| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Condon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Am I to understand that he believes that it is only civilians currently working for the police who will be redesignated as community support officers? If that is his belief, he is mistaken. The idea is that hundreds of new people will be recruited, who will become employees and therefore able to be community support officers and used for whatever hours it is necessary for them to be used.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It may be that I have misunderstood the Bill, but if the police are to be given the resources to employ many additional civilians over and above those they already employ, they will also have resources to employ many more policemen. I believe my qualification is appropriate, but perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am incorrect. It is an important point. I certainly was not aware that the police were going to be resourced to employ many extra civilians—buckshee, so to speak—to fulfil this specific role. I thought that we were dealing with existing police civilians.
Let us get the civilians in perspective. New York has often been referred to, but it has more than 40,000 policemen as opposed to what we hope will be more than 30,000 in London very shortly, which will be very welcome. But, rather differently from London, New York has around 40,000 civilians as well, whereas in London the figure is somewhere around 7,000 civilians. I question whether many civilians will be available to become community support officers and fulfil this function—particularly bearing in mind that they will also be asked to become investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers.
I am sure that the Minister will intervene and tell me if I am wrong. Are we talking about new civilians additionally employed to fulfil this role, or are we talking about existing civilians?
Lord Rooker: That has never been the issue. It has not been raised in the debate. They will be new people, over and above those who are there now, subject to the decision of chief constables. Of course there are
resource implications, but the powers conferred on people under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)—if I can put it that way rather than read them all out again—are quite different and quite new.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have no difficulty with the powers, but I do have difficulty with the function. If we are to employ additional people, so be it. There is plenty of what I call "constable substituting" work on which these people can be used. That will release more constables to go out onto the streets—and it is on the streets that constables should be used. If the police cannot do that, then we should use special constables first and foremost. To do anything else would be to admit that we can no longer police the streets in the conventional way and to admit that we will have to devalue the whole service that we provide to the public.
I do not find that a satisfactory proposition. That is why we suggest removing the community support officer from the Bill and, when we get to the community safety accreditation schemes, accrediting these people as special constables.
In his response, the Minister gave the impression that he was thinking about special constables in their existing context. He said that special constables are available only at particular hours; that they are not available when they are wanted and so on. Of course they are part-timers and volunteers. That is the basis on which special constables are used at the present time—I accept that—but we envisage a complete change in the approach to special constables.
As I have said, the legislation which governs the appointment of special constables is very simple. It goes back to the 1996 Act, which states:
- "The chief officer of police of the police force maintained for a police area may, in accordance with regulations . . . appoint special constables".
- "The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables".
If the existing regulatory structure does not give the flexibility required to put these people into the category of special constables and to train them accordingly, we would be happy to help the Government to alter the regulatory basis on which special constables work. But the flexibility is certainly there in the legislation and it could be done.
We are not arguing about ends; we are arguing about means. We all want the same ends, and we should remember that throughout our discussions. Our disagreement is over the means. We believe that there is an issue of quality here. We do not want to devalue the quality of the service to the public on the street.
It is worth picking up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, about accreditation schemes. Schemes such as that in Sedgefield exist under the present law. We do not need to change the law to keep them going. Such schemes will unquestionably continue.
Although, as the Minister says, we are not giving community safety officers powers of arrest, we are certainly giving them powers to detain, and powers to use "reasonable force" to detain. One can split hairs and debate the meaning of words; but if a person has power to detain and power to use reasonable force to detain in particular circumstances, they may not be powers of arrest, but the distinction is difficult to make. It would make for an interesting debate in a court of law.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: It seems quite simple. If there is a power of arrest, all the rigmarole of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act comes into force. There is a big distinction between power of detention and power of arrest.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Yes, I accept that. But what is the reality? If someone out on the street detains someone, where do we go from there? He waits for a constable to arrive, who then has to go through all the rest of the procedure. But the effect is the same. It will be the support officer who starts the process.
We ought to recognise that this is a very serious change. We shall be putting civilians in a very difficult situation. Yes, I accept that the chief constable concerned, or the commissioner, has to be satisfied that such people are adequately trained to do the job. I suspect that that will be quite difficult.
Our amendment relates to an argument about means, not about ends. It is not illogical. If we go down this route, we shall be devaluing the service that we give to the public. I have listened to the various comments and shall consider them carefully between now and Report. We may well need to return to the matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 186A not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 187:
- Page 32, line 2, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak briefly to the other government amendments grouped with it.
These amendments are intended to bring the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service into line with the Bill's provisions for allowing support staff to be designated as investigating officers.
I must make it clear that the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are not police forces. Non-police members are employed by the respective service authorities and are under the
Under the amendments, the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 4 will be applied to NCS and NCIS in the same manner as they currently apply to forces. I should stress that the amendments are concerned only with the designation of support staff as investigating officers. Given the different role of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service as compared with the 43 forces, there is no requirement—and these amendments do not provide—for the directors-general to designate persons as community support officers, detention officers or escort officers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 188:
The noble Lord said: I let this matter go by, and I do not want to delay the Committee. The answer given by the Minister at the beginning of our debates today about the police authority being included in consultation was sufficient for me. I beg to move.
"(2A) A Director General may designate any person who—
(a) is an employee of his Service Authority, and
(b) is under the direction and control of that Director General,
as an investigating officer."
Page 32, line 2, at end insert—
"(2A) Before exercising his powers under this section, a chief officer of police of any police force must submit to the police authority maintaining that force a draft scheme (a "designation scheme") setting out—
(a) the purpose of the proposed designation scheme relating to the designation of persons under this section and the expected benefits for the policing of the area;
(b) how the designation scheme contributes to the three year strategy issued by the authority under section 6A of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) and the local policing plan issued by that authority under section 8 of that Act;
(c) the extent and nature of the powers he proposes to confer on designated persons;
(d) how the suitability and capability of persons to be designated under the scheme will be assessed;
(e) the arrangements for the provision of training to such designated persons;
(f) the arrangements for the provision of equipment to such designated persons and any health and safety implications of the proposals; and
(g) an estimate of the direct and ancillary costs of the scheme to the police fund kept by the police authority.
(2B) The chief officer shall not exercise his powers under this section until the police authority has approved a designation scheme for this purpose.
(2C) Before approving any scheme, or any modified or revised scheme, which differs from the draft scheme submitted by the chief officer, the police authority shall consult the chief officer.
(2D) Before approving any such scheme, the police authority may consider any views obtained by the authority in accordance with arrangements made under section 96 of the Police Act 1996.
(2E) The chief officer may from time to time submit to the police authority a revised or modified draft scheme for its consideration.
(2F) It shall be the responsibility of any police authority which has approved any scheme under subsection (2A) above to keep itself informed of the workings of the scheme, including, in particular to monitor the impact of the scheme on public confidence in the force maintained by that authority."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page