| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, I took some care to work my remarks in order to avoid that particular reply. I
asked the Minister why she had not included the principle of statutory uprating. I was well aware of that increase and of its generosity, as were the pensioners with whom I talked. However, they were also aware that the statutory principle which would continue it in future had not been laid down. That point remains.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the pensioners who made those remarks to the noble Earl were rather churlish. They have seen increases of £50 from a base of £150 in the past year or so. If their notion of uprating is to increase that sum by £50 each year, it is unreasonable. The Government have never laid it down that that or other sorts of payments should be RPI-ed. Had it been RPI-ed back in 1997, pensioners would have been so much the poorer.
The final major point made tonight was about the new deals. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me about the research behind the NAO report. NAO reports are published as agreed reports. A formal government response will be published following the PAC report later in the year. Looking at the report by the Industrial Society and some of the policy studies that have come out, as well as the NAO report, I think that it is worth emphasising that several hundred thousand youngsters have gone through the New Deal. Obviously and inevitably there will be dead weight. It is an ugly phrase, but there will be. Many young people would have got jobs anyway, but we do not know in advance who will get the jobs without our help and who needs our help, without which they will not get the job. If the noble Lord has a formula for that, that would be helpful: we could target it. The evidence shows the value of the New Deal even to those youngsters who might well have got jobs without the New Deal.
Before I finish I shall give some statistics. Already the value to the social economy is in the region of £500 million for the £140 million that we have expended. It is clear that three-quarters of the youngsters have gone into sustained jobs. Those who have become unemployed have gone into proper jobs much more quickly than they would otherwise compared to those who have not gone through the New Deal. We also know that the net hourly wages when those youngsters have come off the New Deal has increased by an average of 20 per cent; and that whereas in 1997 200,000 young people had been unemployed for more than six months, the figure is now down to 39,000. A major component of that has been the New Deal.
I have dealt with most of the questions. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, queried the failure of benefit levels to be associated with the equivalent of family budget unit and real cost of living assessments. I mentioned on a previous occasion my delight that, for example, a lone parent with two children is already receiving a level of benefit which at least matches—and in some cases even exceeds—the estimated figures that the research bodies were putting forward as a minimum acceptable income.
More to the point, the noble Earl knows, as I know, that those lone parents and their children will be lifted out of inter-generational poverty only by being encouraged into work. The New Deal for lone parents—200,000 lone parents have come through and the vast majority have gone into work—means that a lone parent with children on a minimum wage of £4.10 per hour, working 16 hours per week, will actually get paid a wage equivalent to about £12 per hour. A lone parent gets paid a man's wage by virtue of the combination of the New Deal, the minimum wage and the tax credits. That is what will lift her and her children out of poverty for the future. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Police Reform Bill [HL]
8.33 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may clarify the end of our previous debate on Clause 33(7). In order to avoid wasting time at Report stage it would be for everyone's convenience if I could briefly outline the position having now taken advice. There was confusion and I was partly responsible for it.
Clause 33(7) has the effect that where an existing police power is conferred on a designated person which comes with a power to use reasonable force when it is exercised by a constable, the designated person will also receive a power to use reasonable force. For example, if the power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to take fingerprints or to conduct a search is conferred on a designated person, that person will have a power to use reasonable force in that existing power.
It will be up to the chief officer whether those powers are conferred. If they are, the civilian will have the power to use reasonable force, if necessary. That is only sensible as they would otherwise commit an assault on a detainee if consent to having fingerprints taken or being searched was not given or was withdrawn. However, Clause 33(7) does not confer an automatic right to use reasonable force in connection with the powers in Schedule 4, which are not existing police powers but which are readily crafted for civilians.
This includes the power to detain while waiting for a police officer, which is available to community support officers under Schedule 4(2). The power to detain will be available only if the chief officer decides that it should be. The power to use reasonable force to enforce that detention under Schedule 4(4) will also be available only if the chief officer decides that it should be. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Lord Marlesford: Is it in order to ask the Minister a question on that statement?
Schedule 4 [Powers exercisable by police civilians]:
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 204:
- Page 110, leave out lines 26 to 29.
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his explanation of a matter that is not dealt with on the Marshalled List. I will study it, as I believe will everyone here. I envisage some poor community support officer having to explain the situation when he tries to do something on the street.
Amendment No. 204 introduces a serious question because it seems to call into question what is the nature of an offence. The Bill, as drafted, at paragraph 2(6)(b) on page 110 states that it is,
- "an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused . . . injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or . . . the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property; but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation".
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to put this on the record. It is a problem when one amendment in a group is moved because my notes are necessarily comprehensive for all the amendments. While I shall speak to Amendment No. 204, some of the preceding paragraphs which I am not going to use may have been relevant.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 204 the Government believe that they must retain local flexibility. The ability to treat an offence as a relevant one, subject to conditions specified in the community support officer's designation, is part of that flexibility. For example, the conditions may limit relevant offences to those offences witnessed by the community support officer or exclude certain offences or categories of offence.
The Metropolitan Police have argued strongly for provision to be made for community support officers to exercise a range of powers, including the power to detain and, where necessary, use reasonable force if
they are to be effective in dealing with low level disorder. That role will be enhanced if community support officers are able to act in support of the police.Furthermore, community support officers can also operate as professional witnesses in certain cases. I hope that those paragraphs will satisfy the noble Lord. If not, I shall write to him unless he wishes to return to this at a later stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I did not understand the original paragraph and I am not entirely sure that I have understood his response. However, I shall study it and seek further advice sufficient to make the position plain. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205 to 216 not moved.]
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 217:
- Page 118, line 14, leave out paragraph 24.
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 24 on page 118 of the Bill relates to intimate body searches. We are concerned that intimate searches may be carried out by community support officers. We believe that that goes rather too far. If someone needs to undergo an intimate search, then that person should be taken to the police station and the search should be carried out by a police officer and should, of course, be subject to all the safeguards that such a search would normally require. For example, an intimate search would not be undertaken in the street.
We think that paragraph 24 of Schedule 4 should be left out. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can safely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this is a highly sensitive issue. I welcome the opportunity to explain the thinking behind this part of the Bill and the safeguards that are already in place.
When colleagues, fellow Ministers and I visit police forces and have discussions with police officers, we are often told of their frustrations about spending so much time inside the police station rather than out on the beat. As we have explained many times before, this part of the Bill seeks to change that so that suitably qualified civilians can perform some of the functions and duties, thus allowing officers to do what they should be doing; that is, working in the community.
There is no point in having civilian detention officers if we then give them only limited powers so that they cannot perform the full range of duties necessary. This would require a police officer to stay behind to carry out functions such as intimate searching or administering warnings about the use of samples.
We share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord that there must be safeguards, but I think that they are already in place. Detention officers will be employed
by the police authority and will be under the careful direction and control of the chief officer—in the same way as police officers are. They will be accountable to the chief officer and subject to proper disciplinary and complaints procedures. I believe that we have made that plain in previous debates. Perhaps most important, the significant safeguards set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the corresponding PACE code of practice will continue to apply.It may help if I explain to noble Lords the effect of Section 55 of PACE, which provides that an officer of at least the rank of superintendent may authorise an intimate search only where he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that someone who has been arrested and is in police detention may have concealed on him something which could be used to cause physical injury to himself or others and which he might use while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court; or that such a person may have concealed on him a class A drug and was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before arrest.
In either case, an intimate search can be authorised only where the authorising officer reasonably believes that the concealed item cannot be found without an intimate search taking place. Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which is not yet in force, lowers the rank of officer who can authorise an intimate search from superintendent to inspector. However, this change in rank of authorising officer does not affect the circumstances in which these searches are carried out.
Currently, PACE and Code of Practice C provide other safeguards, which will apply to detention officers. For example, the reasons why an intimate search is considered necessary shall be explained to the person before the search takes place. An intimate search for drugs may only be carried out on medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse. Whenever an intimate search is carried out, the custody record must state which parts of the body were searched and why they were searched. All of those points must be made plain.
An intimate search for other harmful articles may only be carried out at a police station or medical premises by a registered doctor or nurse unless the superintendent considers that this is impracticable. In such a case, the intimate search will be carried out by a constable or, with the passage of this schedule, a police-employed detention officer.
PACE and Code of Practice C provide additional safeguards in these circumstances which will apply to a detention officer. For example, a constable may not carry out an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex. Where an intimate search is carried out by a constable, the reason why it was impracticable for a medically qualified person to conduct it must be recorded. This will apply where detention officers are authorised to carry out a search.
In practice, the circumstances in which a superintendent needs to authorise an intimate search of a person by a constable or, in the case of this Bill, a detention officer, are very rare. Such a situation might arise where, for example, a superintendent reasonably suspects that a person has concealed a harmful article on himself, such as a razor blade or a knife, and no doctor or nurse is available to conduct an intimate search.
Code of Practice C which contains guidance on the conduct of intimate searches is currently under review as part of the general review that we are undertaking of all codes of practice. We are including clearer guidance for inspectors on exercising discretion in cases where a doctor or nurse is not available to conduct an intimate search.
PACE and the code of practice have provided very adequate protections for the past 17 or 18 years. They have proved themselves and, through being subject to constant updating, they are robust and have withstood the test of time, as they were intended to do. We think that the significant safeguards that have been built in will not in any way be eroded by the introduction of this schedule. Any intimate search undertaken by those designated under this schedule will be made only with the authorisation of a senior police officer and will be in limited and controlled circumstances.
For all those quite proper reasons, we feel that we must resist the amendment. While I understand why the amendment has been tabled, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page