---

Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a moment, as is my practice, but I shall make some more progress before doing so.

The Bill establishes a standard set of powers for police community support officers. We believe that their introduction has been a success and that taking that forward with a standard set of powers will enhance and develop that. Since their inception in the Police Reform Act 2002, community support officers have undertaken a variety of uniformed patrol tasks. Their high visibility has had a positive impact on reassurance in public places. They are accessible to communities and are key deliverers of neighbourhood policing. It is a unique role, distinct from that of a police officer. I am pleased that there is now recognition on both sides of the House of the true value of CSOs. But if CSOs are to play a full part in neighbourhood policing teams, they need appropriate powers to deal with the day-to-day problems that they encounter on the street without necessarily having recourse to a police officer. Standardisation will also end the confusion felt by the public about what powers CSOs have in their local area.

CSOs' local knowledge of young people makes them well placed to play a valuable role in dealing with truancy. The Bill therefore provides chief officers with the option of designating that power to their CSOs.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Clarke: When I come to the end of the phase of my speech to do with neighbourhood policing, I will give way to Members who have comments or questions on that.

On parenting orders and contracts, we believe that effective parenting is one of the key drivers in preventing children from offending and engaging in antisocial behaviour. It is vital that the police and other crime reduction partners are supported at the local neighbourhood level by parents in creating a strong society based on mutual respect. In tackling poor parenting and providing proper support for families where it is needed, we must be aware that that is the best course of action, and we are investing substantial resources in that. In the very small number of cases where parents are not willing to engage, the Bill widens the range of agencies that can enter into parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders to secure the engagement of parents. Parenting orders are already highly successful where they are used by local authorities to combat truancy, and by youth offending teams. Youth offending teams successfully applied for 1,273 orders in the last financial year alone. The breach rate is low, and most parents subject to an order grow to value the support that they receive. Indeed, many wish that they had received such support earlier and make an articulate statement of that.

Finally in this section of my speech, I turn to conditional cautions. To tackle low-level crime and antisocial behaviour effectively, we need tools that bring
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 611
 
rapid relief to communities and send a clear signal that such behaviour is unacceptable. Conditional cautions can be used for adult offenders who admit their guilt and are willing to comply with the conditions specified in the caution. They have already been operating successfully in six areas, starting in December 2004, and we anticipate implementing them across the country in the next 18 months. They can provide an appropriate response to low-level offending without a potentially lengthy court process and free up court time to deal with more complex cases.

The conditions that can be attached to a conditional caution are currently limited to direct rehabilitation or reparation. While those conditions have given good results, experience has shown that widening their scope would mean that conditional cautions could be used in more cases. The Bill will enable conditional cautions to involve the offender paying a fine or undertaking up to 20 hours of unpaid work—for example, making reparation to the community by clearing up litter from a park. In that way, offenders will be giving something back to the community, and more quickly and directly than if they had gone to court.

I will now pause for a moment to give way to one or two Members who wanted to ask questions.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Does the Home Secretary agree that neighbourhood policing is not just about community support officers and that local police stations also play an important part? West Yorkshire police recently proposed to close Bingley and Shipley police stations' public helpdesks to save money. Will the Home Secretary take action to safeguard local police stations that command widespread public support?

Mr. Clarke: Local policing is central to neighbourhood policing and other matters. One of the exciting things that is happening in many parts of the country—I believe that that includes West Yorkshire—is the opening of police facilities in a wide range of areas such as schools, shopping centres and so on. Chief constables must examine the overall policing presence in their community, including the existing stations, and determine the best way in which to make an impact on their local communities. Much of the police estate was built decades—sometimes even centuries—ago, and reconfiguring it to fit modern policing need is a key responsibility of the police in West Yorkshire or anywhere else. That is what they have to do, and they will do precisely that.

Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remoteness of community safety partnerships is one of the weaknesses of the current system? In my constituency, excellent work is being done with neighbourhood policing but individual constituents approach me rather than their community safety partnership, about whose existence they know nothing, when a problem arises. What will the Bill do to solve the problem and make community safety partnerships more accountable?

Mr. Clarke: I shall deal specifically with that shortly because the coterminosity of the basic command unit and the local district council is critical. I accept my hon. Friend's implicit criticism—the performance of
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 612
 
community safety partnerships has been patchy throughout the country. I could take him to some where genuinely outstanding work has been done in exactly the way that he would like, and to others where there has been a more desultory state of affairs. A key element of the Bill is strengthening the partnerships so that he and all hon. Members can have confidence that their local crime and disorder reduction partnership between the police and the local authorities works.

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I welcome the initiative to put local policing at the centre of Government policy. Unfortunately, the reforms are having the opposite effect in Wellingborough because the senior police officer there will be moved next month to a neighbouring constituency, Kettering. I do not understand how that helps local policing.

Mr. Clarke: I cannot speak about the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, we propose the reorganisation of police authorities to reduce the pressures that can lead to moving a particular, respected local police officer to another locality. The purpose of the Bill is to make matters work in the opposite direction.

Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): I understand the points that the Home Secretary makes about standardising powers for police community support officers. However, in Warwickshire, PCSOs are permitted to travel only by public transport, which significantly limits their effectiveness. Will he be cautious about extending their powers without extending the necessary training and equipment? He will understand that my constituents welcome PCSOs as an addition, but not as a replacement for full police officers.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman puts the matter correctly—PCSOs are an addition, not a replacement. The PCSOs have been brought into the service under the command of the police as an addition to police officers. Of course, they need the appropriate training to deal with their responsibilities.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): Any extension of powers for PCSOs will inevitably begin to impinge on police officers' training. The House of Commons needs to understand clearly what powers my right hon. Friend intends to give PCSOs, how they are different from ordinary police constables, and how we can be assured that they will not impinge on the duties of those who are properly trained.

Mr. Clarke: It is for that reason that the memorandum and guidance notes for the Bill set out in great detail precisely which powers will be held by PCSOs and which will not on the standardised basis. It is fair to say that many in the police, including some police officers, as well as some hon. Members, were sceptical about the merits of introducing PCSOs in 2002. However, it is also fair to say that that scepticism is now a great deal less. That is not to say that no issues remain to be resolved and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to raise them with her customary wit and
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 613
 
humour, and I shall attempt to respond. However, I believe that PCSOs have made a major contribution and will continue to do so. We want to take that forward.

---