Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 2, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, after 'powers', insert 'and duties.'—[Mr. Malins.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking 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'.

As I understand it, the Minister was speaking at the end of this morning's debate, and he did not have time to respond to an intervention by Mr. Hughes. I ask the Minister to give way, if he wishes to do so.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran. We look forward to working under your guidance. I am happy to give way.

I thank the Minister for giving way, and join him in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.

My intervention was to prompt the Minister to remember to deal with my point about supervision, to which he had not yet replied. That may be my last request in relation to this group of amendments.

I shall do so in due course.

On amendment No. 2, we agree that it is important that the persons who are authorised to accompany constables behave properly, and where appropriate are subject to the same duties as those constables, as well as having the same powers. That is why we provided for supervision of such persons by a constable. Schedule 1 will amend sections 21 and 22 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by imposing duties on the persons authorised to accompany constables in respect of such matters as access to and copying seized material. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the constable will ultimately be responsible for the execution of the warrant, and that it would be unnecessary to impose certain duties on the persons who are authorised to accompany constables. That is why we cannot accept the amendment, which would impose all the duties on authorised persons, such as endorsing the warrant after it has been executed. The constable can do that, so we do not need to impose a duty on the authorised person to do the same.

We believe that we have got the list right by placing duties on the authorised person that we believe are sensible for him or her to have. If any hon. Members believe that we have not, we will be happy to consider the matter further, but amendment No. 28 is too broad in its current form.

On supervision, it is not clear that amendments Nos. 84 and 91 add anything. The civilian will need some freedom of action to be effective in participating in the process, which is the reason for the clause. At the same time, however, we recognise that the civilian will always be under the general direction of the constable, which is what the clause seeks to achieve. In so far as I understand the difference between ''direct supervision'' and ''supervision'', it would get in the way of what we are trying to achieve if the intention was that the constable should be constantly looking over the civilian's shoulder. That is why we are not inclined to accept such an amendment, which does not add anything. There may be circumstances in which members of the team are working together, but in different parts of a building, or are searching premises that have more than one building, such as a house and barn complex. In those circumstances, it would not be sensible to require the constable to be next to the authorised person at every stage, although that person is clearly under the supervision of the constable.

The amendment is intended to be probing. According to the Minister's briefing and understanding, is the supervision required to be carried out by someone who is on the premises at the same time? That is the crucial issue. Are they there? Are they within reach, as opposed to someone else?

Yes. I hope that that is helpful.

Through amendment No. 4, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would require further written authority from a senior officer before someone accompanying a constable in executing a warrant could exercise relevant search and seizure powers. That amendment is unnecessary, given that the individuals will be named on the warrant that is granted in the first place, as I said earlier. It will be authorised by a judge or magistrate, and the

endorsement will be given in the knowledge that it implies access to certain powers by the authorised persons. Requiring additional written authority would add to bureaucracy in police operations at a time when we are trying to minimise it.

Amendment No. 3 suggests a change to the current position whereby persons who accompany constables executing a warrant are not obliged to carry evidence of identity or to produce it for the occupier of the premises that are searched. The amendment is unnecessary, because in the vast majority of cases the constable executing the warrant must identify himself or herself when entering the premises. An exception is terrorism cases, in which the officer has to give a number but not a name. The police will also keep records of the search, which will show who was at the premises when they were searched.

Clearly, the person whose premises are searched can identify police officers in uniform by their number, but if they wanted to know who the person accompanying the police was, it would be good practice for them to be introduced, if that is the right term, at the start of the process, or for there to be a means of identifying the authorised person, particularly if there was a complaint about their conduct. That seems perfectly reasonable. However, as we are updating PACE code B, which is the relevant code, that would be the sensible place to deal with the expectation that authorised persons should identify themselves appropriately when requested to do so. That would be a way of dealing with the point that gave rise to the amendment without writing it into the Bill.

Why is it preferable to put the point about identification of the authorised person in a code, when the identification of the constable if he is in civilian clothing is dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act itself?

I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's fair point is that authorised persons act at all times under direction. They do not act independently; they support and assist the police in the process of searching. Although the clause gives them new powers, they are in a different position from the constable, and it is right and proper that the person who sought the warrant and is leading the process and supervising and directing should be the person who has to identify himself. That is why it is right that that should be in the current PACE legislation. I accept the point, but I think that it should be dealt with in the code of practice.

Given that we try to protect our fellow citizens against people who do not have authority going into their homes, and given that, perfectly properly, the police are sometimes in civilian clothing, will the Minister tell us, or inquire, whether there is a process whereby people who, perfectly reasonably, are suspicious of the credentials of the person at their door can check them? It is now common practice in local government for someone to be able to ring a number and for the person at the other end to confirm that the person at the door is from a particular department. Obviously, in some

cases, there is a right to enter the premises without having to get permission, but there may be other cases that are delicate but in which that is less necessary, and it would be useful if there was a mechanism whereby people could make checks in a simple and straightforward way.

I understand the point, but I can envisage circumstances in which people with things to hide would answer the door and say that they just wanted to check. They would then shut the door and dispose of all the things that the people had come to find. There is a practical difficulty in operating as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Clearly, if requested, the officers will need to show their warrant cards, which can be examined. Indeed, that would be good practice. There is no provision currently for people to say, ''Well that looks interesting but I want to ring the police station to check that you are who you say you are.'' In answering the hon. Gentleman's question off the cuff, I can see practical difficulties because of the requirements of law enforcement.

In respect of amendments Nos. 68 and 69, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will be aware that there are differences between the disciplinary procedures that apply to police officers and those that apply to civilian staff. However, those differences will reduce as a consequence of the Police Reform Act 2002, which will include civilians employed by the police in the same complaints arrangements as police officers, although not in the same disciplinary arrangements, as Parliament specifically decided.

When persons accompanying constables in the execution of warrants are not police employees, they will not be covered by the complaints or disciplinary arrangements. However, if there is a complaint, the constable and the police force are ultimately responsible. I undertake to explore whether it would be possible for the police to make it clear to contracted staff that if their behaviour gave rise to a complaint, it would be expected as a result of their having taken on such work that they would participate in the complaints process. Again, that is an issue for good practice and guidance, not for the Bill.

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, which meets the points that I made earlier.

In the light of my hon. Friend's comment, I believe that I have dealt with everything that he wanted to tease out of me in respect of the amendments. I will resist them for the reasons I have given, but as I said, we propose to pick up a number of the helpful points that were made in the debate.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cran.

The Minister spoke kindly and persuasively, but I am disappointed that he will not accept amendment No. 3, in particular, as it would mean that the authorised person would be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. It is specified in statute that when a policeman who is not in uniform comes to the door, he is obliged, whether asked to do so or not, to identify himself to the occupier, to show documentary evidence

that he is a constable, to produce a warrant and to supply a copy of it. Clearly, the authorised person will not be in uniform, but we are often told—it is always on the television—not to let people into our house if we do not know who they are. That is good advice, especially for old people. People must produce their identification or they cannot come in.

I worry about the following situation: an officer who is not in uniform calls at the door and says, ''My name is Officer So-and-so and I have come to execute a search warrant. Here is my warrant card.'' The resident says, ''Okay, but who is that with you?'' The officer replies, ''That's nothing to do with you,'' or, ''I'm not obliged to tell you,'' or ''It's Mr. John Smith, an accountant, who is here to assist me with certain technical matters.'' Under the Bill as drafted, the officer is not obliged to say the last of those three sentences. I want to be sure that under the code he will be obliged to do so. Can the Minister help me in that respect?

With the greatest of pleasure, as it was what I thought I had told the Committee already. The officer is in charge and it is right that he—or she—should identify himself. It will be written into the code of practice that all those participating should be identified to the individual whose home is being searched, all other things being equal—leaving aside circumstances in which those involved have to ram down the door to get in.

In that case, the Minister has gone a long way to help us, and I am grateful for his observations. We have had a good debate and I am largely reassured, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

These are important issues and we did not have a stand part debate on clause 1.

This term has seen the beginning of citizenship on the national curriculum. It is important for citizens, young and adult, to know about what powers are vested and in whom, when an officer wants to search the home, for example. It should be part of the code that people know about when they leave school. I appreciate that it is not principally a Home Office responsibility, but it is indirectly, and the Home Secretary has said publicly that he is interested in such matters. Rights and responsibilities should be part of what is taught at school. When people know the score, it will cause much less aggravation than when they do not know their rights and someone wants to stop them or search their home.

I will gladly undertake to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.