New Clause 15 - Power to amend Chapter 1 of Part 4
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause reinstates, in an amended form, the order-making power that was removed in another place. As Lord Rooker said when the power was removed, we understand why there might be anxieties about how it might be used by a future Home Secretary to confer excessive and inappropriate powers on designated or accredited individuals. That is why it is important that I set out the significant number of safeguards to prevent misuse of the order-making power with which the new clause is packed.
How can the Committee provide reasonable flexibility in the future to determine the powers available for community support officers and accredited community safety officers without requiring the inevitably laborious process of returning
to primary legislation? In the real world, we know that opportunities to introduce primary legislation can be limited.
Before lunch, we had an interesting discussion about proposals supported by Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee to extend the powers of ACSOs. The reality is that the Government—this would be the same if Opposition parties were introducing the Bill—are embarking on a new development in British policing. The Committee and the Houses of Parliament are making their best judgment about the right sets of powers to confer on police employees and members of accredited schemes. None of us can be absolutely certain that the Bill neither gives too many powers, nor limits them unnecessarily. We have tried to give the Government and future Governments flexibility to adjust the arrangements in the light of experience. This morning's discussion demonstrated how useful such a provision might be.
For example, in future we might agree with the Opposition parties that it would be appropriate to give ACSOs powers with regard to vehicles that are used to cause annoyance. It would be a great shame if we had to use primary legislation to confer that power. Equally, let us suppose the Government got something completely wrong—one must always allow for that possibility, although I realise from the shocked expressions of Opposition Members that it is unlikely—and one of the powers caused problems whenever it was used. It could not simply be removed from the schedule of powers available, despite guidance and best practice advising the best use of a CSO or ACSO.
I shall go through the various safeguards that need to be in place. The extension of police powers to non-police officers is a controversial issue, so there need to be safeguards.
First, any change under the new clause would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. It is worth reminding the Committee that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report on the Bill, passed no comment on the order-making power in this clause, other than to confirm that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. It would need the positive assent of both Houses to bring about any change; a Home Secretary could not extend the range of powers available to CSOs and ACSOs on a whim.
Secondly, while the clause would enable the Secretary of State to allow chief officers to make a greater range of powers available to designated and accredited persons in the future, the level of seriousness of such powers would not change. The clause does not allow a Home Secretary to raise the stakes by enabling him to use the order-making power to bestow all sorts of more significant powers on individuals. Indeed, it explicitly prohibits the Secretary of State from using the clause to confer on civilians powers of arrest or detention that are additional to
those already provided for in schedule 4. He or she will not, by stealth, be able to create an army of CSOs with full constabulary powers, which was one of the issues of concern in another place, nor will he or she be able to confer additional powers to enter premises without the occupier's consent when unaccompanied by a constable.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State will not be able to create new powers that are not already given to a constable or other person, for example a local authority employee such as an environmental health officer. All those restrictions will apply to those employed directly by the police authority as much as to anybody else.
Finally—this is a new addition to the clause—before making use of the order- making power, the Secretary of State will need to consult police authorities, chief officers, local authorities and others with a legitimate interest. When doing so, he will need to be open about his motivations and address any concerns that are expressed.
It is always easy to oppose powers of this sort, on the grounds that they are going too far, we are better off without them and we should get the primary legislation right in the first place. However, I ask the Committee to give this serious consideration. Without such a clause, we could end up in a position in which chief officers who can identify a need for additional powers—say, to add to the list of offences for which a fixed penalty notice might be issued—have to wait for some years before an appropriate opportunity for primary legislation comes along. Similar problems might be experienced in removing powers that cause concern.
The safeguards that we have put into the Bill are appropriate to a clause of this sort and I commend it to the Committee.