Schedule 4 - Powers exercisable by police civilians

Police Reform Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:00 pm on 20 June 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Amendment made: No. 170, in page 123, line 34, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Amendment proposed: No. 171, in page 124, line 20, at end insert—

'Power to detain etc.

1A (1) This paragraph applies if a designation applies it to any person.

(2) Where that person 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.

(3) Where, in a case in which a requirement under sub-paragraph (2) has been imposed on another person—

(a) that other person fails to comply with the requirement, or

(b) the person who imposed the requirement has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the other person has given him a name or address that is false or inaccurate,

the person who imposed the requirement may require the other person to wait with him, for a period not exceeding thirty minutes, for the arrival of a constable.

(4) A person who has been required under sub-paragraph (3) to wait with a person to whom this Part of this Schedule applies may, if requested to do so, elect that (instead of waiting) he will accompany the person imposing the requirement to a police station in the relevant police area.

(5) A person who—

(a) fails to comply with a requirement under sub-paragraph (2),

(b) makes off while subject to a requirement under sub-paragraph (3), or

(c) makes off while accompanying a person to a police station in accordance with an election under sub-paragraph (4),

is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) In this paragraph ''relevant offence'', in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies, means any offence which is—

(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to that person; or

(b) an offence the commission of which appears to that 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 a designation applying this paragraph to any 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 designation.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 7.

Division number 8 Adults Abused in Childhood — Schedule 4 - Powers exercisable by police civilians

Aye: 11 MPs

No: 7 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 172, in page 124, line 22, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 173, in page 124, line 28, leave out '2' and insert '1A'.

No. 174, in page 124, line 33, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 175, in page 124, line 43, leave out '2' and insert '1A'.

No. 176, in page 125, line 2, leave out '2(2)' and insert '1A(2)'.

No. 177, in page 125, line 7, leave out '2' and insert '1A'.

No. 178, in page 125, line 12, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Opposition Whip (Commons)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 125, line 21, at end insert—

'(2) This paragraph shall only apply where a designated person reasonably suspects that the person to whom section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c.16) (alcohol consumption in public places) applies has not attained the age of 18.'.

Photo of Mr Win Griffiths Mr Win Griffiths Labour, Bridgend

With this we may discuss amendment No. 29, in schedule 5, page 136, line 37, at end insert—

'(2) This paragraph shall only apply when an accredited person reasonably suspects that the person to whom section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) (alcohol consumption in public places) applies has not attained the age of 18.'.

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Opposition Whip (Commons)

This is an important issue on which we have already touched, and I shall be careful not to repeat the arguments that have already been put.

We are all aware of the enormous problems that alcohol abuse causes for the individual, the community and society, and it is undoubtedly a major contributor to antisocial behaviour. One of the amendments applies to CSOs and the other to accredited community safety officers, and their purpose is to distinguish between the treatment of minors and adults. Given my experience of these matters, I shall put the case rather strongly. I also want to make the point that this is an issue on which we can think about the great strengths of both community support officers and community safety officers.

I have been a local councillor for a very long time and I represent a relatively affluent ward in which alcohol abuse by young people is a big problem.

Photo of Colin Challen Colin Challen Labour, Morley and Rothwell

Will the hon. Lady address the question of how a designated officer can ascertain the age of an alleged minor if they cannot detain them for a short while?

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Opposition Whip (Commons)

I shall come to the question of age, but first I want to make some points of principle.

I am endeavouring to speak strongly in support of the use of community support officers. A few years ago there was a situation in my ward that was totally out of control. It involved more than 100 young people who had bottles of vodka and every other expensive spirit of which one can think. Young people were swinging from trees and, sadly, police officers had to be brought in from other areas, which was bad news for them, because the situation was totally out of control. It would have been a tremendous advantage to have had community support officers or, in the case of minors, community safety officers.

A multi-agency approach is necessary in such situations, particularly when young people are involved. A lot of training is required, even when dealing with minors, to treat such situations satisfactorily. I welcome the extra support as far as minors are concerned because innocent young people can be tempted into binge drinking, which can make them seriously ill unless adults are around. There are many strong reasons why an extra presence will be helpful in dealing with a major problem for society that is a feature in my part of the world.

I would appreciate help from the Minister with an issue that is, perhaps, an aside, but which may have relevance to the debate. Our local police superintendent told me that one of his greatest frustrations in dealing with under-age drinking was that his police officers are able to take open containers of alcohol and just tip the contents away on the spot but, if a container has not been opened, they must confiscate it, take it to the police station and deal with a lot of paperwork. Again, I can see how support officers might help at that point. Often, just to add insult to injury, the parents will come and collect the alcohol. It would be useful to know whether community support officers would improve that situation for everyone concerned, because it seems an inordinate amount of work to do in dealing with a situation with minors.

However, I wish to move on to the main subject of the amendments, which is adults. I acknowledge the intervention of the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen). I believe that community support officers can deal with minors in a park in the middle of a residential area. However, just outside my constituency, on the quayside, there are many public houses, very close together, and many outside areas where drinking takes place. I do not think that it would be practical to send community support officers into such a situation, particularly in the early hours of the morning. That is one of the most severe problems in my area, and senior police officers are always needed to deal with it. A distinction must be made between drinking situations involving minors and those involving adults. They are different in many ways.

To pick up on the hon. Gentleman's point, the amendment says ''reasonably suspects.'' I accept that it is exceedingly difficult to judge whether someone is 17 or 18, but the issue must be covered. It may be that the amendment is not phrased as it should be to deal with it, but I am sure that the Minister can address that. I agree that a judgment would have to be made, but the principle has been addressed by hon. Members.

The situation that I described of heavy, sometimes riotous drinking down on the quay is not for low-level policing. Dealing with it requires considerable skills, training and experience and, as has been said before, we would undermine all the pluses of bringing in civilians if we put them in confrontational situations that are very difficult to handle. I anticipate the reply that, in such a case, one would send police officers out. However, I do not think that the situation in my part of the world is quite as it is in London, because we would be very fortunate to get a policeman out in half an hour. There is a shortage: at night, there are sometimes only three patrol cars on duty. It is very tight. Yes, we need extra resourcing, but community support officers cannot deal with such difficult matters. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the amendments and to my queries.

Photo of James Paice James Paice Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I shall be brief. Conservative Members added their names to the two amendments for many of the reasons just given by the hon. Lady. As I made clear earlier, we seek to avoid CSOs being put into confrontational situations. I am not suggesting that someone under 18 is not confrontational. As we all know, they can be, but I seek to minimise risk to CSOs, which is why I believe that it is right to limit their power to confiscate alcohol to confiscating it from those whom they suspect are under 18. It is perfectly true that they have no mechanism for immediately knowing the truth of the situation. It is a matter for discretion.

In an earlier debate, the Minister lauded the discretion that CSOs will have, and this is an example of when they would have to use that discretion. We are discussing amendments Nos. 45 and 29. The latter inserts the same provision into schedule 5 for accredited community safety officers. I suspect that they will be much less well trained and not directly accountable to a police officer or chief constable because they will not be employed by the police, so it

is even more important for them that they should not be put in the confrontational situation of trying to confiscate alcohol from an adult—who may be drinking alone, but is more likely to be drinking with a group of others—and precipitating the risk of serious disorder.

The hon. Lady was right to table those amendments and I share her concern about the distinction between pouring away alcohol from an open container and not pouring it away if it is in a closed container. I endorse what the hon. Lady said and the Minister may want to respond to that.

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction) 4:15, 20 June 2002

This has been a useful debate and I am pleased at the acceptance, at least to a limited degree and concerning juveniles, of the role that CSOs and accredited community safety officers can play in dealing with such issues, which concern public order and health and are of concern to the wider community, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said. The consensus about the role of CSOs and accredited community safety officers is important.

I shall deal first with the question of pouring away or confiscating alcohol. The background is that around the time that designated areas were introduced under current legislation, it was felt that it would be logical to harmonise the treatment of closed containers of alcohol between adults and juveniles. Prior to that it was possible to confiscate closed containers of alcohol from juveniles, but not from adults in those designated areas. I suppose the problem was what to do with people on their way home from the off-licence.

A considerable case has been made by some police officers to whom I have spoken that while there is an impeccable legal logic in harmonisation of the treatment of closed containers held by juveniles and adults or those who are old enough to be in possession of alcohol, that logic does not apply so well when trying to police the situation on the street. I cannot give a firm indication today, although the tone of my comments may suggest that the issue has been raised before. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has written to me—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole may also have done so—and we are considering whether the logic may need to be a little less impeccable in the law so that the logic on the streets is a little more useful and flexible.

The hon. Lady was right in her amendment to recognise, as we all do, that some alcohol-fuelled violence and disorder will always require the attendance of police officers and a level of skill that we would not look to rely on in CSOs and certainly not in accredited community safety officers. The hon. Lady was right to make that point. However, I have a real difficulty in the dividing line in her amendment concerning age. Even if a judgment could be made, it is possible that a 20-year-old might be part of a group of younger juveniles who could be satisfactorily dealt with by CSOs if the behaviour was not particularly threatening. All sorts of anomalies and dilemmas

would arise. I understand the hon. Lady's point, but in practice the difficulties in creating a dividing line based on age would be insuperable.

As in earlier debates, I am not saying in resisting the amendment that we would expect CSOs to be in the front line in all incidents of violence fuelled by alcohol, but the hon. Lady's proposal is not workable. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell asked the right question at the beginning of our discussion. I make no criticism of the hon. Lady, but the question is very difficult to answer in practice, so I must resist the amendment.

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Opposition Whip (Commons)

I thank the Minister for his comments. I am pleased that he has taken up that issue, and I am glad that I risked straying there, because it was worth doing so. When I was considering this, I was reminded that that had been raised with me, and it is important to address it, particularly now that we are moving into this arena and focusing on reducing unnecessary paperwork.

I am still concerned about this. I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that it is even more worrying for the accredited CSOs, who will have even less training, should they be put into that position and be expected to do something, which they could be. I want to place on the record that I have deep concerns about the level of confrontation that could come about if it becomes an obligation—which may well be the case—for these civilians to take action in incidents such as a severe brawl. However, as we have a lot more to debate this afternoon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 125, line 23, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 180, in page 125, line 35, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 181, in page 126, line 2, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 126, line 5, leave out from 'limb' to end of line.

Photo of Mr Win Griffiths Mr Win Griffiths Labour, Bridgend

With this we may consider amendment No. 34, in schedule 5, page 137, line 23, at end insert—

'Entry to save life or limb

6D An accredited person whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him shall have the powers of a constable under section 17 of the 1984 Act to enter and search any premises in the relevant police area for the purpose of saving life or limb.'.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I will not delay the Committee unduly over this, as it is not a matter to go to the wall over. This is a probing amendment that is intended to seek clarification from the Minister about the circumstances that he envisages might lead CSOs to conclude that serious damage to property might ensue. I also wish to know if he is satisfied that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of that power.

As the Minister knows, the power to gain entry to a person's property, and to search it, is potentially draconian. We have traditionally resisted that in this country—we hold to the view that an Englishman's home is his castle. Therefore, before we give another group of people that power, it is right to raise the issue, and to check what safeguards will be in place.

Nobody would dispute the exercise of this power if we were dealing with a case of saving life or limb, but there is a question as to what extent the intrusion on a person's property can be justified. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I understand that it is helpful to probe what the Government have in mind, but we do not support the amendment of the hon. Member for Lewes. I was relieved to hear him say that it was a probing amendment because, in its present form, my party could not support it.

However, it does no harm to explore the whole area that it addresses and, like the hon. Gentleman, we will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say because we share a common interest—even if we do not agree about the precise form of words here—which is to uphold the importance of our tradition that an Englishman's home is his castle.

That is especially the case at present, because there have been concerns in other areas of the criminal law in the past few days. I understand that the Government have now accepted that it was a blunder to try to give all sorts of draconian powers, in relation to snooping on people's e-mails, in other legislative proposals.

It is always wise to probe what the Government are up to, so that we can ensure that our traditions, and the constitutional safeguards for our citizens, are maintained.

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction)

This debate is about extending another power to CSOs. When property is threatened with serious flooding, or possibly fire, I would not be surprised if a police officer entered the property and attempted to deal with the problem. Indeed, most of us would not be surprised if a member of the public took similar action, but we must decide whether it is more fair and straightforward to give the CSO such power.

Given that the CSO would be in uniform and working for the police service, he would be less likely to be challenged and asked, ''What power do you have to do that?'' than a milkman or passing tradesman if they responded to a situation during their normal working life. It is more that we want to ensure that the CSO, acting as we may expect an ordinary citizen to act, is properly protected by having such a power in the Bill, than that we want to extend the power. That is a key part of accountability. As we said during the more controversial discussion that we had earlier, it is useful to have the power in the Bill.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I am perfectly satisfied with the Minister's answer. I hope that, when CSOs are in training and powers are conferred on them, it will be drawn to their attention that they must not feel obliged to take chances with their own safety. I hope that they

understand that, on some occasions, it will not be appropriate to enter a burning building, but to call the fire brigade instead. Having said that, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 182, in page 126, line 7, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 183, in page 126, line 18, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 126, line 22, at end insert—

'(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.'.—[Norman Baker.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.

Division number 9 Adults Abused in Childhood — Schedule 4 - Powers exercisable by police civilians

Aye: 7 MPs

No: 11 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 184, in page 126, line 24, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 185, in page 126, line 33, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 186, in page 126, line 39, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 187, in page 127, line 21, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 188, in page 128, line 18, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 189, in page 129, line 13, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 190, in page 130, line 2, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 191, in page 130, line 32, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction) 4:30, 20 June 2002

I beg to move amendment No. 192, in page 130, line 37, at end insert—

'Arrest at a police station for another offence

17A (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, he shall have the power to make an arrest at any police station in the relevant police area in any case where an arrest—

(a) is required to be made under section 31 of the 1984 Act (arrest for a further offence of a person already at a police station); or

(b) would be so required if the reference in that section to a constable included a reference to a person to whom this paragraph applies.

(2) Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33) (consequences of failure by arrested person to account for objects etc.) shall apply (without prejudice to the effect of any designation applying paragraph 20) in the case of a person arrested in exercise of the power exercisable by virtue of this paragraph as it applies in the case of a person arrested by a constable.

Power to transfer persons into custody of investigating officers

17B (1) Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person, the custody officer for a designated police station in the relevant police area may transfer or permit the transfer to him of a person in police detention for an offence which is being investigated by the person to whom this paragraph applies.

(2) A person into whose custody another person is transferred under sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) shall be treated for all purposes as having that person in his lawful custody;

(b) shall be under a duty to prevent his escape; and

(c) shall be entitled to use reasonable force to keep that person in his custody.

(3) Where a person is transferred into the custody of a person to whom this paragraph applies, in accordance with sub-paragraph (1), subsections (2) and (3) of section 39 of the 1984 Act shall have effect as if—

(a) references to the transfer of a person in police detention into the custody of a police officer investigating an offence for which that person is in police detention were references to that person's transfer into the custody of the person to whom this paragraph applies; and

(b) references to the officer to whom the transfer is made and to the officer investigating the offence were references to the person to whom this paragraph applies.

Power to require arrested person to account for certain matters

17C Where a designation applies this paragraph to any person—

(a) he shall have the powers of a constable under sections 36(1)(c) and 37(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33) to request a person who—

(i) has been arrested by a constable, or by any person to whom paragraph 20 applies, and

(ii) is detained at any place in the relevant police area,

to account for the presence of an object, substance or mark or for the presence of the arrested person at a particular place; and

(b) the references to a constable in sections 36(1)(b) and (c) and (4) and 37(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of that Act shall have effect accordingly as including references to the person to whom this paragraph is applied.'.

Photo of Mr Win Griffiths Mr Win Griffiths Labour, Bridgend

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 195, 204, 260 and 261.

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction)

The amendments improve on the way in which powers are allocated between detention officers and investigating officers under schedule 4. They link the powers that relate to detention officers in the schedule to those that may be conferred on investigating officers. The amendments do not change or alter the scope of the powers.

The two powers in question are, first, the power to arrest at a police station for a further offence, and secondly, the power to require arrested persons to account for matters such as the presence of an object, substance or remark, or their presence at a particular place. On reflection, those are essentially powers that may be needed to support the process of interviewing suspects. That is more properly done by a designated investigating officer, or of course a police officer, if designated investigating officers are not being used. By

switching the powers of part 3 of the schedule to part 2, the amendments help to maintain the distinction between persons who are responsible for the detention and custody of suspects and those whose responsibility is investigation and interviewing.

Amendment No. 192 will create new paragraph 17A, and will provide a power whereby a custody officer may transfer responsibility for a person in police detention to an investigating officer. That is because section 39(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that the custody officer's responsibility to ensure that codes of practice are complied with, for example, ceases when the detained person is transferred to the custody of a police officer investigating an offence and is in police detention, or when an officer has charge of that person outside the police station.

Under the Bill, when an escort officer is given lawful custody of a detained person outside a police station, the custody officer's responsibilities can be transferred. However, as the Bill stands, the custody officer cannot be relieved of their responsibilities if the case is transferred to the investigating officer.

The amendment modifies section 39(2)(a) of PACE, so that when the investigating officer is given lawful custody of the detained person in the police station, the custody officer's responsibilities can be transferred. Otherwise, there would be an anomaly whereby the investigating officer would be dealing with the prisoner, but the custody officer's responsibilities would remain in place. That is not what would happen if a police officer were conducting the investigation. In such circumstances, it would be quite unlikely that the custody officer would want to hand the detained person over to an investigating officer, but we do not want to hinder the use of the powers.

The duty under section 39(3) of PACE for the person investigating the offence to report back to the custody officer on how the codes are being complied with once the detained person is returned to his custody will also apply to a designated civilian investigating officer under proposed new paragraph 17B. Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 are consequential and technical.

Photo of James Paice James Paice Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Never have I been more honest than in saying that I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I wrestled with the amendments but could not for the life of me understand what the Government were up to. I do not have any notes in front of me because I genuinely wanted to hear what he had to say. He has explained the amendments extremely cogently and clearly. I was puzzled as to why he was removing powers when that is what the Opposition have been trying to do throughout the debate. I now understand not only what he is doing but why. The logic is clear and entirely supportable, so I have nothing more to say, other than to thank him again for explaining what the Government are doing.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

The Minister may recall that earlier, in discussion on a large group of amendments, I raised the issue of arrest by civilians at a police station for a further offence. I now take the opportunity to raise it

again, as what with the huge number of issues raised, he did not respond to it. Why is it necessary for a civilian to carry out an arrest at a police station for another offence, and why is it not possible for a police officer to be summoned to do that? Presumably, police officers would not be very far away.

I confess to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that I have not researched section 31 of the 1984 Act in as detailed a manner as I might. I would be grateful if the Minister could put on the record, for Hansard, the offences that are covered by the proposal and the maximum penalty faced by a person who was charged and found guilty of such an offence. I have reservations about citizens carrying out arrests unless it is absolutely necessary, and I am not convinced that such an arrest is necessary if it occurs in a police station.

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction)

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record from earlier today, I say that the ability to make a subsequent arrest arises in an interviewing police officer's normal practice if a further crime for which the suspect must be arrested comes to light during the interview. As we envisage the possibility of investigating officers being able to carry out interviews in the police station, it is logical that the investigating officer to whom the further offence is disclosed may use the power of arrest. After all, the offender would be sitting in the custody suite of the police station. That is different from arresting people out on the streets and bringing them into the station. The set of powers that will be used by the investigating officer allows completeness.

There is no getting away from the fact that we are using schedule 4 to extend certain limited police powers to civilians who have been properly trained in order to make the maximum use of those civilians and free up the maximum police time for other duties. Our judgment is that the power can be properly extended.

I understand that the penalties that might arise would depend on the offence, so it might be better if I write a slightly longer reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 193, in page 130, line 39, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 194, in page 131, line 8, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 195, in page 131, line 14, leave out paragraph 20.

No. 196, in page 131, line 28, leave out 'under section 35'.

No. 197, in page 132, line 2, leave out 'under section 35'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Opposition Whip (Commons)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 132, line 10, leave out paragraph 23.

We have already rehearsed the arguments on this issue and I suspect that we shall just repeat some of them. I quote from a statement about intimate body searches that was made on Third Reading in the House of Lords by Lord Dholakia. He said:

''People who are detained in police custody are innocent until proved guilty. I used to receive most complaints about that concern when I was at the Police Complaints Authority.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 412.]

Such a comment underlines the sensitivity of the issue.

I understood the Minister's argument in our previous debate on the subject to hinge on the fact that few intimate body searches will be conducted and instances in which there will not be a trained medical person around will be rare and, therefore, it will not matter if the powers are given to a civilian who has received a certain amount of training. I still see the issue from the other angle: if an intimate body search will be such a rarity, why not have the additional safeguard that the search should be carried out by a trained police officer? The issue is sensitive. Some people say that it feels like verbal abuse as well as a physical act on them. In many ways, it is a degrading practice for both parties. It places a burden on detention officers, and because it is so rare, I think that the police could cope with this one exceptional call on their time. The amendment is very important, and I would like to thank the Minister for his comments about it in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

We understand the motivation of the Liberal Democrats in tabling the amendment, and will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. The hon. Lady is right that over the whole country and the whole range of powers that are exercised, not a huge number of intimate body searches are conducted. Nevertheless, a large number of searches are made of groups of passengers coming into the United Kingdom from certain countries.

I have a constituency interest in the matter, because as hon. Members will realise, my constituency is not far from Heathrow airport. Some of my constituents work for Air Jamaica. It is common knowledge that a huge number of passengers coming into the UK on Air Jamaica flights have been on the receiving end of intimate body searches, for reasons that I am sure we all understand. I also have senior officers in the various security forces and the police force at Heathrow among my constituents, who have discussed with me the sensitivity of some of these issues.

I understand, therefore, what the hon. Lady says about the importance of handling such difficult searches with great care. I know that the Minister, those who advise him and police officers with responsibility for such delicate matters, are aware of the sensitivities and the balance that must be struck. However, the onus is on the Government to convince not only the Committee but the country as a whole that it is wise to extend the powers to conduct intimate body searches beyond the category of highly qualified, highly trained police officers and medical personnel with the required training and safeguards who are

working with the police, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned. Although this is perhaps not an issue on which we would go to the wall, she was right to raise it.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I reiterate what my hon. Friend said and thank the Minister for taking the trouble to write in such detail about this amendment. It is very helpful when a Minister does that, because it enables us to see the argument and construct our approach accordingly. The issue is a difficult one. I have read the Minister's letter carefully and I understand his point of view. Clearly, the preferable solution is for a medically trained person to carry out such searches, not merely because they are better able to do it and, frankly, know what the human body is—I will end up down a difficult road if I pursue that point.

Medically trained people would be less likely to cause problems and more likely to have the support of the person being searched. They are less confrontational and regarded as neutral in such situations. Police and civilian officers would not be seen as neutral.

I was pleased to hear in the Minister's letter that only five searches were carried out by constables last year. It is good that the number has been kept so low. Ideally, none should be carried out, and if any are necessary, registered doctors or nurses should carry them out. However, if a search must be conducted by someone other than a doctor or nurse, for the best possible reasons, my hon. Friend and I believe that it would be more defensible and effective and would be regarded better by the public if it was carried out by a proper police officer, rather than a civilian. I, and the Minister, want to avoid circumstances in which someone is intimately searched by a civilian, nothing is found, there is a hoo-hah and they say, ''I have been searched by a civilian, which is outrageous in this country.''

What if someone is searched and nothing is found? Do they not have a reasonable case for saying that their privacy has been violated? What is the test to justify the search? Is it reasonableness? Will the Minister confirm that, irrespective of who carries out the search—whether a civilian or a police officer—in all cases it will be carried out by someone of the same sex?

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction) 4:45, 20 June 2002

I thank Opposition Members for having raised the issue constructively. I realise that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will be aware of this, but for those reading the record in the future, an intimate search for drugs may be carried out only on medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse. The matter essentially involves things that are likely to cause harm to someone else.

The hon. Member for Lewes asked about the safeguards and tests that will apply. Under section 55 of PACE, such a search may be carried out only with the authority of a senior officer. That authority can be given only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has concealed on him something that he may use to cause physical injury to himself or

others. In addition, the authorising senior officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the item cannot be found by a different method. Someone who pursued a complaint against the decision to conduct an intimate search would have to pass those tests.

The search must be conducted by a registered doctor or nurse, unless the senior authorising officer considers that that is not practicable. There is no question of the authorising officer judging what is desirable. The PACE codes are clear. The search must be conducted by a registered doctor or nurse, and only when that is not practicable will alternative arrangements come into play. Under current legislation, a few times a year police officers are authorised to carry out an intimate search.

As the Committee is aware—I wrote to Opposition Members—the revised draft PACE codes of practice were issued for consultation on 12 June. Annexe A to code C covers intimate searches. The revised draft codes stipulate that a proposal for a search to be carried out by someone other than a medically qualified person should be considered only as a last resort and when the authorising officer is satisfied that the risks associated with allowing the item to remain in place outweigh the risks associated with removing it. That is a further test.

Notes for guidance have been added that include advice on the factors that the authorising officer should consider before authorising an intimate search. As hon. Members will appreciate, the codes are subject to consultation. Once comments have been considered and any amendments have been made, the final codes will be presented to the House and another place under the affirmative resolution procedure, which gives the possibility of further parliamentary scrutiny.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

I may have not understood correctly, in which case I apologise, but I thought that the reason for the power was that there was felt to be a real risk that someone might harm themselves—perhaps, as in the example in the Minister's letter, with razor blades—and that that would be a sudden matter: someone would see a razor blade, and the person held would say that he was going to kill himself, creating an immediate issue about removing the item. That is why, I believed, the power was being authorised. In such circumstances, how will it be possible to have authorisation from a senior officer, who may be some way away? How would that apply if the search was carried out by a civilian rather than a police officer?

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction)

It remains the case that in all circumstances, even if a matter is pressing, authorisation must be obtained from a senior officer. However, it is inevitable that the senior officer may not be physically present to give authorisation, perhaps by virtue of being out at an incident, in a rural area travelling between one police station and another, or whatever. In those circumstances, authorisation may have to be given by telephone, but it must be given.

Let me deal with the question whether the power should be extended beyond police officers. I have some sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes that, in the limited number of cases in which

an intimate search is made, public acceptability will be greater if they are carried out by a police officer. However, if the search happens to be carried out by any of the 125,000 police officers at constable or sergeant level, we will have to allow for the possibility that they may not have received recent training in this respect. In practice, a dedicated detention officer may be better trained in this power than a police officer who has not done custody duty for many years and not been recently trained in these skills. It is not self-evident that, in all circumstances, it is better for a search to be carried out by a police officer. However, I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

We have to strike a difficult balance. There are huge gains to be made in operational efficiency by using civilian detention staff. Our fear is that, if the power to conduct an intimate search on that limited number of occasions a year was used, forces might feel that they could not take the risk of civilianising the service, because of the need to ensure that adequate other cover was in place. The question for the Committee is whether we should face that risk, given the limited number of occasions on which a non-medical member of staff exercises the power in the average year. It would not be worth losing the potential gains of significant civilianisation to cover that small number of occasions. If we add the fact that the civilian detention staff are probably more likely to be appropriately trained and certainly more recently trained than a general police officer—not necessarily a specialist detention officer who is a police officer—the case is made.

Photo of Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Stinchcombe Labour, Wellingborough

I am slightly uneasy about the Minister's argument, although I am listening to it with great interest. As I understand it, the existing powers vested in police officers to conduct intimate searches are used only rarely in any event. In that case, as a matter of first principle, it seems likely that not much police officer time will prima facie be freed up by extending the powers to CSOs. In those circumstances, would it not be sensible simply to ensure that there are appropriate numbers of trained officers in relevant stations?

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction)

My hon. Friend misunderstands me. Of course, very little time will be freed up by substituting detention officers for police officers on the five occasions a year when intimate searches are made. The question is whether a police officer has always to be available in case a police station is unlucky enough to have to conduct one of those searches. That would mean that police officers would have to be deployed in greater numbers than if we went ahead with full civilianisation. That is the core of the argument.

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point about the level of training that should be available to police officers. Indeed, under wider police reforms, we are trying to make that much more systematic and competence-based than it has perhaps been in the past. These issues should be addressed.

On balance, the danger of restricting the significant gains from civilianisation outweighs the step that the Committee is being asked to take. Everything takes place within the framework of PACE codes and guidance. Given that there is absolutely no question about either the preference in law that that provides for the use of medical staff or the tests that have to be passed by the authorising officer, including that of the harm being potentially greater than the harm produced by taking action, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendments.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Liberal Democrat, Lewes

What about my point about the same sex?

Photo of John Denham John Denham Minister (Home Office) (Police and Crime Reduction)

The position on the same sex is the same as for a police officer. A constable may not conduct an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex. That is in the PACE code of practice, and the same will apply for a detention officer.

Photo of Annette Brooke Annette Brooke Opposition Whip (Commons)

I thank the Minister for those comments. He has been very persuasive in some respects, but I wish to press the amendment on the basis that, at this stage, I am not fully convinced by his argument that the requirement of a police officer could prevent the bringing into being of civilian detention officers. It is a very powerful argument, but I do not think that this forum is such that the convincing evidence can actually be provided in it. I am still very unhappy about the matter, so I hope that there will be further correspondence. I should like to go and talk to police officers about the matter, to get a better feel on it, but because of my very strong feelings on the issue, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Division number 10 Adults Abused in Childhood — Schedule 4 - Powers exercisable by police civilians

Aye: 2 MPs

No: 9 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 198, in page 132, line 10, leave out ''under section 35''.

No. 199, in page 132, line 20, leave out ''under section 35''.

No. 200, in page 132, line 31, leave out ''under section 35''.

No. 201, in page 132, line 39, leave out ''under section 35''.

No. 202, in page 133, line 14, leave out ''under section 35''.

No. 203, in page 133, line 20, leave out ''under section 35''.

No. 204, in page 133, line 25, leave out paragraph 29.

No. 205, in page 133, line 42, leave out ''under section 35''.—[Mr. Denham.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 25 June at half-past Ten o'clock.