| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): The amendment is proposed: page 32, line 2, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord Rooker: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Bradshaw: In the light of the Minister's earlier assurances, and having given Members of the Committee the opportunity to intervene, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 189:
- Page 32, line 3, after "police" insert "or a Director General"
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 190:
- Page 32, line 10, at end insert "; and
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 192. Both deal with a simple issue—namely, equipment and training—which we have to a considerable degree crawled all over already, so I need not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. We thought it worth tabling the amendments in order to ensure that community safety officers out on the street are properly equipped, and that they will have received proper training. We have covered most of this ground, but the Minister may feel the need to reinforce what he has already said. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am obliged to reply to any amendment moved from the Front Bench, but I need use only about a quarter of my briefing.
These amendments deal with two issues about designated persons—the provision of equipment and the provision of training. We share the concerns expressed that the civilians designated under the provisions of this clause should, and indeed must, be properly equipped and trained while undertaking their duties. However, we do not necessarily believe that we need to provide for that on the face of the Bill, as Amendments No. 190 and 192 seek to do.
It will be for the chief officer—the chief constable, and the commissioner in the Met—to ensure, as is presently the case, that his employees are given the proper equipment to undertake their duties safely. Like any employer, he will be responsible for their safety and welfare. It is appropriate to allow for maximum flexibility and to let the chief officers decide
Lord Renton: I rarely express doubt about what the noble Lord has said, but I feel that my noble friend's proposal is not an unwise precaution. Yes, nearly always one will be able to take it for granted that these extra people with extra powers will be properly equipped. But just occasionally there may be someone who is not properly equipped. If he cannot point to any statutory requirement that he should be, then the matter will not be fulfilled. This is a wise amendment. I ask the Minister to give it further consideration.
Lord Rooker: We have given thought to the important issue raised in the amendment. The civilians charged with the limited powers provided by the Bill will necessarily have to be supplied with the relevant training and equipment to exercise those powers. In some respects, they are different from regular police constables—their powers are different and their training and equipment will be different. Nevertheless, it is the duty and responsibility of the chief constable, as the employer, to make sure that they have adequate training and equipment to carry out satisfactorily the duties that he has designated they should have. He might not give them all the full powers, so they might not need all the necessary equipment or training of the regular constable. The training must be specific to the powers they will exercise. We should trust the judgment of the chief constables, who will not knowingly send their police officers—whether regulars, specials or community support officers—out on a job without proper equipment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise for not having been here for the debate on Amendment No. 186. Did the Minister deal with the important issue of training in his reply to that debate? Did he indicate the likely length of any training? The community support officers must have appropriate training before they can do the job.
Lord Rooker: I do not claim that I gave a comprehensive reply, but I pointed out that the Bill says that the chief officer, the chief constable or the commissioner, in the case of the Met,
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Carlisle, because this is an important issue, particularly for those who will be involved in the future. I take some comfort from the Minister's comments about the responsibilities of the chief constable, as the employer. I shall study those words. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 191:
The noble Baroness said: This amendment differs from the one we have just discussed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, in that my concern is the personal security of the community support officers. We were told at our briefing with the police that they would not be allowed to carry a baton, a spray or any means of self-defence. When I asked why that was so and how they would manage in a dangerous situation, I was told that they would not be put in a dangerous situation. If there was a dangerous situation, full-time policemen would be used.
How can anyone predict where a dangerous situation will arise? The current spate of muggings in London have all happened in unexpected situations. Nobody who has suffered from the present habit of following people home from events and attacking them on their doorstep, as happened recently to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was anticipating it. If they had been anticipating it, it might well not have happened. It is much more serious if the attacker is armed with a knife.
It is wrong for the officers concerned not to have some form of self-protection. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on Amendment No. 186, said that you quite often end up being assaulted. I am sure that that is true.
We were also told that community support officers would have differently marked uniforms from the ordinary police. That means that it will be obvious that they are the ones who have no personal protection. They are allowed to use reasonable force—presumably that applies to self-defence—but hand-to-hand combat is rather different from having at least a truncheon. I seek some reassurance on that. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be very brief in support of my noble friend. I cannot put a date on it, but some time in the 1980s I read an account of a situation within the Metropolitan Police district when a single constable, perhaps only 21 years old, is standing in the street and has to take a decision on
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness has made a very good case for the amendment. Unfortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Condon, nor the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, is in his place at the moment, but I am sure that they would be able to confirm that an extremely high proportion of police officers are injured, particularly in the Metropolitan Police area. One man in his 30s, whose father works for me, spent many years in the Army doing a dangerous job to do with explosives and was never injured in any way, but since he left the Army and joined the Metropolitan Police he has been seriously injured by a suspected drug dealer, to the extent that he almost had to be invalided out.
As the noble Baroness says, nobody can foretell the situations in which such officers might find themselves. We cannot be certain that it will be possible to keep them away from trouble. If we want recruitment to go at all well, we have to accept an amendment such as this; otherwise nobody will volunteer for the job.
(d) is properly equipped to carry out those functions"
"shall not designate a person"—
to be a community support officer or one of the other officers—
"unless he is satisfied that"—
among other things—
"that person . . .
has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation".
There is a pick and mix menu of powers that the chief police officer can designate to the community support officer. They are all minor in the grand scale of things,
but they do not all have to be awarded. The officers must be properly trained. That is a legal commitment on the face of the Bill.
Page 32, line 10, at end insert "; and
(d) has access to appropriate means of personal protection"
6.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page