Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 43—Disclosure orders for purpose of executing warrants.

Government new clause 44—Procedure on breach of community penalty etc.

Government new schedule 2—Powers of authorised officers executing warrants.

Government new schedule 3—Procedure on breach of community penalty etc.

Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I regret that it was not possible to table these amendments and new clauses earlier. In the event, we have had longer—about a week—to consider the details. The reason why they were delayed was that we saw an opportunity to make what I regard as vital changes to the law. As I explain the nature and contents of the amendments, I hope that it will become clear that they are an important addition to the arsenal available to the court to ensure that sentences for criminal offences are enforced correctly. That is their primary purpose. In ensuring the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, it is the Government's top priority to make greater use of fines and to enforce those fines once they are imposed.

Significant progress is being made in improving the enforcement regimes, but some individuals clearly remain who will persistently try to evade the system and default a court sentence. We need to ensure that we are capable of effective enforcement at all times. I would like to emphasise that the amendments will not apply to bailiffs working for the civil court.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Will the Minister explain why the Irish Government are

prepared to pay the fines of Irish nationals serving jail sentences in Columbia? Have the British Government made any approaches to the Irish Government in respect of the fines of Irish nationals who commit offences and do not pay their fines in this country?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I do not have a ready answer for that question, not least because we are not talking about those jurisdictions now. Perhaps it will be useful if I speak to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to see whether they have any thoughts or comments about that issue. We are talking today about the enforcement of criminal penalties imposed in courts in England and Wales, and it is important that we focus on that.

New clause 42 would bring into effect the proposed new schedule 4A, which would give civilian enforcement officers and approved enforcement agencies the additional powers that they need to help to improve the enforcement of fines and community penalty breach warrants. New schedule 2 would provide the civilian enforcement officers and approved enforcement agencies, which are employed by magistrates courts, with several new powers to help them enforce fines and penalties.

First, the amendments give enforcement officers engaged by the magistrates courts the power to enter premises to execute a warrant of arrest, commitment, detention or distress where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the offender who is a subject of warrant is present. Secondly, they give the persons engaged by the court the power to search offenders for dangerous articles such as hypodermic needles, knives and items that the offender may use to facilitate an escape from lawful custody. The provisions also give them the power to use reasonable force in exercising the other powers that are listed.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Will the Minister explain what training the new civilian enforcement officers will have on human rights obligations and PACE?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I shall deal with some of those issues in a moment.

In many cases, enforcement officers have been working with the police for some time to ensure that they have the opportunity to enforce warrants, but the police have been engaged in some of the more difficult operations. We want to ensure that our training arrangements for enforcement officers cover all the new powers that we make available to them. However, it is also important to recognise the professionalism that already exists in the enforcement profession and the fact that those staff are sometimes frustrated that they may be under threat, but are currently unable to adequately able to cope with the situation, because they have no powers of search.

There are currently no powers to enter premises to enforce warrants. One result is that is that only about 30 per cent. of distress warrants and 36 per cent. of community penalty breach warrants are executed successfully. The provisions will allow civilian enforcement officers and agencies to enforce warrants more effectively by allowing them to execute warrants against offenders who refuse to

open their doors when it is clear to the authorised officer that they are present.

Civilian enforcement officers frequently take offenders into custody and transport them to court, but they have no powers to search offenders for articles that may cause themselves or others harm, or that help them to escape from lawful custody, even if they believe that an offender has such items. Enforcement officers often find dangerous items discarded in their vehicles or hidden in places that could cause harm. I have spoken to enforcement officers who have found hypodermic needles hidden between car seats, yet they are using their vehicles regularly to take persons to and from court. That presents obvious health and safety concerns for those officers and other offenders who may use be using the same vehicles.

The powers will provide enforcement officers with much-needed health and safety protection in carrying out their duties. In parallel, it is important that we develop a training programme for staff and make sure that they are given sufficient guidance in respect of their employment arrangements. That is critical to the enforcement process and the use of these primary legislative powers.

The powers are necessary not only to minimise risk to the offender, but to ensure that fines can be enforced effectively. The legal advice that I have received is that the new powers are already available to police officers executing warrants of arrest and commitment under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The extension of the powers to civil enforcement officers and approved enforcement agencies will therefore not give rise to any questions of compatibility with the European convention on human rights.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is describing the measures as vital and urgent. If they are so vital and urgent, why were they not included in either the Courts Act 2003 or the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which we discussed only nine months ago and which covered this ground? How have circumstances changed since then to make the measures vital and urgent now, although they were not nine months ago?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

It may well have been that the measures were urgent nine months ago. I have had my current portfolio for about 12 months, and it became clear to me in the course of conversations with enforcement officers across the country that they would appreciate some clarity about their powers. They will appreciate the assurance that they have the scope to deal with circumstances such as the finding of dangerous articles on the person whom they are charged with arresting and taking into custody. I recommend to any hon. Member that they speak to their magistrates court committee and see at first hand the job that enforcement officers have to do. It is a very difficult job that is sometimes undertaken in very difficult circumstances.

I have been with officers on the doorstep and accompanied them in the course of their job, and I was astonished that they did not have some of these powers. I felt that it was important to make sure that

we introduced them into legislation at the next available opportunity, which was this Bill.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

As civilian enforcement officers will have increased police powers, can the Minister say whether, if such an officer happens to get something wrong when detaining someone or entering a house, a complaint will lie against them and go to the Independent Police Complaints Commission?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

Clearly, the current complaints process involves the court itself. Magistrates courts have arrangements for complainants and those brought into custody so that they may hear complaints about the operation of enforcement officers. Such officers are responsible to the court, so complaints go to the courts. Perhaps it would be of interest to the hon. Lady and to other Committee members if I sent out details of the current complaints process for court enforcement staff. However, we do not propose to change the current arrangements.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The Minister said that he does not intend to change the complaints procedure, but we are greatly widening the powers given to court enforcement officers. Is he satisfied that the current complaints procedure is adequate, given the sort of complaints that might be made in view of the extension of powers?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I am satisfied that the arrangements are sufficient. Moreover, there are consequences for anyone straying beyond the powers permitted in legislation, even if they are working for a public authority. The normal process for redress through the courts is available to any individual who feels aggrieved in respect of such persons.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The Minister might not be following my point. At the moment, the police have an extremely good complaints procedure: it is often informal and it brings to their attention areas where the exercise of their powers, even if legitimate, is causing irritation or annoyance or is reducing their standing in the eyes of the public. I am not aware of such a procedure for enforcement officers, yet, the Minister is creating a system—with which I do not necessarily disagree—in which precisely such irritation and annoyance are likely to arise as they do with the police and I am not satisfied that there is a complaints procedure that addresses that. The Minister might be able to reassure me—I do not know.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I hope to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. True, there is not the same complaints process as for the police, but court enforcement officers deal with a different range of persons: those convicted of criminal offences. If such officers stray beyond their legal powers, the offender may have redress, depending on the nature of the extension of powers. That provision is sufficient. I do not have evidence of a problem and I do not anticipate a need for complicated or bureaucratic complaints arrangements in addition to the present adequate ones in order to cope with any scenarios that might arise.

The time has come to shift the balance so that there are powers for enforcement officers, who are often frustrated in the course of their work because of the narrow scope of their legal powers. The proposed modest changes will not add unnecessarily to complaints from offenders.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

To take one example, one of the powers that we are creating—I am not saying that it is a bad power—will enable the enforcement officer to enter the house of a wholly innocent third party in the belief that the person whom he wishes to apprehend is there. That is akin to a police power but is exercised for the specific purpose of fine enforcement, and that could give rise to problems. I am not satisfied that there is an informal complaints procedure, let alone a formal one, for court enforcement officers as there is for the police. If they are to be given the same powers, there ought to be a similar complaints procedure to that for the police.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I do not believe that such a complaints procedure is necessary. For example, if a civilian enforcement officer broke down a door when it was not necessary to do so and went beyond the reasonable procedure in the new schedules and new clauses, he would be committing an offence of criminal damage and could be sued by the householder for trespass to goods. Moreover, if an officer used more force than was reasonably necessary while carrying out a search of an offender, he might be guilty of an offence of common assault. Such provisions are sufficient to deter enforcement officers from straying beyond their powers. Given that we do not envisage those situations arising, it is not necessary to have a complicated, convoluted complaints process. However, it is important that enforcement officers have reasonable powers to do their job effectively and enforce the will of the court. After all, we are talking about people who have been found guilty of criminal offences and against whom a sentence has been imposed but not complied with, perhaps because of default, which might be wilful. It is important that we extend the powers.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

My intervention is less about the complaints process than about getting clear in my mind the scale of the powers involved. As I understand the example given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, we will be giving power to an enforcement officer to break down the door of a third party who has nothing to do with the case in order to serve a warrant on someone for a £40 fine.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

The crux of the matter lies in the phrasing used in the new clause and new schedule: the power must be exercised in a reasonable manner. I emphasise that we would give enforcement officers extra flexibility to enforce criminal penalties, not civil penalties such as non-payment of bills and so forth. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the will of the court to be upheld by enforcement officers. Frequently—in 6 to 7 per cent. of enforcement attempts—officers go to a house, see an individual through the net curtains and are frustrated and unable to enforce the court order. In such circumstances, it is necessary that they have the scope to act.

Enforcement officers are professionals and they would use the powers reasonably. Under the Bill, they would only be sanctioned to use the powers reasonably—that is the safeguard that we want to put into the Bill. The time has come to make sure that when a court imposes a penalty, it is capable of being enforced.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I was just considering the person who is so frustrated at waiting outside a window and not being able to do anything about it. Why on earth would he not fetch a constable in the traditional way? As I understand it, there is no rank structure among civilian enforcement officers. When we give powers to police officers, we often require an officer of a particular rank to authorise an action. Under the powers being discussed, there is no question of involving a senior authorised officer of any kind. Someone who had just been employed by one of the agencies offering such services could take the decision on what constituted reasonable grounds for breaking down the door of the third party to gain entry to premises where he supposed somebody else might be.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I do not believe that the circumstances set out in the Bill would allow for unreasonable activities. There are those safeguards; if the officers are unreasonable, they will be committing an offence. Also, it is important to recognise that it is the job of the police to catch those whom they suspect are engaged in criminal activity; the police are not wholly involved in the enforcement of court sentences. If the police were consistently diverted to enforcement activities in a way that detracted from their primary activity, that could well be to the detriment of the wider community. I do not want to see police officers spending excessive time at the enforcement end of the system.

The courts and the enforcement officers should enforce the penalties for which they are responsible. Those whom we charge with the enforcement of penalties, who do a difficult job at present—arresting, detaining and transporting offenders to court—already have the scope to cope with threats to their safety and with searching individuals. It is necessary to put beyond doubt the debate about whether such officers have the powers for search and entry in common law. We want to put that matter beyond doubt, to make the power statutory and to include it in the Bill.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

May I give the Minister an example of another set of circumstances, which I witnessed recently in my apartment block? Two extremely large men, who turned out to be bailiffs, were standing over a small woman neighbour of mine, ostensibly to recover moneys in connection with an unpaid congestion charge. When I went outside the block, there was yet another man in a black leather jacket, looking extremely threatening and a bit like a member of the Stasi. I challenged him twice, because he had no right to be there, but he continued to wander around a locked area of my apartment block. If, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar says, we give bailiffs the right to enter premises to collect £40, what security checks will there be on such people? They would have

an unwarranted measure of power, and I have seen them being threatening, even at this stage.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

We do not envisage bailiffs using the powers in civil enforcement activities, such as collecting congestion charges and parking fines. The powers are to be used to deal with persons convicted of criminal offences who have not complied with the lengthy process of the courts enforcing the fines. That does not mean that the individual will have been asked to pay only at court upon conviction. They will have gone through a period in which a warrant was issued to them—it might have been posted to them or served on them in person at their door—and the enforcement officer might find months or even years later that there has been a constant snubbing of the court's authority.

We need to ensure that no matter what the conviction, the court can use the authority of the enforcement officers to ensure that justice is done, even in relation to offences that the hon. Lady might regard as minor criminal offences. Although we do not envisage that the powers will be used frequently because the circumstances in which they will be used will not be the norm in the enforcement process, it is important that enforcement officers can make it clear to offenders that they have the power to recover the fine and detain them, should they exercise the powers that we are proposing.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Will the Minister quantify the problem that we are facing by giving the Committee an estimate of the amount of outstanding fines? That would be helpful.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I am afraid that over the years a significant backlog of outstanding fines of something in the order of a couple of hundred million pounds has been accrued in England and Wales. Traditionally, only about half the fines imposed have been collected, although this year we improved that and in the outturn for the last quarter of the last financial year we managed to recover about 76 per cent. of the fines imposed. However, that means that 24 per cent. of fines have not been recovered, which is unacceptable. It is important that courts have the powers to take that extra step to enforce the decisions that they have made if necessary.

If we are to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system, the public needs to see that persons are arrested if they are suspected of committing a crime, and are taken through the courts and fined or sentenced appropriately if they are found guilty. Given that offenders sometimes manage to evade their sentence, perhaps because of legal loopholes, is it any wonder that the public have little confidence in the criminal justice system? The steps that we are proposing are necessary to improve public confidence and make it clear that people cannot avoid paying their dues if they are fined for committing a criminal offence.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about security checks. We already have security checks for fine enforcement officers, but in April 2005, under the unified administration process, we will be rolling out the new post of fine enforcement officer, which was provided for in the Courts Act 2003. There

will be further improvements for those fine enforcement officers who will have new powers under the Act, and extra security provisions will be associated with them.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I am concerned that we are increasing powers to civilian enforcement officers without a full explanation being given to the Committee. Could the Minister reflect on the fact, which he has indicated to the Committee, that recent figures show a significant improvement in the recovery of fines from offenders. That happened before any extension of powers to civilian enforcement officers. Could the Minister enlighten us as to how that improvement was achieved without the extension of these powers?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

I certainly could, because I feel as though I have been living and breathing the court enforcement process for the past 12 months. That is a major achievement, and I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises it. The figure has increased to 76 per cent. in the last quarter, but that is due to squeezing every last available opportunity through the existing legal powers and managing the system as rigorously as we can within the legislative framework. That is not to say that we cannot make further improvements. However, today, we are talking not just about the sentences of the court, but about compensation for the victims of crime that frequently is not paid by the offender.

I am sure that we all know individuals—many of them constituents—who have complained that despite an offender being found guilty and sentenced, they evade the system and never pay the compensation due to the victim. It is important that we give the extra powers to enforcement officers so that they can ensure that the compensation goes to the victim. That is why it is important to take steps in the Bill to cover victims' provisions, among other things. We can make further improvements beyond the 76 per cent. that we already have achieved, because a significant number of offenders still evade the system.

New clause 43 gives magistrates courts the power to access information held by organisations in the public and private sectors, such as financial institutions and local authorities, which might be of assistance in tracing offenders whose whereabouts are unknown. Currently, despite the courts' best efforts, they have few ways of keeping track of offenders' details if the offender chooses not to inform them of any changes to those details. This power will be used where there is an outstanding fine or community penalty breach warrant against an offender, and all other routes whereby they might have been traced have been exhausted.

Civilian enforcement officers and approved agencies can regularly be impeded in executing warrants due an offender's details not being correct. That can happen for a number of reasons: the offender may have given false information or multiple addresses, or he may have moved from the address that was initially given. That contributes to many unsuccessfully executed warrants each year. In such circumstances, it is

possible that both public and private organisations may hold more up-to-date information on offenders than the court. However, the inability of the court to access such data is a substantial barrier to an effective enforcement regime. The information that is required under this measure—name, address, date of birth and national insurance number where available—should be available to the courts to enforce sentences more effectively.

Although the Department for Constitutional Affairs is seeking other methods to improve the provision of data to courts, such as sharing data voluntarily between Departments, this power will help to maximise the courts' data-sharing potential. I should like to make it clear that the power is fully compliant with all current data protection legislation. Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998 sets out the principles that must be adhered to: ''processing'' includes the disclosure of data to another party, and ''personal data'' include the type of information that would be obtained under the data disclosure order.

Under the first data protection principle,

''Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless . . . at least one of the''

range of

''conditions in Schedule 2 is''

satisfied. One condition is that

''processing is necessary . . . for the administration of justice''.

That encompasses our proposals. Under the second principle,

''Personal data must be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with . . . those purposes.''

However, there are relevant exemptions in section 35 of the 1998 Act. Disclosure of personal data is permitted where it is required by the order of a court or is necessary

''for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings)''.

Either of those exemptions would encompass our proposal. My Department's legal group assures me that those powers are also compliant with the European convention on human rights.

New clause 44 is necessary to bring into effect the schedule containing the powers to allow the proceedings on a breach of a community penalty to be commenced and heard by a court other than the one responsible for overseeing the community penalty in the first place. I had meetings with several justices' chief executives. Mr. Alan Eccles, the justices' chief executive for the west midlands, expressed very clearly his frustration that he did not have sufficient powers to allow proceedings to breach and a community penalty to be commenced and heard by a magistrates court other than the court responsible for overseeing that initial community penalty.

New schedule 3 gives the courts those powers. That will enable warrants to be enforced more effectively. That is an example of responding to grassroots concerns about the powers being inadequate. At present, there are restrictions on which courts can enforce a community penalty. The precise form of the

restrictions vary according to the type of sentence, but in practice they tend to mean that only the court that passed the sentence can issue a warrant or summons to secure the attendance of an offender who is in breach, and a warrant or summons must specify that the defendant appears before that court.

The new powers are necessary to improve performance, particularly in respect of breached warrants. The current situation creates difficulties where the offender moves away from the area of the court and fails to contact the probation service. It is essential that any magistrates court is allowed to execute a warrant or summons to secure the attendance of an offender. The powers will bring efficiency gains for the courts by more effective and efficient deployment of enforcement officers.

Government amendments Nos. 126 and 127 simply amend the long title of the Bill to include the subject matter of the other new clauses and new schedules. Those changes are necessary. I believe that enforcement officers will welcome them, and I hope that they will raise public confidence in the ability of the courts to enforce their decisions.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

At a late stage, the Government have given us a massive area to consider. The Minister has properly split it into three areas. First, I shall concentrate on the powers of the authorised officers. I am broadly satisfied with his explanations on the other two matters that he raised, although I may return to one or two points of detail.

We need to go back to some basic principles, and I make no apology for doing so. Policing in the United Kingdom—and certainly in England and Wales—is, to use the right expression, carried out by consent. That means that it requires the consent of the people who are being policed and that it is an absolute and central principle that a great deal of time and effort should be expended on trying to secure consent.

The fact that there is a theoretical justification for an action does not necessarily secure consent in the real world. I spent some of my political career cutting my teeth in parts of south London and standing as a candidate for an area that included Brixton in the mid-1980s, where it was obvious what happens when the limits of consent in communities are reached in relation to policing. Successive Governments have taken those facts on board by going to considerable lengths to ensure the monitoring of the performance of the police, oversight of the manner in which they carry out their work, and—sometimes this is contrary to the wishes of other people in this country—the making of concessions with regard to what they can or cannot do in order to maintain consent.

Only last weekend, a Minister of State at the Home Office expressed concern that, although there was no suggestion that the police were doing their job improperly, the manner in which the power given to them under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in respect of stopping and searching at random was being carried out might lead to a progressive withdrawal of consent in certain sections of society because they feel that the actions are oppressive or onerous even though Parliament has

decreed that they are appropriate in view of the threat that we are facing. I make those preliminary remarks because we must bear such facts in mind when considering the powers that we are giving authorised officers in executing warrants.

Authorised officers are bailiffs, as has been said, although we are admittedly using different terminology and giving them a slightly different guise. On the whole, my experience with bailiffs, which comes from dealing with them in legislation and even professionally, is that many are of the utmost reputability and use considerable sensitivity in carrying out their work. None the less, we are about to give considerable powers to non-uniformed individuals—namely authorised officers of the court. We are allowing them to enter private premises, which will not necessarily be the premises of the person whom they are seeking, to carry out searches. We are allowing them the most extensive powers for the perfectly laudable reason that the Minister has given: ensuring that fines are paid and that the 76 per cent. rate goes up to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent.

I do not disagree with that objective. However, Parliament has a long history of paying considerable attention to how powers are exercised, and as there could be serious consequences for the relationship between law enforcement agencies and the wider community, I am a little surprised that we are apparently introducing such potentially draconian legislation without paying real regard to the consequences on the ground on a day-to-day basis.

When we intervened on the Minister, I would have been greatly reassured if he had said that he recognised that point, but that the Government would set up a supervisory authority to ensure the collation of statistics and the circulation of best practice, and to provide a regulatory mechanism for the informal resolution of complaints. However, we are giving powers to groups and individuals who—I do not mean this too pejoratively—carry out their operations as lone rangers. There is no central co-ordination, and I do not believe that there will be, although some professional bodies cover the organisations involved. I am anxious that we are creating the potential for the build-up of resentments that may ultimately manifest themselves in public order problems.

If the Minister is right in his intention and aim, it must follow that the powers described in the new clause will frequently be invoked, because that will be necessary if we are to raise the 76 per cent. level and meet the target. I dare say that bailiffs and enforcement officers will sometimes visit millionaires' properties, but the nature of things suggests that it will be in deprived areas that people accumulate unpaid fines, because that is the way that the world is. That means that it will mainly be in areas of deprivation that enforcement officers will carry out their perfectly commendable duties. In the process, they will be going into people's houses, knocking down their doors and doing all the other activities that the police have to do, but there will be no point of reference or contact such as the local police station or a local beat officer who can help resolve underlying tensions and disputes.

We need those mechanisms, which we have tried to introduce over a 25-year period, at a time when the country is very diverse. There are all sorts of new people in the country with new cultural norms, and those norms include views on the privacy of the home and the sanctity of the family unit. Those things have to be resolved so as to allow the smooth running of society. I have to say that I do not see any sign whatever in the legislation that those factors have been taken into account. If the legislation starts to go wrong, the first consequence will be that we will have to revisit the issues at a parliamentary level. We will have to create the necessary structures. I am a Conservative; I dislike spending money unnecessarily, and I do not particularly want further bureaucratic supervisory structures. However, for once I am not sure that there is not a necessity for one.

I want to make sure that the system works, and I am not at all convinced that the proposed structures will work. The enforcement officers will be very active in some parts of our metropolitan centres; they will be out of uniform, they will go around trying to enforce the court orders and making inquiries and they will inevitably be intrusive into property. They will be visible and may cause resentment. None of that means that we should not go ahead with this project, but we should be very careful about what we are doing.

In response to my interventions, the Minister placed great emphasis on the fact that there would be formal methods of redress. I am not interested in formal methods of redress, but in the informal methods of redress that my experience as a politician suggests are far more effective and less costly in resolving the sorts of disputes that arise even in my own constituency involving people who feel that they have been improperly stopped by the police. As I always say to my police officers, ''Forget about the formal complaints system; send somebody round to have a chat with him.'' Where would that happen in this context?

I am not against the proposals, but I do not think that the consequences of the new powers have been fully or properly thought through. If they had been, the Minister would have been able to tell us more. May I urge him to do a bit of thinking and consultation between now and Report?

I do not mean this unkindly to the Minister, who is sitting next to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), but I hope that there is enough joined-up government on this matter. This issue falls very much within the Home Office remit on community relations. I want to hear that there has been adequate Home Office input and link-up in establishing that what is proposed will work smoothly and properly, and that the glitches that I fear will be inevitable will be capable of resolution. Those are my concerns about the powers being given to authorised officers.

On the whole, we have had a very good set of rules in this country that tries, as far as is possible and compatible with proper law enforcement, to minimise the rights of the state against the individual. I accept that they have to be adjusted from time to time, and this may be the time to adjust them on enforcement. If we are to adjust them, however, we should be jolly careful that we understand the consequences and that we take steps to minimise the problems that could arise. Those are my comments on new schedule 2.

I am much more sympathetic towards the other proposals. It seems to me that the Minister has put in adequate safeguards, particularly in relation to data sharing, that reduce what is sought to a minimum, and that that is compatible with his objectives.

I wish to raise a question about the community penalties. If breaches of community penalties are not to be dealt with by the court that carried out the original sentencing, how will we ensure that the courts are seized sufficiently of the full facts that would enable them to deal with such matters properly? I accept that, even now, a person does not necessarily go back to the same court or tribunal that originally sentenced them, but I am concerned that the information should be able to pass adequately from one court to another. I am afraid that my experience as a lawyer is that information very often does not pass from one court to another, which can lead to potential injustice. With that reservation, I understand what the Minister seeks to do.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I share the hon. Gentleman's broad analysis. I do not have a great problem with the latter amendments, but I have very serious issues to raise about new clause 42 and new schedule 2 that go much wider than my initial and perhaps inevitable comment. After spending hour after hour, week after week and month after month discussing two major measures—the Courts Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003—I do not understand why these provisions were not introduced in that legislation, unless it was because Ministers felt that they could not pass such contentious legislation at that time. Perhaps they felt that the softer option was to introduce it now.

No one would argue against the need for the better enforcement of fines and court sentencing. No one wants to see anyone get away with cocking a snook at the courts and not paying their due. However, that must tempered against the limits in law in this country that allow some of our citizens to do things to other citizens. We do not normally allow people to arrest other citizens, forcibly to enter their homes, cause distress by taking their property or search them. For clear reasons, however, there are certain categories of people to whom we do give that power, and they are generally people about whom we use the term ''office of constable''. I still feel that the office of constable is important. I know that the Government do not give a toss about it, but although they do not care how far they blur the edges, many people in this country, including the police themselves, feel that an important distinction must be made between those to whom we provide extensive powers and those to whom we do not.

I am worried that we are extending powers to somebody called an authorised officer. That person might work directly for the court or for a company that will presumably have been contracted on the basis of having offered the lowest tender for the provision of services to a court for executing warrants. The Government are proposing that those individuals or companies, which will not have a training requirement, a reporting system or a complaints system in the same way that the police do, should be allowed on the basis of an outstanding warrant to seek forcibly to enter premises, search the person whom they find there and arrest that person and take them away. Those are serious points.

If a police officer were to exercise his powers inappropriately, everybody would know what to do about it. They could go to the senior officer—the superintendent or chief superintendent—of the basic command unit in the area. If they failed to get satisfaction, they could go to the chief constable, and the case might be investigated by the chief or deputy chief constable. If they were not satisfied with that, they could invoke the internal complaints procedure or the external complaints procedure through the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

However, I bet that not a single Committee member would know what to do if the individual involved were an employee of Group 4 or whoever has the contract to provide services to a local court. I bet that they would not know what to do if their door were knocked down and they were searched in the belief that they had something that was adverse to the execution of the warrant or if they were arrested on that basis.

The sole safeguard is that the officer can exercise his power only to the extent that it is reasonably required for the purpose. However, it would be easy to argue that exercising the power was reasonably required to effect a warrant, although that may have been wrong, and that the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the person involved was on the premises. That judgment could be left to the discretion of the newest employee of the company, which is at arm's length from the court that issued the warrant.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.