---

Lord Elton: In order to clarify the background to this point, am I right in assuming that the effect of Clause 33(6), which we discussed before breaking for dinner, is that detention officers will only act as detention officers inside a police station. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned that such searches should not be undertaken on the street, but as I understand it, they would not be empowered to act on the street.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I cannot believe that the noble Lord is anything other than correct. However, he should be assured that if there is any variation on that, the noble Lord will be told very promptly.

Lord Bradshaw: Before withdrawing the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister to look at this again. I stand corrected; this can only be done by detention officers. However, the people who are going to be employed as detention officers—in fact, they are already employed as detention officers in West Mercia, for example—are not employees of the police authority. They are people who work under contract for companies such as Group 4 or Premier Prisons, who provide a detention service for the police authority in their custody suites. Thus the detention officers are not police authority employees. Can I take it that they would not be allowed to carry out such searches?

7 Mar 2002 : Column 484

Lord Rooker: I refer again to the first line of Clause 33:

"The chief officer of police of any police force may designate any person who—

(a) is employed by the police authority maintaining that force, and

(b) is under the direction and control of that chief officer". I take that to mean police authority employees.

Lord Bradshaw: But they are employees of Group 4, or whoever employs them, and they are under contract to the police authority. It would need a watertight contract if such people were involved in intimate searches. The contract would have to cover both the PACE and discipline requirements for such people in all respects.

This is a difficult area. I shall reflect on what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, to be crystal clear, there is no question of intimate searches being carried out in the street. I want to put that on the record. The power under PACE which can be conferred can be carried out only in a police station or a hospital. It is not a power which can be conferred on community support officers.

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that detention officers can exercise powers only in police stations. I hope that that is crystal clear.

Lord Tope: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance, but between now and the next stage will he look at the question of employees of police authorities only? The reason I ask is that in the Met—and I am sure this is happening in other parts of the country—we have a PFI scheme to build three new police stations in south London. As part of that PFI scheme, a number of the employees—and, frankly, I cannot remember whether they include the detention officer but I think they do—will be employees of the company in the PFI deal. I am not clear of my facts, but, under such circumstances—this is not the only such deal and will not be the only such deal in the years to come—is that actually the case? Perhaps the Minister will look at this issue and advise us on it outside the Chamber.

Lord Rooker: We shall look at the issue. But Clause 33 is entitled,

"Police powers for police authority employees".

I am not a lawyer, but an employee is an employee, not a contractor or a sub-contractor. People working for contractors would be the employees of someone else, not the police authority. Part of the whole reassurance in Clause 33 is that the people concerned are employees of the police authority under the direct, specific employer control of the chief constable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]

7 Mar 2002 : Column 485

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 219:

Page 121, line 33, at end insert "; and

( ) in relation to designation under section 33 by a Director General, means England and Wales."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Community safety accreditation schemes]:

[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 221:

Page 32, line 43, leave out "for the exercise"

The noble Lord said: I hope that the purpose of this group of amendments is self-evident. They seek to remove from the Bill the proposals for accredited persons to exercise police powers, however limited. We are not absolutely convinced that there is any need for such persons to exercise police powers.

I am sure that the Committee is aware of many active neighbourhood and street warden schemes. They are extremely popular with local communities and there are many local initiatives. At present, such schemes do not have any police powers but the clause suggests that they should have. I should stress that many communities—and I speak for a large number of them in the APA—want to see their local wardens left as they are and not to exercise police powers. But as long as the powers in the Bill are permissive and can be adopted if communities want to adopt them, we are content to let the matter rest there. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I take it from the noble Lord's concluding remarks that he understands the significance of the amendments. They would undermine the effectiveness of the community safety accreditation schemes. Clauses 34 and 35 and Schedule 5, which these amendments seek to remove or seriously weaken, set out the powers which chief officers can give to members of accreditation schemes. That meets the noble Lord's final point because it is still enabling—in other words, there is a degree of discretion on the part of the chief officer.

A wide range of organisations and their staff already contribute to community safety. One of the key objectives of this part of the Bill is to harness the energy and commitment of neighbourhood and street wardens, shopping centre security staff and many others—this is where we have talked about the park keepers—who make a direct and crucial contribution to making communities safer.

The accreditation of such community safety organisations and the option to confer limited police powers on their employees will enable wardens and other accredited persons to be more effectively deployed. This is not policing on the cheap but a realistic, hard-headed approach to supporting police work.

I should emphasise that a number of safeguards will be built in to the accreditation scheme. A dual key will operate. The employer—usually a local authority chief

7 Mar 2002 : Column 486

executive—would need to seek appropriate powers and the chief officer would need to agree them. The local police authority and other local agencies would be fully consulted on the proposed community safety accreditation scheme. The chief police officer would need to be satisfied that the person to be accredited was suitable to exercise the powers to be conferred on him, was capable of carrying out the community safety functions and was properly trained.

The employer would need to have a suitable complaints and disciplinary procedure in place. All accredited persons would be publicly recognisable by a nationally-approved badge on their uniform. The continuation of any accreditation scheme would be subject to an annual review and the accreditation of any individual could be withdrawn at any time.

The precise powers to be conferred on the employee of a particular accredited organisation would be depend on his or her role and local requirements. Schedule 5 therefore provides a menu from which powers can be selected to suit the training and deployment of accredited persons. In practice it is unlikely that chief officers will have more than a few variations in the powers extended to accredited persons.

I believe that that meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. No one is forcing this scheme on employers or chief constables. In the same spirit and for the same reasons as in our earlier long debate today, I hope that the Committee will accept the position as stated. We shall look at all issues raised. In not moving these amendments, the noble Lord can be assured that we have met his main point.

Lord Elton: Did the Minister say that these people would wear a nationally approved badge and not a nationally approved uniform? It seems rather odd. One would think that either the whole thing would be local or the whole thing would be national. Is there a reason for that?

9 p.m.

Lord Rooker: I do not know, but I suspect that they may be employees of local authorities. The local authority may have the relevant uniforms for its employees, in the parks, for example; it may be that the private sector has a uniform for its shopping centre control wardens. All we are saying is this. Although people are not employed nationally in that sense, they are employed as part of a national scheme. They are approved and accredited by a chief of police—that is the key point. The badge would be the symbol to the public that they are bona fide, that they are not private sector, vigilantes, or free enterprise. To badge up someone else's uniform in a distinctive way would probably be the appropriate thing to do.

---