I beg to move amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, after 'powers', insert 'and duties.'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 28, in

clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 84, in

clause 2, page 2, line 1, after second 'the', insert 'direct'.

No. 4, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 'and with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.'.

No. 68, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end add 'and shall be subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as apply to a constable.'.

No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) He shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier.'.

No. 69, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) any person so authorised shall be identified, together with his rank or office and his place of business or employment, to the owner or person in charge of the premises concerned.'.

No. 91, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 28, after first 'the', insert 'direct'.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 2, 4, 3 and 28. The clause extends the existing range of warrants to give an authorised person who accompanies a police officer the same powers as that officer. Amendment No. 2 would insert ''and duties'' after the word ''powers'' and amendment No. 28 would omit the extension of the power to the execution of the warrant. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are probing amendments; they suggest that the person accompanying the officer should have a duty to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. Likewise, such a person would need the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.

The issue of warrants is a difficult area for the courts. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that my experience in that regard makes me slightly concerned about giving very broad powers to an authorised person accompanying an officer. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant to enter and search premises can be executed by any constable and such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable executing it. Little or nothing else is said about the accompanying person.

Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I picked up a copy of PACE and found what I was talking about in section 16. I then looked at ''Archbold'' and a photostat of section 16, and found that that covered something else completely, and that I needed section 10. I hope to goodness that they are both relevant.

Now, picture the scene: Bow Street magistrates court on any Friday—in my rare moments away from my constituency, I sit there as a district judge. An application is made for a warrant. Before the district judge comes an officer who lays before him the information that a warrant is necessary in relation to certain premises because it is believed that there are drugs or documents involving a financial swindle there. Accompanying the information are sufficient details to enable that judge to form a view as to whether the warrant should be issued. It is no good a policeman turning up and saying, ''I apply for a

warrant for these premises,'' because the answer will be, ''Go away. You can't have one,'' unless that policeman has details of the basis on which the warrant is sought.

Every district judge or magistrate carefully examines an application for a warrant and, if satisfied, grants it. Every district judge or magistrate knows that under PACE the police occasionally take with them someone who is authorised. Our probing amendments try to put a dampener on the clause because it gives the accompanying person and the police officer the same powers. I understand that a policeman has large powers in respect of the warrant—for example, the ability to force entry if required and the ability when inside the premises to seize and confiscate items. Constables are in a unique position; they are given authority by the citizen. We should know what we are doing before we allow the clause to give the accompanying person the same powers as the constable in a blanket fashion. There are reasons why that is important.

My first question to the Minister is, who can be an authorised person under proposed new section (2A)? I am informed in various briefings that it is likely to be an IT specialist, for example, who may be dealing with a computer-related offence. Is there an exhaustive list? Are those who are not fully fledged constables but are part of the community police force—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will correct me if I use the wrong term—to be included and given the same powers?

Support officers.

There we are: support officers. Are they to be given the same powers? Are they, in short, to be authorised persons? Will the court have any say now in who the authorised person is to be? When the judge gives the police officer the ability to execute a warrant, he gives it to that officer based on the officer's deposition to the court and on his unique status as one of Her Majesty's constables. Would not a court ask, or want to know, if a warrant is to be executed in future, who the officer will take with him or her as an authorised person? Do the Government have any plans to ensure that an application for a warrant to a district judge or magistrate includes the information that the applicant seeks to take so-and-so as an authorised person? Will there be judicial permission or not, or will the matter bypass the courts?

What limit will there be on the category of people being dealt with? At the officer's discretion, can it be a solicitor, an accountant, a friend or a passer-by because the officer is frightened, or anybody or no one? That is the point of these probing amendments, especially the important amendment No. 2, which would add the words ''and duties''. When that is linked with amendment No. 3, there is a compelling case for the Government to accept the amendment.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, on which I made my maiden speech in 1983, states:

''Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present when a constable seeks to execute a warrant''—

and then—this is critical—it lists the duties on the officer. There must be duties—it would be nonsense if

there were not. There are such duties under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The officer must identify himself to the occupier, and, if not in uniform, must produce to him documentary evidence that he is a constable. Furthermore, he shall produce the warrant to him and give him a copy. That is an obvious thing for an officer to do—hence our amendment, which would oblige the person authorised to accompany the officer to carry evidence of identity and produce it to the occupier. It is similar to the current requirement applying to the officer himself.

Amendment No. 4 would provide that in addition to exercising the relevant powers only in the company and under the supervision of a constable, the person concerned would also need to do so

''with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer''.

That is a way of suggesting to the Minister that a slightly higher level of police involvement and authority should be used.

The Minister should take on board the need for the same duties for the authorised person, and the same requirement to identify himself or herself, as apply to the officer. Perhaps he could go further and say whether, if the officer has powers to seize documents and, as an officer must from time to time, act with force, the authorised person has those powers? That is an interesting and troubling situation. The authorised person is not a constable of Her Majesty. The point needs to be examined.

I assume, but am ready to be corrected if I am wrong, that if a police officer, in executing a warrant, goes over the top and does something wrong, there is insurance cover applying to Her Majesty's force. What would be the position of an authorised person—a solicitor or accountant who just happened to be authorised by someone to go in and do exactly what the policeman was doing? If I were an accountant, asked by the police to go and carry out those duties, I should want to check my insurance policy before I stepped outside my house.

I have another point to raise, although I do not expect the Minister to answer it today. If he can respond to this one, he is very fast on his feet. He is, of course. However, I want to mention in passing the case of Funke v. France. He thinks that I am pulling his leg. It is that time of year. I cannot tell the Committee how the case came to my attention, because I have forgotten. It was more than two days ago, and by mistake it came to my attention. I am quite sure that those advising him will look it up straight away. I am sure, indeed, that they will know all about it.

The case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights. I do not think that it is exactly on all fours with what we are considering, and it will probably be distinguished from it, but a serious point arises from it. The case relates to the remedy that individuals have in relation to their own premises when those are invaded—or entered—by various officers of the law or Customs, and what they do, what they take, and how they behave.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Illsley, that I do not intend to read out all 34 extraordinarily boring pages. This is a 1993 case, and to cut a long story short, Mr. and Mrs. Funke lived in France—which explains, I think, why the case is called Funke v. France. Various Customs officers stormed in and took a lot of documents. Mr. Funke died in due course, but his widow was permitted to carry on with an action that was so grievously complex that I have not the slightest idea what she was getting at.

In short, the action related to article 8 of the convention, which states that although everyone has the right to respect for his private life and correspondence, there may be interference by a public authority with the exercise of that right, so long as it is in accordance with the law and amounts to a measure that is necessary in a democratic society, inter alia in the interests of the economic well-being of the country or for the prevention of disorder or crime. That is fine. We can all understand that, so I shall get straight to the point.

At the end of the case, I believe that there was a finding that article 8 had been breached in relation to the private life and correspondence. That is relevant to the extent that we in this country have a system whereby the police and Customs seek a warrant and behave in a certain way. That is fine, because we entrust them with that, but could have the Minister and his officials taken on board the position whereby we give hugely extended powers to those who are not constables or Customs officers. Is that entirely safe from a possible attack under the convention? I simply do not know, so I have posed the question. I am terribly pleased that the Minister is nodding as though he thinks that I have made a sage point.

I very much welcome the clause, in the same way that people in the criminal justice system in Nottinghamshire warmly welcome it. However, we have a couple of concerns, which my hon. Friend the Minister might allay. Yet again, we are talking, quite rightly, about extending a power, but we need to be clear about the defence that individuals may have in relation to an abuse of that power. It is none the less important that the warrants to enter and search have the capability outlined by the clause.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Woking. We always thought that he was funky, and he has proved it this morning. However, he should keep an eye on people who table amendments through or for him. I am thinking in particular of amendment No. 4, which goes against the spirit of what the clause and indeed the Bill are trying to achieve by making the processes speedier where appropriate and where possible. The amendment would require a chief inspector or more senior officer to sign off the warrants, which goes against what I hope he would endorse as the good objective of trying to speed up the process, rather than pushing it up the chain of command in the police force and imposing yet more red tape and bureaucracy when the police are trying to do their job. I hope that he agrees that that is a good objective and will not press the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point that I was going to make about the use of force. Are people

who go along on a search expected or empowered to use force in the same way as the police? It would be helpful for the Minister to place their status on the record. The two amendments that I tabled are about the hangers-on, if I may use that term. I am thinking less about the civilians whom the police employ than about civilians who are not employed by the police but may be at the scene. They need safeguards almost as much as the person being searched does.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a difficulty with insurance, which I had not thought of. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee or write to hon. Members about that.

I believe that we need also a clear code of practice for those civilians who are not directly employed by the police. I hope that the Minister can put that into the public domain an appropriate point, so that those people's rights are covered, as well as the rights of those being searched.

I am sure that hon. Members can think of many examples. One that occurs to me is of a television crew accompanying the police on a raid because the police want to show pictures of a drugs bust. A more appropriate example would be someone employed by the police to take some pictures for evidential use. There must be many other sorts of people involved in that sort of activity.

In discussing who those authorised people might be, the example of bailiffs comes to mind. I do not know what codes of conduct govern their powers, but is there not a similarity?

That is a good point. I cannot answer it, but the Minister may be able to do so. Other hon. Members may be able to think of people who might tag along on an operation, all for good reasons, who should be covered. I ask my hon. Friend whether this is not an appropriate point for a code of practice for such people.

Any person authorised by the police to accompany them on a search should be identified, with their rank or office, to the owner of the property or the person being searched. People should know, when a crowd comes into a house or premises, who the heck all those people are who are storming into the front room, especially as the person being searched may not be charged, arrested or convicted. It is only fair that the person whose privacy is invaded should know who those people are.

Apart from those two question marks, I hope that the Minister will accept a strong welcome on behalf of those in Nottinghamshire who are interested in the matter. It is a helpful clause and I wish it a fair wind. Given those reassurances, I shall not seek to press amendments Nos. 68 and 69 to a vote.

This is another important clause, but the amendments can be dealt with fairly quickly. Amendments Nos. 84 and 91 are intended to probe the understanding of direct supervision. Does the person concerned have to be with the constable, or could he be apart or separated from him, and would they have

to be in communication by radio walkie-talkie? How much supervision should there be? Is there case law for it? Is there any understanding? Is there any statutory basis for the meaning of supervision? Technically, the Minister, I or anyone else could be supervising someone who was 100 miles away, but the supervision would be minimal. We need to ensure that we are not going down that road.

The Minister will know that we are supportive of many of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. It is right that we should include the words ''and duties''. Those who have powers must also have duties to go with them. If the Government seek automatically to give those who accompany constables such powers—the present law says that the powers for the additional person are given when the warrant is issued—it seems to me that they should also have the duties.

This is a continual theme. Why does the person who accompanies the police officer have to have duties if he is under the supervision of that police officer? Many people seem not to have turned over the page to read that. He is there because he is accompanying the police officer in the execution of the warrant in new subsection (2A). Surely all the duties are on the police officer who is supervising him.

This is important. Let us take the following case. Several police officers with people under their supervision go into a house, a factory or a goods yard and the police officer in charge says, ''Right, guys, I want you to go and look for notebooks.'' They all go off separately, although they will be under the supervision of the police officer because he gave them their task. An hour or two later they will all meet up again. They may do all sorts of things while they are on their own. It seems to me that they have duties to the person whose premises are being searched, who may never see the police officer, but only the person who accompanies him.

That touches on the bigger issue. This is an invasion of privacy. The cliché is that an Englishman's home is his castle. We are talking about men and women, English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh and every other nationality here, and people's homes, offices and factories should not be invaded by others without permission. The first exception to that is if a warrant has been obtained, and the magistrates must satisfy themselves about that. The second exception is when there is a power in the law to go in without a warrant. Such powers should be granted sparingly. The number of people who have those powers should be limited. They are not limited. There are huge numbers of people with the power to go into our houses. It is not just police and Customs officers, but people who work for the Inland Revenue and every quango in the country. There are far too many people who can invade other people's activities.

Will the Minister tell us who has these powers to give a warrant to a constable? What are the categories of people who might be able to be authorised? It is an extension of the question that was asked a moment or

so ago. Are we increasing the power only in relation to those who are accompanying a constable? The law appears to say that we are not giving additional powers to someone who accompanies a tax inspector or a Customs and Excise official. I hope that we are clear that this power is only for people who accompany a police constable, not for one of that great army of people who may invade our homes.

Amendment No. 28 would take away the power of the execution of the warrant from the accompanying person. That seems right. The execution of the warrant should be in the power of the constable—the person who is accountable before the law. The IT expert, the forensic science expert or the DNA expert or anyone else should not be responsible for executing the warrant. We are always complaining that our constituents have people knocking on their doors and they do not know who they are. They need to know whether people are from the council or the water board. We always tell older people to guard against opening the door to unauthorised people. We must be consistent. We must ensure that the person who executes the warrant is a uniformed police officer or can prove that he is a police officer. That seems perfectly proper.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 3 are also important. A junior officer could haul in an extra group of people only with the written consent of someone at senior level, which gives the public extra protection. Amendment No. 3 would require any such person to carry evidence of identity, and to produce it on request. We cannot have people wandering around the houses and business premises of Britain without that proper identification. The amendment is similar to amendments Nos. 68 and 69. Amendment No. 69 would ensure the ability to identify, and amendment No. 68 would ensure that the person is subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures. The Liberal Democrats support both those amendments.

These important matters relate to the liberty of the citizen in their home, their right to privacy and the right not to have people entering their home without authority. I hope that the Minister will reassure us by being sympathetic to the amendments and answering the perfectly reasonable questions that they pose. At this stage, I presume that this will be an exercise in probing. However, these are issues that hon. Members will want to raise again on Report if they do not receive satisfactory answers now. We must know what we are doing, and the citizen must know exactly who has the power to do what on their doorstep or in their home.

I simply add this to the comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking: I doubt that any member of the Committee disputes that a search warrant must be carried out as efficiently as possible. If that requires the presence and active participation of others who are not police officers, I, for one, will not be troubled as long as the buck stops with the police.

The difficulty of the clause, and the reason for the Conservative amendments and the similar amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is that

section 16(2) of PACE authorises persons to accompany any constable who is executing a warrant. There is no difficulty in individuals being present who are not constables. The next question is what is the intention behind the new subsection, which gives the direct impression that the buck will still stop with the police, who must supervise what is going on, but also purports to extend the powers of those who accompany the officer to be identical to his.

Members of the Committee need an answer from the Minister about how this is supposed to work in practice. It is perfectly acceptable to provide extra protection in an area of doubt. Does accompaniment simply mean that the man merely has to stand there and make suggestions to the officer rather than involve himself? If so, I can understand the logic of that. I must say, however, that the wording suggests that the person is, in effect, given a free ticket to act exactly as the officer does on those premises, including breaking in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said.

I have the gravest reservations about giving the person breaking-in powers of any sort. In relation to what the person does on the premises, I can see the force and legitimacy of his being able to download computer files and carry out specialist activities, but supervision is key. The word ''supervision'', as I understand it, could mean that no one else who is present and close to him when he is carrying out such activities is an officer. It bothers me if that will be the upshot of the provisions.

My hon. Friend rightly made the point about insurance. If I were a solicitor or an IT specialist, I would want my insurance cleared up. Most importantly, who has responsibility? Is it the chief constable? In the case of misfeasance, will an action lie against a chief constable or not? I assume that it would, but it would be useful for the Minister to confirm that that is the case, and that there is no ambiguity in the matter.

We seek the Minister's reassurance on some issues, but on one or two matters we may need more than reassurance, because I am not persuaded that the wording is no wider than it needs to be. Effectively, we are asking the Minister to think again and return to the matter later.

This has been a helpful debate, and I shall attempt to respond to all the issues.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly divined, the intention of the clause is to enable the person accompanying a police officer to do more than at present, which is to stand and give advice. An obvious example might be examining a computer to find evidence of child pornography. Some expertise might be required to access the files and find encoded or encrypted information. All police constables might not have that expertise, so it is entirely sensible for the policeman to be accompanied by someone who does. Rather than have him standing there saying, ''Press return,'' it is much more sensible to allow the expert to sit and do the searching. That is the purpose behind the clause, and the change arises out of the PACE review.

May I first deal with the questions about authorisation asked by the hon. Member for Woking? Authorised persons for these purposes will be those authorised to accompany the constable by being named on the warrant. In other words, they are known at the point when the magistrate or the judge grants the warrant. The Police Reform Act 2002 gives powers to investigating officers—people employed by police authorities—to apply for and execute warrants. Only the civilians who need to be named on the warrant will be specifically identified.

The hon. Member for Woking made a fair point about Funke v. France because all these powers are subject to challenge in respect of the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998. The honest answer is that no one knows for sure where the application of the convention, which can be tested against what Parliament has framed as legislation, will lead. The Bill has certainly been drafted to be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the convention. I am grateful to him for informing us of the case, not least for its delightful title, though its circumstances sound rather sad.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for his support. If he is agreeable, I shall write to him on the question of insurance. I can also tell him and the hon. Member for Woking that civilians accompanying police officers will not be permitted to use force. They cannot, for example, kick in the door. The only exception will apply to investigating officers who, under the new power in the Police Reform Act 2002, are allowed to apply for and execute the warrant.

But the Bill as it stands allows the authorised person to use force to get in, so how does it prevent someone from acting in that way?

The answer is section 117 of PACE—

Sorry if I have wasted time.

No, not at all. I did not know either, but I do now.

I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that his point does not apply to tax inspectors. He raised a legitimate issue about the circumstances in which agents of the state are allowed to enter premises, but the changes relate only to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

The trouble with amendment No. 28 is that it would deny the person authorised to accompany a constable in executing a warrant the relevant powers linked to the execution process. Given that the precise purpose of the clause is to enable the person actively to participate, the amendment is unhelpful, and I ask the Committee to reject it if it comes to a vote. Indeed, I ask the Committee to reject all the amendments, although I am not unsympathetic to the points that lie behind them, as I shall explain in a moment.

I hope that the Minister will soon deal with my question about direct and indirect supervision. On amendment No. 28—

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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