| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: I cannot prejudge the position. One would imagine that all the officers within an area performing the same function would have the same powers. If their functions differ, the position may be slightly different. I refer to the position in London. That is rather a bad example as I shall dig myself into a hole if I am not careful. The Metropolitan Police have stated that they will establish three categories of community support officers. The Transport for London auxiliaries would police the transport routes in London. I presume they would be clearly identified as transport auxiliaries and would all have the same powers. Therefore, there would be no argument about that. I presume that the security auxiliaries would be designated in a similar way. We shall give further thought to this issue to ensure that the code of practice overcomes the problems that the Committee has identified. The public must not be confused. That is an important point. We do not want the public to be confused. We do not want some barrack room troublemaker to play off one community support
officer against another if he finds out that one has powers which another does not. That point must be taken on board.
Lord Dixon-Smith: This has been a useful discussion. I am grateful for my noble friends' contributions. We should remember that subsection (5) of Clause 33 already specifies different menus for different designations. Subsection (5) refers to Schedule 4 and states that,
- "the applicable Part of that Schedule is—
- "(a) in the case of a person designated as a community support
- officer, Part 1;
- (b) in the case of a person designated as an investigating officer,
- Part 2".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 196:
- Page 32, line 22, leave out "A person" and insert "An employee of a police authority or of a Service Authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 197:
- Page 32, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of Clause 33, which this amendment seeks to delete, restricts the power of a person to operate as a community support officer. Under the Bill a community support officer is authorised to work only during his hours of employment. Policemen go off duty but that does not seem to cause any problems with regard to performing their functions. Occasionally, they perform entirely appropriate functions when they are off duty. That does not appear to cause any problems. The Bill seems to impose an unreasonable restriction. Subsection (6) of Clause 33 states:
- "A person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section—
- "(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment".
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 198.
Lord Rooker: Amendments Nos. 197 and 199 would remove local flexibility in relation to how powers are designated to support staff. They would also allow support staff to exercise the powers that have been given to them outside the course of their hours of duty. That could be a problem.
The clause is designed to give maximum local flexibility to chief officers to enable them to deliver the most effective policing. The restrictions are also meant to underline the difference between a community support officer, who works in support of the police, and a sworn constable who is always expected to exercise his or her powers anywhere. I was brought up to believe that a policeman is never off duty. He or she may have "clocked off", but they are still a police officer. The ability to place restrictions on a designation is a key part of the flexibility given to chief constables. For example, locally based community support officers may only operate over a limited geographical area—that may be done for a purpose and may involve, for example, a single estate—enabling them better to gain the support and respect of the local community and to build up intelligence networks. By restricting the powers of CSOs to that area, the chief officer would, in effect, be ring-fencing low-level policing in that area, making it clear to the community that the CSO would not be automatically removed to respond to pressures elsewhere in their force area.
The ability to confine even CSOs to a community will provide those communities with reassurance. That is part of the contract between the police and the community. That would be entirely up to the chief officer. It might be useful to a community that had much trouble if an arrangement was made with the local police that CSOs would be designated to it. That is rather like saying to the chief officer, "CSOs will be in this area and they will not be taken away when there are other demands in the force. I shall designate them for your area to crack the problems on that estate". If the community knew that people could not cause diversionary efforts elsewhere, that might be an extra factor in reducing a community's fear of crime.
For an investigating officer who is newly trained but inexperienced in the exercise of his powers outside a training room, the designation may require that he works under the supervision of a more experienced officer for a period to build up his experience in "live" situations. That may be for only a very short period, after which the condition could be removed from the designation. The necessary flexibility for chief officers in that respect is important.
The amendment would in theory enable an off-duty escort officer to escort a prisoner to or between police stations or an off-duty investigating officer to exercise
the powers of entry and search after arrest. Moreover, we do not want CSOs to be able to operate their powers except in the course of their employment when they are under the direction and control of a chief officer, fully accountable and clearly identifiable. Those are some of the necessary consequences of having such extra "civilianisation" for the police. Those people will make that system work and should not be regarded as second-class police constables.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has rather lost me. We are, I believe, discussing subsection (6)(a). My noble friend said that he was concerned that such people would be empowered to act when they were not on duty, which involves a restriction on time. The Minister said that the virtue of the provision was that it meant that such people would not be empowered to act when they were in a different place and he discussed the matter in relation to a particular estate. Which effect will the provision have?
Lord Rooker: I hope that my explanation was clear. I think it was. I fully accept the noble Lord's point. My notes on Amendments Nos. 197 and 199 include a section entitled, "Purpose and effect"—former Ministers will be aware of that. I sometimes use the section as a speaking note, although I was told off about that this morning. The first few words of that section state:
- "Purpose of the amendments is not entirely clear".
Forecasting what is in noble Lords' minds is always part of the problem. The examples that I gave show that we want maximum flexibility but that we want the chief officer to be able to designate where necessary—to ring-fence, either in hours or in relation to a locality, such as an estate—and to use the CSOs in the best way possible. In my example, the investigating officer might well be designated for a period of time and all the functions could not be carried out unless they were under the direct supervision of someone else. Keeping such flexibility goes to the heart of the amendments. I have probably gone somewhat wider and responded to an amendment that was not tabled. That is because we were not clear what was in the noble Lord's mind.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Condon: The amendment would remove a time limitation—it would be a sensible time limitation. It seeks to make a clear distinction between the roles of police officers, specials and people designated under the new provisions. Police officers and, to some extent, special constabulary officers have a moral duty to intervene when off duty and on occasion a legal duty to intervene when off duty. That makes it clear that designated people would have no powers and no requirement to act. A sensible delineation is involved. We should make it clear from the start that such people
are different, have limited training powers and responsibilities and are not expected or allowed to use those powers when off duty.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |