| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 229:
- Page 33, line 32, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This amendment returns us to the point that we have just been discussing, and I shall not discuss it further; we have already dealt with it.
Amendment No. 230, which is grouped with Amendment No. 229, would leave out subsection (6) on page 33 at line 32 and insert:
- "A chief officer of police who establishes and maintains a community safety accreditation scheme shall ensure that the employers of the persons on whom powers are conferred have established and maintain satisfactory procedures for the handling of complaints, which, at the election of the complainant, may be referred to the Commission in the event the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of such a complaint".
Amendment No. 232 imposes on the chief officer a duty to ensure that the employers of an accredited person have an adequate complaints procedure. We have more or less dealt with that point.
Finally, Amendment No. 233 states that it will be the duty of a chief officer to establish and maintain for public inspection a register of the employees against whom complaints are made. We do not believe that that is an unreasonable suggestion to make; nor is it unreasonable to suggest, as we seek to do in Amendment No. 249, that the chief officer must have regard to that list of complaints if, in fact, he is looking to renew accreditation. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Lord said, this debate leads on neatly from the preceding one. It appears to me that the noble Lord is seeking—I understand why—to provide further safeguards in relation to the complaints systems of organisations that have been accredited under Clause 34.
We absolutely agree that we want these arrangements to be transparent and robust. We also want members of the public to feel confident, as the noble Lord said, that they have powers of redress against anyone who is working as part of an accredited community safety scheme. Clearly there is a balance to be drawn, but we believe that we already have sufficient safeguards in place. To introduce more could leave us open to the claim that we are unnecessarily increasing the burdens on the police service while saying that we are committed to reducing them. At this moment, Sir David O'Dowd, the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary, is leading a task force to reduce levels of bureaucracy in the police service.
We have already provided in Clause 34(6) that chief officers must ensure that satisfactory complaints handling procedures are established and maintained. Clause 35(7) provides that accreditations are subject to periodic review and renewal. If there is evidence that previously satisfactory systems are no longer working, then chief officers will be able to withdraw all accreditations involving that employer as the criteria for accreditation will no longer be met.
We have also provided in Clause 36(5)—I believe that perhaps this goes some way towards meeting the point raised in the earlier debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—that, in the event of torts, the employer and employee will be held jointly liable. In our view, that will provide a strong incentive to employers, whose very purpose and function depends on gaining and keeping the respect and confidence of the communities with whom they are working in partnership, to ensure that procedures are followed and that any complaints are handled properly and resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Clause 39 will require chief officers to have regard to a code of practice on the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this part of the Bill. It will include guidance on the accreditation process and will ensure that organisations operate satisfactory complaints handling processes. It would be possible to see this as a further safeguard in the sense that we want to trial these matters. We shall pilot the accreditation
schemes before they are available for implementation and roll-out nationally. Therefore, there will be a thorough process of piloting, trying and testing the procedures to ensure that they work and that they are properly operable.We believe that we have the balance right between bureaucracy and ensuring that the public can trust that there is sufficient regulation. We believe that there is the right balance between regulation and a lighter touch to ensure a proper level of protection in the case of complaints.
Findings from the pilot schemes will indicate whether that balance is right and they will be used to advise us in rolling out and perfecting the scheme nationally. They will also enable us to amend the code of practice issued under Clause 39, if appropriate. I hope that that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may say, in support of my noble friend, that it seems odd, having expended so much effort in producing the new commission to cover the whole of the police force everywhere, to then construct a new wing attached to the police force which will not be subject to it. I do not want to promote a long debate tonight. However, I want to declare an interest if the matter comes back on Report.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend, who raised a valid point. We are not completely satisfied that this part of the Bill is consistent both with other parts of the Bill and with what we think would be a desirable situation. We have had a fairly full explanation, for which I am grateful. We shall study it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 230 to 233 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may return briefly to vicarious liability, which we discussed a few moments ago. On instructions from behind him, to the north east as seen from here, the Minister said that there is a safeguard because the person would have to be acting in the course of his employment. I thought that that was wrong and suggested so. However, the point I should have taken is to be found on page 35, line 15, in subsection (5), which states:
- "[all] conduct by such an employee . . . shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment.
Clause 35 [Accreditation under community safety accreditation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 235:
- Page 34, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 235 deals with a matter which causes us concern. As drafted, the Bill would require that the employer of an accredited person would be able to supervise the carrying out of a police function. Such employers, often commercial employers or local authorities, however well intentioned, will not be experienced in police matters. It seems to us wrong for them to be held responsible for the supervision of a police function by an accredited person. We believe that that places an unreasonable burden on them.
Amendment No. 236 seeks to omit paragraph (b), which is unnecessary in view of the wording in subsections (c) and (d). The Minister will be able to accept Amendment No. 237 with no difficulty. It simply leaves out the word "himself". A person can be none other than himself. He cannot be somebody else. Therefore, the word is unnecessary.
My only comment on Amendments Nos. 239 and 241 is that if we were to go down the special constable route which we propose, both paragraphs would be unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: As to Amendment No. 237, I shall take advice on the use of "himself". I am sure that there is a good legal reason.
The amendments would remove the requirement for chief officers to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the person who is to be accredited—including checks into their capability to perform the functions for which powers are sought, the training that they have received in respect of those powers and the suitability of the person's employer to supervise the carrying out of those functions.
We are talking not about community support officers but about employees of someone other than the police authority. It is wholly proper that the chief constable can make sure that the employer has all the necessary functions and capabilities in place before designating employees. We are dealing with a mixed bag—maybe local authorities.
The jobs in question are being done now. Local authorities that are employing wardens, or shopping centre managers who are employing their own heavy mob and gatekeepers, are doing so as a commercial enterprise—unfettered in many respects, because they are not performing police functions anyway. The beauty of the accreditation scheme and giving police a role is that the chief police officer will be able to ensure the bona fides of the employer before employees are designated. The duty of the employer is not that of the chief constable. It is vital that those checks are made before a person is accredited.
Clause 35(4) must be left as it stands because it is essential to have a statutory framework for the accreditation of the powers, as part of the public confidence factor. It is not sufficient to require that the chief officer satisfies himself of the suitability of the individual to be accredited. The process must include
an assessment of the person's capability and training and a check that the employer is a fit and proper person.Checks on the individual to be accredited and the employer would cover criminal records and good character, which are essential to ensure that powers are only conferred on appropriate persons. Checks on training will enable the chief officer to be reassured that the individuals have been trained to exercise the powers conferred and reach the required standards in their knowledge of relevant law, first aid and conflict resolution. There is probably no statutory training requirement at present, which provides the loophole. People can put on a uniform, sell a service and operate—and the public think that they must be okay because they are in uniform. From some stories, some of them certainly have not been trained in conflict resolution. Police checks will add extra comfort.
We intend to consult stakeholders on the checks to be made. I cannot rely on the code of practice too much because it is important to pilot this specifically. With community support officers, piloting is almost de facto because the Metropolitan Police want to get on with it. Others may be less certain, so it becomes a sort of a pilot. With accreditation, we will pilot and will not allow schemes to be rolled out until we have feedback on the advice given in the code of practice.
I have been on my feet a few minutes but no one has brought me a note about "himself", so I will have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am not a lawyer, but I have studied Amendment No. 237. It occurs to me that the word "himself" appears in this paragraph for the sake of clarity. The person's employer in paragraph (a) has been described as,
- "a fit and proper person".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |