---

Lord Tope: I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Condon. Perhaps I may speak briefly—and somewhat nervously in his presence—of my experience in the Metropolitan Police Service. The noble Lord is right to refer to the difficulties, which we can all understand, of the recruitment and retention of special constables in cities, and particularly in a large urban area such as London.

However, one feature in London is worthy of consideration. The proportion of special constables in the Met who are from visible ethnic minorities is significantly higher than it is in the mainstream force, the full-time force.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred to many special constables saying no to the idea of payment. They are, of course, a pre-selected sample. They came in knowing that they were not going to be paid. I should have thought that in all police forces, and certainly in the Met, we should be doing all that we can to encourage growth in the number of special constables, particularly given the lead that has already been taken in terms of recruitment among visible ethnic minorities. Payment, in whatever form, must be an incentive in terms of encouraging such recruitment.

What we are seeing—and I hope that we shall see it happening more and more—is that a significant number of those who start out as special constables then wish to join the force as full police constables. That must be a good move. I therefore look forward with great interest to the Minister's response. Payment in some form to special constables can only encourage people further in that direction.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to add general support to the amendments. I do not want to anticipate later stages of the Bill, but it is our belief that the special constabulary is perhaps the ideal vehicle for handling some of the issues that arise later in the Bill. Without wishing to take words from the Minister's mouth, we should perhaps appreciate the law with regard to special constables. I took the trouble a considerable

5 Mar 2002 : Column 181

time ago to look this up. It goes back to the 1996 Act, which is the simplest and most basic authority. Section 27 states:

"The chief officer of police of the police force maintained for a police area may, in accordance with regulations under Section 51, appoint special constables for that area".

Section 51 states:

"The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables . . . Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision with respect to . . . qualifications . . . retirement . . . suspension . . . [and] the allowances payable to special constables".

So we do not need further law in order to do this. What we need is willpower. I simply make that point, for what it is worth.

It should be a matter of concern to all of us that the number of Specials has diminished. We ought to try to reverse that. We have designs on later parts of the Bill which may or may not be wholly acceptable. If they were to become acceptable, they would provide the most original line of thinking that has taken place with regard to special constables for a considerable time. I support the amendment.

Lord Rooker: At Second Reading, 15 out of 21 speakers mentioned the Specials. As special constables are not referred to in the Bill, that was an indication that the issue needs to be addressed. Although I am not able to address it now, I have some hopeful words to offer.

The amendments are drafted in good spirit. However, the drafting implies a compulsion on chief constables to employ Specials. It so happens that no chief constable has refused to employ Specials, but having listened for several hours to Members of the Committee talking about not forcing rules on chief officers, that is ironic.

Having got that off my chest, I can say that this is a fair point. It is true that the number of Specials has dropped—from 20,000 four years ago to about 13,000 today in round figures. That is to be regretted. Specials play a magnificent role.

Of course, Specials are not civilians exercising police powers. They are not remotely comparable with the kind of people we are talking about in Part 4 of the Bill. Once attested, they are full police constables—and in that sense, as was always the case, they are never off duty. They are a volunteer police force. They are not civilians exercising a few police powers.

To address the amendments, work is going on in this area. The police authorities already have discretionary power to pay a bounty to Specials with the agreement of the Secretary of State under regulations made in 1992 (SI No. 1526 1992). The provision was introduced to facilitate an experimental bounty scheme in 1993 and has not been repealed.

The Government are considering—subject to the current spending review—the case for paying a fixed allowance to Specials in return for a minimum commitment in terms of hours. No firm decisions have been made, but this could be done by means of an

5 Mar 2002 : Column 182

amendment to the regulations. It would not require primary legislation. I want to satisfy the Committee that there is a mechanism already on the statute book which could be used, rather than this Bill. That is an important point. I do not want the Committee to think that, although we are considering the matter and might do something, it is a matter for primary legislation and that we shall have to wait for more parliamentary time. The regulations are already in place.

We share the aims behind Amendment No. 183, which are, in total, to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. On the other hand, we do not believe that the proposed new clause would achieve that. There is an emphasis on each force having its own policy for Specials and this could give rise to the risk of fragmentation and lack of clarity about their conditions. Therefore, we must be careful.

For that reason, the Government are currently working with stakeholders on a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of Specials, including the new national training package and the revised conditions of service and conduct regulations. Central to that process will be the Home Office-ACPO good practice guidance on the management and deployment of Specials.

The proposal in the new clause that each individual force should determine how its Specials will be paid might be a bit divisive. I understand that the poll was taken among people who knew that there was no pay to start with. We have to be careful, because people might try to judge how much individual forces valued their Specials. I am sure that every force values its Specials. The Government are considering the case for a payment of a fixed allowance for Specials.

I do not know when we shall come to Part 4, but I implore noble Lords not to see the Specials as a substitute for our proposals. We shall debate those proposals properly. By their nature, Specials are police constables; they are not civilians exercising limited police powers. They work outside the normal working hours of their day job, in contrast to community safety officers and accredited persons, which will be full-time jobs available at the beginning and end of each day. It is not a switch on and switch off process in the same way as Specials. I mention that only because it is the fact of the matter.

It was never expected, even on Second Reading, that I would be in a position to make any commitments in Committee, but there is a commitment and work is actively going on in the Government, in consultation with stakeholders, on what we can do to improve numbers of Specials. In due course it will be a matter for this House to approve changes in the regulations. That is important. We cannot put the issue to bed and I am sure that noble Lords will keep coming back on it. It will be at the forefront of my mind while the Bill is going through Parliament anyway and I have no doubt that it will also rightly be raised in the other place.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. We have been told in the past that work is going on in

5 Mar 2002 : Column 183

the Home Office but, like the mills of God, it grinds exceeding slow. I ask the Minister to put a bit of his notorious energy behind the people who are dealing with the matter, because we are waiting patiently. I notice that there are powers. I presume that they extend from the bounties in the past, which I know were paid in Dorset. They were very small bounties of about £200 a year. We want a proper scheme of payments. I stand to be corrected on whether it should be different for different forces. Perhaps some forces want Specials and others do not. I have no wish to force things on people if they do not want them. In the meantime, I thank the Minister for his reply and I hope that we shall return to the subject very soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dholakia: When we first tabled our intention to oppose the clause, we had no indication of what the Minister had in mind. He has already explained that Schedule 1 would apply to NCS and NCIS similar provisions to those applied to local police forces by Clauses 1 to 7. We have already rehearsed the issues at some length in debates on amendments to Clauses 1 to 7, so I do not intend to pursue the matter further.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Powers of the Secretary of State in relation to NCIS and NCS]:

[Amendments Nos. 70 to 74 not moved.]

---