| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bradshaw: Again, given the Minister's assurances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 223:
- Page 32, line 44, after "him" insert "as community safety special constables"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 244, 247 and 250. The purpose of the amendments is to change the status of the accredited community safety officers to that of special constables.
We have had this debate ad nauseam, so there is no point in repeating all the arguments. However, I should like to make one or two points. It is clear—and I regret this—that the Government have not thought seriously about this possibility. They have decided to do things this way—using accredited people—and that is it. That is unfortunate.
The effect will be that the specials will continue to languish. There is no original thinking about how to re-stimulate and re-enthuse the specials. This Bill provided an opportunity for that to happen. If that is the way the Government want it, so be it. It is regrettable, because there was the opportunity for a complete change of direction which would bring people back into the special constabulary. As with the Territorial Army, recruitment could have helped to overcome the ethnic barriers which cause so many problems for the police. Had that been by the specials route, it would undoubtedly have led some recruits into joining the regular police force, which would have won the approval of all of us.
The purpose of the amendments is to point out that the Government are missing an opportunity. On the whole, they will be providing a somewhat devalued service to the public in future. If that is what they want, that is what they want. We find it regrettable.
Turning to Amendment No. 247, the possibility arises in the Bill of the chief constable charging for costs of accreditation. We suggest that the cost of training should be added. However, I am bound to say as a matter of principle and practicality that it is more likely that the last thing a chief constable will be able to do is charge employers for the cost of accreditation. If anything, they will need inducements to join this scheme. Outside employers and even local authorities will not find it a particularly attractive option. They will become subject to complaints procedures which they must have in place. If anything goes wrong, it will impose quite a burden on any outside employer who has become involved in one of these schemes. However, this subject was roundly debated earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support the purpose behind the amendments as described by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Surely, the best way forward would be an expansion of the special constabulary. Although I understand the principle behind the introduction of community support officers, I hope the fact that the Government are proceeding down this line does not mean that they will not at the same time attempt to increase the number of special constables.
One was concerned earlier this week when one heard the Minister's reference to the enormous drop in the number of special constables as compared to some 10 or 20 years ago. I hope that the Minister is not going to say that the provisions of this Bill should be an excuse for not trying to recruit more special constables. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has said, in the end the recognised special constable is the best back-up for the permanent police force given the possibility that many become police officers.
Lord Renton: I, too, support the amendments. Perhaps I may add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Carlisle. For many years, special constables have played a vital part in keeping order in our society, especially on occasions when the police must be assumed to be under greater pressure than they normally are. Therefore, these amendments are important.
Perhaps I may mention a purely grammatical matter which I have noticed in passing. I first learnt to read and write before 1914. It may be that the language has changed a little since that time. We always used to say that things and people should be accredited "with", not "of". The last two lines of subsection (1) say:
- "for the exercise within his police area by persons accredited by him under section 35 of the powers conferred by their accreditations".
Lord Rooker: Far be it from me to complain about people's attendance. I cannot put my hands on my notes from Tuesday, but we had a short debate on two amendments relating specifically to Specials in which I explained that the Government are reviewing the possibility of payments and bounties for Specials to try to increase recruitment. There has been a drop of several thousand Specials over the past four years, down to 13,000 from about 20,000. As a separate exercise—and this is on the record from our debate earlier in the week—we are taking forward a project with ACPO and, I think, the Association of Police Authorities, which has been designed to find ways to increase the number of Specials. Nothing that I say today in any way qualifies what I said on Tuesday. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, to think that we are not concerned about the drop in the number of Specials, because we are.
The Specials are a vital resource in ensuring public confidence. As volunteers, they are the embodiment of active citizenship. The Government want to reverse the decline in the number of Specials. As part of that, we are looking at ways of improving the recruitment and retention of Specials, including exploring the case for paying an allowance to recognise levels of commitment. We are not looking to change the status of Specials to that of paid employees, as we believe that that would detract from their special status.
The amendments would have two possible effects. They could create a category of employed status Specials, whose main job would be working as Specials, with the full powers of volunteer Specials, including powers of arrest—in other words they would
be full constables. In effect, the amendments could create a less well paid regular force employed by an outside organisation. Alternatively, the amendments might require organisations that promote active citizenship among their staff to pay all the costs involved if any of their staff want to become volunteer Specials, including the costs involved in accreditation and training. That is not much of an incentive to small organisations to promote becoming a Special over other forms of volunteering, which are of minimal cost to the employer.Volunteer Specials are an essential and valuable part of the police service, but they are not the solution to the problems of anti-social behaviour. By their very nature, Specials are available outside normal working hours. Most Specials have a job in addition to their voluntary work. They are available at weekends and in the evenings.
Neighbourhood wardens and others for whom community safety and regeneration is a full-time job are available at the beginning and end of the school day, on pension day and during the school holidays. They provide a full-time community presence, which is enhanced by the presence of the Specials when they are available. There is a desire to do something for the Specials. I said on Tuesday that I regretted that we were not able to do anything in this Bill, but I pointed out that there was legislation in 1992 under which a regulation was put through both Houses that would enable us to make the changes following our review. We would not require primary legislation to do that. That is a separate exercise and is not being negated in any way by the Bill's proposals for community support officers or the accredited people through their organisations.
I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is coming from. He does not want community support officers, period. The amendment is a way of converting the idea into Specials. Specials look like police officers because they are police officers, with the full powers of constables. I hope that my explanation of the powers and commitment of the Specials is not compatible with our proposals for the people who would be designated under this part of the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If it is any help to the Minister, he dealt with the issue on Tuesday at cols. 181 and 182. His memory is remarkably good. The experimental bounty was introduced in 1993.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I accept what the Minister said about costs and I agree with him. I expressed some doubts when I moved the amendment. However, he has failed to understand what we are trying to do. He has suggested that these people are going to be employed as full-time special constables. That is not the point of the amendments. These people will be doing a full-time job, and they will continue to do that job. However, as they will be accredited—just as they would be accredited under the accreditation scheme—they will be accredited special constables. It would be
a supplementary addition to their job, not a substitute for it. It is a completely new approach to the whole issue.Regrettably, the Minister has failed to make that distinction. He is still thinking about special constables in the old, traditional way as volunteers doing something outside their normal job. The whole purpose of this group of amendments is to make it possible for them to do their job and to have a supplementary responsibility, just at the accredited safety officers will have. The supplementary responsibility will make them special constables as opposed to accredited officers. That is the only distinction.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Is the noble Lord proposing that full-time employees of an employer should have the full powers of a regular police constable, as specials have?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page