Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

That is a very good point. A range of legislation applies, and in Committee we discussed some aspects that could or could not be used. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point, but the question is whether the provisions before us are required. I do not propose to detain the House by going through all the discussions we had in Committee, because I am sure that Members can read Hansard, if they have not already done so—I am sure that many Members have. Questions arise on the scale of activity. There is a spectrum and we need to consider: who should be allowed to do what; how often; and for how long? The worst of the Bill's original proposals was the one to give council officials, or even non-council officials given authority by a council, the power to use reasonable force to try to deprive a protestor of an item of property. I was extremely alarmed by that. I am not comfortable with the idea that those people, who are not trained, should be allowed to use that power, and I was not alone. I thank the Minister for listening to me when I voiced my concerns early on and for having to endure our talking about it extensively in Committee. In one of the Committee's evidence sessions, I asked what our witnesses thought about that proposal. Shami Chakrabarti, from Liberty, made her position very clear:"““I am also very nervous about non-police personnel exercising those powers.””" None of us would be surprised about that. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Lynne Owens made the point that police officers receive a lot of training and operate within a legislative framework and a misconduct procedure, but she said:"““The provision on the use of force would make us nervous.””––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 113, Q32.]"