The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Miss
Anne
Begg
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Buck,
Ms Karen
(Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab)
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Carswell,
Mr. Douglas
(Harwich)
(Con)
Challen,
Colin
(Morley and Rothwell)
(Lab)
Clarke,
Mr. Tom
(Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab)
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Donohoe,
Mr. Brian H.
(Central Ayrshire)
(Lab)
Dorrell,
Mr. Stephen
(Charnwood)
(Con)
Hunter,
Mark
(Cheadle)
(LD)
McNulty,
Mr. Tony
(Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime
and
Policing)
Oaten,
Mr. Mark
(Winchester)
(LD)
Purchase,
Mr. Ken
(Wolverhampton, North-East)
(Lab/Co-op)
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
Strang,
Dr. Gavin
(Edinburgh, East)
(Lab)
Whitehead,
Dr. Alan
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
Annette
Toft, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 22
October
2007
[Miss
Anne Begg
in the
Chair]
Draft Police Reform Act 2002 (Standard Powers and Duties of Community Support Officers) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing
(Mr. Tony McNulty):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Police Reform Act 2002 (Standard
Powers and Duties of Community Support Officers) Order
2007.
It is a great
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. The draft order
produces a list of standard powers for police community support
officers, with effect from 1 December 2007. All chief officers of
police forces in England and Wales will be required to ensure that
PCSOs are suitably trained and competent in those areas. The final list
was produced as a result of the parliamentary debates on the Police and
Justice Bill, and of our consultation with a range of
stakeholders.
The
Police and Justice Act 2006 requires that we consult the Association of
Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, both
of which we have done. However, given the level of interest in this
issue, we extended the consultation process to include all chief
constables in England and Wales, the Police Federation, the Police
Superintendents Association, Unison, the Public and Commercial Services
Union and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. We
included the latter three because they organise PCSOs in many
respective areas.
Responses to the statutory
consultation showed that there is broad consensus on the list of
standard powers. That is not surprising, given that our annual audit of
PCSO powers designated on a force-by-force basis, which was published
on the Home Office PCSO web page in May, showed that 10 of the 20
proposed standard powers are already designated powers in more than 85
per cent. of forces, and that a further five are designated in more
than 70 per cent. of forces.
We have listened to the concerns
expressed in this House and elsewhere about maintaining the largely
non-confrontational role of PCSOs, which is why we have not proposed
any new powers to extend their ability to detain or search. Powers to
deal with disorder and antisocial behaviour such as drinking in
designated areas are rightly included, but we have not sought to
include the range of licensing enforcement powers. PCSOs have a clear
role in reassuring and supporting the work of police in the community.
The introduction of the list of standard powers will avoid the blurring
of boundaries between the roles of PCSOs and constables. It will also
ensure not only that we have a national approach to designation, but
that there are sufficiently
robust powers in place to make sure that PCSOs can, and do, make a
difference in our neighbourhoods and communities.
PCSOs are a
successful part of the work force modernisation programme that the
Government introduced in 2002. That programme has opened up policing to
a broader range of people who want to serve our communities, but who do
not wish to become fully attested police constables for whatever
reason. The Government are committed to working with the police to
ensure that there is a dedicated neighbourhood policing team in every
area in England and Wales by April 2008, providing high profile,
community-focused policing. As a result, we are seeing more uniformed
officers on the street, deterring crime and reassuring communities.
PCSOs clearly play an important role in the overall policing
family.
In our debates
on standard powers during the passage of the Police and Justice Bill,
Members on both sides of the House voiced their support for PCSOs. Some
of them were previously sceptical, but they had seen PCSOs at work in
their constituencies and recognised the valuable role that they play. I
take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to all those PCSOs
up and down the country who are working hard to make our communities
safer, securer places to live.
It is against that background
that we seek to introduce standard powers for PCSOs. That important
step will strengthen and enhance their ability to play a constructive
role in neighbourhood policing. PCSOs are meant to support and
complement warranted officers and the regular police, and are not a
substitute for them; we kept that strongly in mind when deciding what
the standard and discretionary powers should be. It should be for each
chief constable to determine what additional powers beyond the standard
powers PCSOs in each area should have, within the limits laid out in
the order, rather than their being imposed from the centre. That is why
I have taken a three-pronged approach. First, there is the standard set
of powers that we have said should be common to PCSOs up and down the
country. Secondly and as the order outlines, there are various
discretionary powers that it is for chief constables to pick from, if
they are deemed appropriate for a particular area. By definition, the
third prong is a series of police powers above and beyond the standard
and discretionary, which weI think consensuallyhave
determined are not appropriate for PCSOs as standard or as
discretionary powers. As ever, the order is very straightforward,
transparent and clear, and I commend it to the
Committee.
4.35
pm
Andrew
Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I echo the Minister in saying
what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. This
is my first piece of delegated legislation since becoming a shadow Home
Affairs spokesman, and it is a pleasure to talk about this issue,
because many of our constituents have first-hand experience of police
community support officers. On behalf of Her Majestys
Opposition, and in particular on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member
for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who unfortunately is
unable to be present, I welcome the positive step that the Government
seek to introduce through the order.
There is undoubtedly a need to
codify formally the basic duties and standard powers that are open to
police community support officers, and the legislation is a welcome
step in the right direction, although the role and powers of PCSOs are,
as the Minister knows, a matter of much debate. PCSOs have been a
helpful addition to the job of keeping crime and antisocial behaviour
away from our communities, towns and villages, but much more must be
done if they are to gain the respect and confidence of the public that
policemen themselves have gained. I sincerely hope that the order will
be at least a stepping stone in that direction.
I have a particular concern to
raise with the Minister. I have with me a copy of a rather confusing
matrix, published in May, that outlines PCSO powers as designated by
the respective constabularies and police force areas. It is confusing
because, at a first glance, of the 59 powers designated within the
matrix and of the 44 constabularies and police force areas listed in
England and Wales, no two forces appear to have exactly the same
designated capabilities for PCSOs. Although I welcome Her
Majestys Governments efforts to set a minimum standard
throughout the country, the distinct lack of continuity throughout the
force is concerning and smacks of a rushed, initially ill-conceived and
poorly thought-through system. The British public, the police force and
PCSOs themselves deserve better. The PCSOs need more support and more
powers to do an effective job for the local communities whom they
serve. They also need more clarity from the Government about their
role. I accept that the order goes some way toward providing that
clarification, but perhaps it does not go as far as we need.
PCSOs must also be gradually
upgraded, eventually to become fully fledged policemen. That is what
many PCSOs have said to me, and it is certainly what members of the
public want. The Governments attempt to standardise the
existing designated powers does not go far enough. There should be a
clear goal, and efforts should continue to introduce powers that are
common to all PCSOs in every force area across the board. PCSOs
operating out of Bedfordshire, for example, do not have the power to
search detained persons for dangerous items; in
neighbouring Hertfordshire, however, they do. Knowledge of that fact
among people committing offences could breed antipathy and disrespect
toward PCSOssomething that none of us present wants to see. I
fear that the unfortunate and offensive labels placed on them by some
people, such as lollipop men, plastic
policemen and glorified traffic wardens, have
evolved from those inconsistencies.
PCSOs are of course much more
than that, and I hope that this statutory instrument will go some way
toward recognising their important position in the community in all our
constituencies. The British public, the police authorities and, most of
all, the PCSOs themselves deserve consistency and continuity in all
their designated powers. That is an absolute necessity if we are to
free them to operate effectively with authority, and without hindrance
or confusion. The intention behind this statutory instrumentto
set a minimum standardis certainly welcome, but there remains
far too much subjectivity and inconsistency across the force as a
whole. I encourage the Minister to
continue to review PCSOs designated powers in conjunction with
all interested parties, with the eventual goal of bringing in a truly
common set of PCSO powers and responsibilities throughout the country.
I look forward to his response.
4.41
pm
Mr.
McNulty:
First, I apologise to the hon. Member for
RomfordI should have recognised that this was his debut and
congratulated him accordingly. I wish him well and hope that he will
have a lengthy career as an Opposition spokesperson.
The points
that the hon. Gentleman makes are broadly fair. However, I want to
emphasise that although we must have a minimum set of
standardsI welcome his welcome of thatit is appropriate
at this stage, at any rate, to leave at least a degree of discretion to
local forces. There will be specific local circumstances in which
greater powers for PCSOs are required than those that are currently
standard. I hope that we reach the stage where there is a common
frameworkthe standard powers, plus a degree of the more
commonly used discretionary powersbut I want that to evolve
from below, rather than being imposed by diktat from Whitehall.
However, it is appropriate that local forces have some degree of
discretion.
The hon.
Gentleman made an entirely fair point about the distinction between
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, but if that ultimately proves
problematic, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire will resolve the situation
between them. I am conscious that it might sound unusual for a Minister
to resist centralised diktat, but it is appropriate that, as the
neighbourhood policing model evolves, forces determinein the
first instance, at leastwhat is appropriate above and beyond
the standard powers.
The hon. Gentleman made two
other fair points: first, that the introduction of standard powers is
to be welcomed, and secondlya point that he made almost by
omissionthat the standard and discretionary powers are roughly
where most people think PCSOs powers, at their broadest, should
be. We are not rehearsing the argument commonly put forward about
arrest, restraint and other such powers, which are rightly left to the
police. I welcome the hon. Gentlemans comments about there
being more clarity. By evolution, we will reach a broader range of
standard powers than those on the standard powers list. That is right,
appropriate and healthy, but it is not for the Government to set the
standard at this stage. I fully accept that we should keep the matter
under review some years on from next April, when the neighbourhood
policing model will be put in place throughout the country. I do not
say that, here and now, we have the balance absolutely right between
standard and designated powers; we might well need to review that,
based on experience.
I
welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the value of the
contribution made by PCSOsa point that everyone will agree
with. Apart from welcoming that welcome and welcoming him, I welcome
his broad support for the order, and I repeat my commendation of it to
the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Committee rose at fifteen
minutes to Five
oclock
.