| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I understand it, the problem with the Royal Parks Police is similar to that of the BTP. They do not have their own police authority.
Lord Elton: I hesitate to correct the noble Lord—I am almost certainly wrong because I have a bad memory—but I rather thought that the Home Secretary had the relevant responsibility. If so, I should have thought that it was still with him or that it has gone where some of his other powers have gone.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, may be wrong but my understanding is that the Home Secretary was only ever the police authority for the Met, although he no longer does that. I believe that that is right but perhaps we need to clarify the situation. The noble Lord makes a good point generally. The matter could be picked up later—perhaps when we consider the BTP. He is right to say that it is appropriate for support staff to deal with such matters. That would be entirely right for such a service.
Lord Monson: Did I understand the Minister to say that those who are caught throwing stones at trains—on at least one occasion I have seen them smash windows and injure passengers on the train—can be arrested only by the British Transport Police?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes—by Home Office police; by the local territorial force, whether Sussex, Surrey or the Met.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On Second Reading, I said that Kensington and Chelsea employs the Royal Parks Police in its parks. I was told that most of those police are employees of the local borough. I do not know whether that situation will change.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That, too, is a different issue, which we shall air when we come to later amendments. It relates more to the issue of accreditation.
Lord Dholakia: In relation to the amendment, is it possible for a police authority employee to be seconded to the British Transport Police in emergencies?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to reflect on that. It is probably the case that the powers are
interchangeable but I want to be more certain before giving a definite response. Perhaps we can get back to the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I want to shed a little light on the exchange between my noble friend Lord Elton and the Minister. There was a review of the Royal Parks Police, the outcome of which was that they should be transferred into the Met on the same terms. Prior to that, they came under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport through the Royal Parks Agency, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had the relevant responsibility. I do not know whether the Home Office has now accepted that recommendation and implemented the transfer into the Met.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a broader issue than that raised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. I do not seek to be defensive in any way. Clearly, things are as they are—the status quo prevails.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am most grateful to the Minister for the friendly tone of his response and to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for supporting the original purpose of my amendment. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said. I am a little disappointed that he thinks that this is not the correct Bill in which to make the change.
Lord Elton: I believe that the convention is that if one wants to come back to a matter on Report, one says so at this point. I say so now. I want to return to the issue of the Royal Parks Police. Whatever the current position is, such powers should be available to them.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My amendment does not deal with the Royal Parks Police. Presumably, if the noble Lord wishes to table an amendment on the Royal Parks Police, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 186:
- Page 31, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I suspect that we now move into slightly more contentious territory. The Bill seeks to increase the level of policing through the use of civilians. It does so in two ways. The amendment is directed towards the first of those ways, which involves the use of police authority employees.
There are a number of problems with that approach. I make it clear from the start that in many ways we regard having police on the beat as the most important aspect of policing. That is where the police meet the public with—I hope that this phrase will not be misinterpreted—a vengeance. That is where the police's reputation is made. A sad comment on the way in which policing has developed is that we see police on
the streets much less than used to be the case. That is one reason for the increase in street crime in all its awful forms. As a matter of principle, we should prefer the police to be on the streets, not supplementary civilians who may have variable powers. I shall come to that later.The clause states that police powers should be given in four forms to police-employed civilians. That has a degree of preference to accreditation schemes in that those people are at least employees of the chief constable and there is at least a clear line of responsibility back to the police. In so far as the intention is to put policemen on the streets by using community support officers, we believe that that is wrong. We think that if the police are to go out on the streets, they should at least be special constables. We do not see why those people should not be established in that way.
We completely accept paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (2), which, of course, have nothing to do with the amendment. We believe that what they propose is wholly laudable. If better use is made of police civilians in carrying out work which presently involves constables within police premises, then we consider that to be completely appropriate. However, when it comes to putting people on the street, we are convinced that, for the sake of clarity, such people should have the status of special constable.
If that is the case, two things are ensured. The first is a proper and full level of training, which the accreditation scheme certainly will not produce, although we shall come to that matter later. It might conceivably happen with a community support officer.
Secondly, it ensures that such people are on the street with full police powers. Part 1 of Schedule 4 produces a list of possible powers. The way in which the Bill is drafted means that a community support officer who has a limited basket of powers, because that is the way that the chief constable has designated him, may work with another community support officer who has a different basket of powers because he may have come from a slightly different area or he may be held to have a different level of competence. The opportunity for public confusion as to what these people are and how they are functioning is huge.
Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is simple. In order not to repeat myself too many times this afternoon, I shall avoid going into the matter further but I shall mention some of the basket of functions. The whole fixed penalty area is included, together with disorder, cycling on a footway, dog fouling, litter, powers to detain and, indeed, powers to use reasonable force to detain, requiring a name and address to be provided, and so on. All those powers are included, but a community support officer does not need to have them all; he need have only some of them.
Therefore, the chief constable has a great deal of discretion. I do not mind him having that discretion but, in this case, which concerns the interface between the police and the public, the situation requires absolute clarity. The public will not understand if there are any differences.
The question has been raised of a precedent having been set in relation to traffic wardens. So far as I am aware, everyone knows what a traffic warden's functions are, wherever one meets him almost anywhere in the country. Traffic wardens carry out a one-function operation and work extremely well at it, although I dare say that they may have caused many of us a great deal of aggravation over the years. That position is clearly understood. But the position in the Bill is not clear.
Therefore, we have decided that the solution is to remove the community support officer from this part of the Bill. That does not prevent the chief constable using his civilians in aid of his constables in carrying out the work that they do at present, but it does prevent him sending them out on to the street. In our view, that is not appropriate and we believe that it would lead to confusion.
We have tabled later amendments which seek to turn these officers into community support special constables. We believe that that would be an acceptable way in which to proceed. There is, of course, a separate issue behind this matter which presumes that any police force has many spare civilians and much spare capacity waiting to carry out such work. But that is a separate issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: I rise to address the issue of community support officers that is raised in the amendment. I was present at a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Officers which was attended by a large number of police authority representatives. Views were sought around the room and, except for London—my noble friend Lord Tope may express his opinions about London—only one authority in South Wales expressed the idea that community support officers should enjoy police powers.
A presentation was given by Knowsley Council, which has several such officers. That council expressed adamantly the opinion that they should not have police powers. The council employed some people who, I imagine, the police would not recruit, but those people carried out a great deal of work with regard to graffiti, vandalism, quarrels between neighbours, abandoned cars and all kinds of things which give rise to nuisance value in the community.
In Abingdon in Thames Valley, we have two retired police officers who act as community wardens. They have been very successful both in reducing crime and, with the help of volunteers who work with the youth in the town, in turning people away from anti-social behaviour and congregating outside shops. They mentor the youths and, in many cases, give them the time and the parenting which they do not otherwise receive. They steer them in the right direction. Generally speaking, we are not in favour of such people exercising police powers.
We may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on subsequent amendments. We may not agree that all such people could be special constables—they may pass neither the fitness nor the age tests. But there
is no doubt that many civilian people could assist in maintaining law and order in many ways. We would certainly be very much against the Home Secretary directing that those people should be employed; it should be a matter for local discretion. I certainly am not saying that, because they are needed in London, they may be needed throughout the rest of the country. But, in general, I support the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |