an accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him has reason to believe that another person has committed a relevant offence in the relevant police area, he may require that other person to give him his name and address

(2) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) In this paragraph ''relevant offence'', in relation to any accredited person, means any offence which is—

(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of any powers exercisable by the accredited person by virtue of paragraph 1; or

(b) an offence the commission of which appears to the accredited person to have caused—

(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or

(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property;

but the accreditation of an accredited person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation.'.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 28, in page 136, line 18, leave out paragraph 2.

Government amendment No. 216.

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

This group of amendments relates to powers that are both appropriate for accredited persons and necessary to maximise their effectiveness. They deal with the power to require a name and address.

Government amendment No. 215 introduces a power to require a name and address for some offences, but it does not, as was mentioned earlier, reintroduce the power of detention that was deleted in another place. Opposition amendment No. 28 would delete the power to require the name and address of someone acting in an antisocial manner.

I shall explain the value of having the power to require a name and address, which we now propose without the power of detention. Denying accredited persons the power to require a name and address will hinder their effectiveness. Most obviously, the ability to require a name and address will enable the fixed penalty notice to be enforced. The ability to ask for a name and address in such circumstances may be enough to enable them to handle a low-level instance of disorder. In circumstances in which the power is ignored, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, there is no back-up legal power of detention. None the less, the power can help provide evidence for a future action, including an antisocial behaviour order, through the refusal to comply with the request to give a name and address.

The Bill contains significant safeguards to ensure that all the powers conferred on accredited persons are exercised appropriately. It is because we believe that the name and address provision is a key part of enforcement for accredited officers that we reintroduced it.

We listened to and took account of the mood in another place and discussions in Committee on powers of detention, and we have not introduced them. Without the back-up of the power of detention, in some circumstances the name and address will be refused. As I said, evidence of such refusal may help wardens and others to introduce further measures against offenders, including the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Amendment No. 216 is a consequential Government amendment.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

Will the Minister explain why, given the Government's decision not to give powers of detention to accredited safety schemes, he believes that CSOs should have a power to detain, as we debated, but that these people should not? What is the Government's logic?

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

In the Government's view, CSOs should have the power to detain with reasonable force. We believe that that power should be exercised only by someone who is directly employed by the police service—hence the full package for CSOs. For accredited community safety officers who are employed not by the police service but by local authorities or others, which we discussed earlier, a more limited range of powers was always appropriate, as they are not directly employed by the police service. That matter was discussed in another place. We have taken a realistic view of the situation, and we have secured by far the largest part of what we wanted, because there will be a legal right to require a name and address, and possible consequences if someone refuses to do supply that information. That is why we have introduced the amendments in this way.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's change of policy; they have deleted their proposal to give accredited officers the power of detention. Their previous position was wrong, and I give them credit for changing it.

However, there is an inconsistency in the present situation. We are giving the power to require someone to supply their name and address, but we are not giving any means to achieve that. Therefore, it is a power which cannot be enforced, which might lead to the system—and the officers concerned—being brought into disrepute. If someone were to say ''No'' to an officer and then walk away, that person could not be compelled to do anything. That would be an invidious position to put an accredited officers into.

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

I wish to ensure that there is no confusion. As I said earlier, there are two possible consequences. If someone who refuses to give their name and address is subsequently identified, they could be prosecuted for committing an offence under clause 45(2). Also, if someone is subsequently identified—which will frequently be the case—it will be possible for their refusal to give their name and address to be a part of the portfolio of evidence that is presented in seeking an antisocial behaviour order. Therefore, the idea that nothing can happen as a consequence is wrong.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I take on board the Minister's qualification of my point. However, there is no immediate consequence, and evidence will be required from a third person that the person who was required to give their name and address was present at the time and refused to supply that information. Otherwise, that person could simply deny that they were present when the incident occurred, and there would be no way around that—it would be a matter of one person's word against another's.

Mr Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore, Labour)

The use of CCTV cameras, which are extensively employed in Bridgend, might lead to such third-party evidence being provided.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

That is true. However, CCTV is not omnipresent—for which we should, perhaps, be thankful—and I do not think that the Government intend to make it so. Therefore, it will not cover all areas, but it might make an impact in certain circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said.

I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly, but I should refer the Minister to the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), whom I am glad has been restored to ministerial office as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He made the point that to give powers without means of enforcement would neither work, nor be very sensible. He made an eloquent speech about that, and he convinced me of his argument. Therefore, notwithstanding the Minister's qualifications, it is inappropriate for accredited officers to be put in the position of requiring something that they cannot ensure will be delivered.

I also have objections about someone from a private company being able to require a name and address. Those are the reasons why I oppose the Government's amendment, and support my amendment, which is also supported by Conservative Committee members.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

That amendment has been tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Lewes and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and I.

As the hon. Member for Lewes has pointed out, the amendment reflects that there is a straightforward conflict between the two sides of the Committee. While I like the hon. Gentleman, I am pleased that the Government have moved some way in our direction by not seeking to reimpose the power to detain for accredited persons. That was a worry to many police officers and the Police Federation. We give credit to the Minister for taking account of the strong views that were expressed in another place when the Bill was debated there. The Government have not gone far enough, however, so we oppose Government amendment No. 215, which wants to put back in part what their Lordships wisely removed. Moreover, paragraph 2 of the schedule should be removed.

The hon. Member for Lewes rightly expressed some worries. I debated the Private Security Industry Bill in the previous Parliament. You will have particular memories of the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I on that Bill, Miss Widdecombe, because we were part of your team at the time. I am much inclined to accept the worries that have been expressed by not only the hon. Member for Lewes today, but many of their Lordships and many Labour Members in those debates on the Private Security Industry Bill about giving extra powers to those who might turn out to be from the less reputable side of the private security industry.

It is a shame that the Government's business managers did not think it fit to make the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the acknowledged parliamentary expert after a lifetime in politics on the private security industry, a member of this Committee. Had he been here, he may have had considerable reservations about the Government's actions.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

That is exactly why.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

As my hon. Friend said, that is why the right hon. Member for Walsall, South is not a member of the Committee. When the Bill is discussed on Report, it will be interesting to see whether that senior and distinguished right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, has an opportunity to speak on such issues. If he does, I suspect that he may not agree with what the Minister is putting forward.

If the Government have their way and we end up with accredited persons having the right to require people to give their name and address, I foresee more confrontations on the street. I have defended and prosecuted at the Bar for several years. I was involved in many cases in both the Crown court and the magistrates court that arose from confrontations between private sector security guards in shopping centres with their limited powers to summon police officers and gangs of hooligans and shoplifters. Something that had started off as a legitimate attempt by a security guard to arrest teenage shoplifters could degenerate quickly into a serious affray, criminal damage and serious violence. Entirely innocent and law-abiding people could become drawn into such mob activities and be victims of violence and confrontation.

However careful the protection and safeguards, human nature being what it is, if mistakes are made, some people may be accredited who are not the best people to exert powers. If they insisted that they had the power to demand a person's name and address, that could be a recipe for serious confrontation. That is only one of the worries that organisations such as the Police Federation have expressed. I do not want to detain the Committee but, at this stage, I cannot think of any way of bridging the difference of principle between the two sides of the Committee. The Government are trying to take account of only part of what was said in another place. They are trying to reintroduce into the Bill something that the other place was wise to take out in its entirety. We think that the Government have still got the matter wrong, although we are pleased that they have listened to some extent.

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

We obviously have an indication of how the hon. Gentleman wishes the Opposition to vote on the amendment. I hope that they seriously reconsider the matter in the remaining stages of the Bill's passage. Having the power to ask for a name and address will be a significant advantage to street and neighbourhood wardens and others who are part of an accredited scheme in carrying out the general public order and nuisance duties that we want them to carry out.

The hon. Gentleman majored on the issue of the danger that the wrong people would have the use of the powers. It is essential to recognise that, through the responsibilities of the chief constable, there are powerful safeguards precisely to ensure that that does not happen. Equally, there are strong safeguards for dealing with an abuse of powers, just as there are for police officers. The issue should not become locked in by party political voting, as it is critical to the full exercise of those powers locally.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 6.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Carrying out of road checks

6A (1) An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall have the following powers in the relevant police area—

(a) the power to carry out any road check the carrying out of which by a police officer is authorised under section 4 of the 1984 Act (road checks); and

(b) for the purpose of exercising that power, the power conferred by section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (power of police to stop vehicles) on a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle.

(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 32, in page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Seizure of vehicles used to cause alarm etc.

6B (1) An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him—

(a) shall, within the relevant police area, have all the powers of a constable in uniform under section 53 of this Act which are set out in subsection (3) of that section; and

(b) references in that section to a constable, in relation to the exercise of any of those powers by that person, are references to that person.

(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

No. 33, in page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Cordoned areas

6C (1) An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall, in relation to any cordoned area in the relevant police area, have all the powers of a constable in uniform under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (enforcement of cordoned area) to give orders, make arrangements or impose prohibitions or restrictions.

(2) A person to whom this paragraph applies shall not exercise any powers conferred by this paragraph except in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable.'.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Let us see whether the Minister will be more amenable to the amendments under discussion than he has been to some others this morning. He should be, as they increase the powers of accredited persons. He will notice that they have the support not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole but of Conservative Members.

I should have preferred to discuss the proposal having established that the officers were subject to a public or local authority, but that is not the case. Nevertheless, I am happy to move the amendment. It is right that, in cases of urgency, the police should use officers who, by the Minister's own account, will have been properly trained and will know the ins and outs of their areas of responsibility. We are talking about emergency powers: the carrying out of road checks, seizure of vehicles used to cause alarm, and cordoned areas.

If there is an incident in one of our towns—heaven forbid—surely we would want to call on all those who have responsibility to help in such limited circumstances. It would be odd if a range of people who were properly trained and accredited by the chief constable had to stand by while an emergency occurred. I would have thought that there was role for that group of people to help out.

The balance that I have tried to strike in the amendment is that the group should exercise their powers under the supervision of a constable, which is different from a CSO acting alone and using the powers that the Minister has persuaded his colleagues to give. That strikes the right balance between accountability and the ability to carry out effective tasks during an emergency. It would not mean that there would be one constable for each ACSO, but that a constable would be there or thereabouts in a specific area, such as a cordoned area, giving instructions with knowledge of what people were doing. That would provide an extra body of people to help in an emergency, while retaining the link of accountability that is necessary for individuals who would be employed by the private sector or a public authority.

I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments for the reasons that I have given. After all, we want to ensure that people who work for Tesco occasionally work in the public interest as well as the interest of that company.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As the hon. Gentleman said, we have attached our names to the amendments. We want a small extension of the powers of accredited community safety schemes, although the Minister

probably thinks that that sits oddly with all our other remarks on the issue. I assure him that that is not the case because we have tried to look realistically at the role that ACSOs can play in the community. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, we are discussing what would be an urgent situation.

The three situations to which the amendments refer could arise suddenly, but they would almost invariably require several personnel. That is the key point. Our worry about the powers is whether ACSOs will have the necessary training and discretion to use police powers by themselves. It is difficult to conceive of police powers being used by anyone other than a group of officers when dealing with the three situations to which the amendments relate. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that a constable, who would ensure that the powers were properly used, could muster the support of others to carry out road checks, cordons or even seize a vehicle. The extension is limited but it is a sensible way to maximise the use of resources because rather than having to pull a load of regular officers off the streets to set up a road check, only one would be required, and he could be backed up with several ACSOs. That is sensible. The amendments would not provide that that must happen, but they would give the chief constable flexibility, which the Minister has constantly asked for throughout our debates.

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

I profess to being slightly confused because Opposition spokesmen in another place tried to remove those powers from CSOs who work for the police. The Opposition have said that police employees should not enjoy the powers, but they want to give them to ACSOs.

Let us examine the amendments on their merits. There is an issue about how far we extend the powers in the Bill to non-police employees. We have sought to limit the power of ACSOs to matters that are most closely related to low-level disorder in the community. The amendments would make the powers significantly wider, although I appreciate the argument about emergency circumstances. It is slightly bizarre to say that an ACSO should be able to seize a person's motor vehicle, but not ask for their name and address—to use the Opposition's position from two debates.

We intend—I hope hon. Members will bear this in mind when we discuss the new clause—to introduce a clause that allows new powers to be given to ACSOs and CSOs with appropriate safeguards, in the light of experience and subject to affirmative resolution. If we deal with the issue through only primary legislation, it is difficult to be absolutely certain about the right split of powers, and I hope that all hon. Members recognise that.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [23 May and 25 June 2002], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.