---

Lord Rooker: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I am sure that there is a note somewhere to that effect.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke who may have produced the right explanation. However, I am a little disappointed in what the Minister said in response. Where local authorities are operating wardening schemes, or where a commercial security firm is providing security officers for a shopping centre, police powers are not being exercised. Let us be clear about this: they do not need to have the sort of supervision and training, and so on, that is required.

The Minister had much to say about approving the employer as a "fit and proper person" to employ people to carry out such work. But the bit of the Bill that we seek to remove is very specific in this respect.

7 Mar 2002 : Column 498

When we are talking about getting people accredited and ensuring that they are properly trained, it does not have anything to do with the employer being a fit and proper person. The provision says that a person's employer is,

"a fit and proper person to supervise the carrying out of the functions"—

in other words, police functions. Indeed, they are nothing else. They are not related to employer/employee relations, or anything else. They are pure police functions. Even if the employer were competent to do so, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to have a third party employer supervising police functions. We are talking about policing, and the integrity of policing. I do not like that phrase in the Bill because it is very specific.

I have heard what the Minister said, and I hope that he heard what I said. Perhaps we should both go away and consider all that has been said on the subject. It is always possible that we may reach a satisfactory conclusion at some time in the future, though we shall not do so tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 236 to 242 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 243:

Page 34, line 12, leave out from beginning to "for" and insert "The Secretary of State may by order provide for appropriate fees to be charged by a chief officer of police"

The noble Lord said: With this amendment we turn our attention to the wording in the Bill that deals with the question of fees. My preference is that no fees should be involved in the process. I cannot see any incentive for outside employers to become involved in such schemes. Indeed, I can envisage many disadvantages for them. However, if there are to be fees, we believe that they should be agreed on an approved scale rather than it being an option for a chief constable to charge what he thinks fit. Of course, if he believes that nothing is fit that might be "appropriate". He could conceivably see this as a commercial operation, though that is highly unlikely. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 244 and 246, which are grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. Our amendments deal simply with the question of who is responsible for the police fund. At present, we believe that it is the police authority. If that is so, we would seek to amend the subsection to make it the responsibility of the police authority to charge such fees as it "considers appropriate", rather than it being a matter for the chief officer of police.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We probably disagree with the noble Lord's last point. It should be for the chief officer to decide the size of the fee. Clearly, there would need to be consultation within the police authorities over that.

7 Mar 2002 : Column 499

The purpose of the clause is to enable the authorities to cover only those costs that they incur during the process of accrediting new and renewal applications. It is not a licence for chief officers to create additional wealth for their forces. In line with that, the code of practice under Clause 39—to which chief officers must have regard—will make it clear that this should not be regarded as a fund-raising exercise. It will require that the costs involved in the accreditation process are offset by the fees charged to make the process basically cost neutral to the force, so that it does not have to transfer resources from elsewhere, and obviously, in particular, frontline services.

If the charge was set nationally by the Secretary of State, the effect could lead to profits being made in some force areas. Obviously, it will depend on a force's costs, the way in which it builds up its costs base and the way in which it charges items. That would put some forces at a financial advantage and others at a disadvantage in creating these accreditation schemes. So there could be a perverse effect.

The Bill as drafted, supported by the code of practice issued under Clause 39, probably provides the best framework for charging fees as part of the accreditation process; protecting both employers from being charged more than necessary and the police from having to subsidise the process from their core costs.

We take the view that the police authority must be fully involved and, as I have said, consulted about all aspects of setting up community safety accreditation schemes in their force areas, including the size of any fee. So, in general terms, I think that that satisfies the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. These issues will be covered in the code of practice under Clause 39.

Although we have sympathy with the noble Lords' amendments, as I have explained the scheme to the Committee, it should give the chief officer the flexibility to vary the fee on accreditation so as to ensure that it matches any costs being incurred. It will also mean that the fee is appropriate to the force area.

We give a very firm undertaking that the matters will be properly dealt with in the code of practice. I think that that probably enables the noble Lords to feel confident that they can withdraw the amendments.

Lord Bradshaw: I make the point that the Police Act 1996 is absolutely clear on this matter; it is the police authority which makes the charge on the advice of a chief office and it is responsible for collecting it. It does not matter very much to me, but I think that the Minister is in error. I ask that on Report we are absolutely clear—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our understanding of the best means of operating this scheme is for the chief officer to set the fee in consultation with the police authority. I suspect that it is an issue that the police authority finance committee will ruminate over for some time in helping him come to that conclusion.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We should be quite clear that what is

7 Mar 2002 : Column 500

cost neutral to the police force will definitely cost someone some money. That may prove to be a problem, but that remains to be seen. I doubt whether anyone will want to get involved in these schemes with direct costs, bearing in mind all the other problems and potential liabilities that the Bill seems to provide for. We shall consider what has been said, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 244 to 247 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 248:

Page 34, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to another nice little bit of wording in the Bill that seems to me to add confusion. The clause states:

"A person authorised or required to do anything by virtue of an accreditation under this section—

(a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that accreditation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of his employment"—

all right, we have debated that and we do not need to go over that ground any more. But the clause continues:

"shall be so authorised or required subject to such other restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his accreditation".

Here we go round the whole thing again, because we get down to the business of an individual being given an individual specification for his job, instead of everyone standing on familiar ground, so that we can all understand.

Those words are unnecessary; it is unfortunate that they are there. I hope that the Minister will agree to expunge them. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am sorry, but I cannot satisfy the noble Lord. We need the words in the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to explain why.

We want to enable police forces to mould the extension of powers to accredited persons to fit local policing needs and the aspirations of local people. There will be occasions when powers should be extended more traditionally—operating all day, every day and anywhere in the force area. But there is a place in modern policing for a different approach reflecting the needs of individual communities. The provision is highly targeted.

An example would be the security staff in a shopping centre. It would be in keeping with an accreditation scheme involving a security firm to confer powers in Schedule 5 on the shopping centre security staff, but to limit the exercise of those powers to the confines of the shopping centre. It would clearly be inappropriate in such a case for staff to be able to exercise powers outside the area in which they are contracted to work.

Or consider a crime hotspot—one of the estates to which I referred earlier. The police may tackle that by providing intensive policing for a set period. They may as part of a whole community approach to reducing crime in that area accredit community safety

7 Mar 2002 : Column 501

organisations to work only in that geographical area, providing a permanent patrolling presence in that part of the locality.

The extension of the powers will require consultation with the police authority—and through the authority the local community—so that precise restrictions and conditions to be applied can be agreed. Pilots of such accreditation schemes will monitor the effectiveness of restrictions and conditions and ensure that they are appropriate for, and agreed and understood by, the communities in which accredited people work.

We believe that it is important that chief officers can ensure that the role of the extended police family fits the policing style and needs of their force area. I accept that that ability to mould the extension of powers is non-traditional—new—but that does not make it wrong. We are trying to tackle those problems in a new way. Although people may think that the public will be confused by that approach, I certainly do not think that that will be true when they see far more uniformed people in their localities.

I hope that giving those practical examples provides a translation of paragraph (b). Reading the opening of subsection (6), one would not have a clue how it will touch the lives of people in this country. I hope that I have given examples of how, if we lost those words, we should not be able to give the chief officers flexibility to mould policing to the needs of local communities.

---