| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I was almost about to say that it satisfied me, but I do not want to see him fall off the Bench. However, it is unlikely that we shall need to bring this amendment back. I am grateful for his explanation, which makes the situation clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 249 and 250 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before we leave our debate on the clause, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who, having said, "I am not a lawyer", did not add the normally mandatory words "thank God". Perhaps he thought that they would be superfluous.
Lord Rooker: I shall confirm what I said without the note. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, was right: the word "himself" was there to distinguish the employer from the employee. He got it absolutely right.
Schedule 5 [Powers exercisable by accredited persons]:
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 252:
- Page 122, line 25, at end insert "or other proof of identity"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendment No. 253 are simple and self-explanatory. I tabled them because one of the most contentious matters is asking someone to wait with an accredited person, if necessary, for up to half an hour. Much of our debate has revolved around that matter.
It is also unsatisfactory that there will be no way of knowing whether the name and address given by someone are accurate. The Minister has said to me that the Government were clear that they would not oblige people to carry identity cards. I have, therefore, not suggested that, although I had originally intended to propose it in the amendment. However, there are all sorts of cards that people might have—for example, a driving licence or a security pass such as we have here. There are all sorts of forms of identification. If those were produced and accepted, it would save a lot of aggro all round. That would be desirable.
The second amendment would cover a situation in which someone produced a proof of identity that was not genuine. They might have stolen someone else's identity card—not one with a photo on it, but some other type of card.
I move the amendment in the hope that it would help avoid unpleasant situations that might end up in a degree of aggression with which the accredited person would not be equipped to cope. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for that explanation and for the spirit in which she spoke to the amendment. I would have liked nothing more than to have a debate about ID cards and entitlement cards, but not at three minutes past ten o'clock on a Thursday evening.
I agree with the noble Baroness that accredited individuals will, in some cases, want to see proof of a person's identity and their home address, before they are satisfied that the details that they have been given are correct. In practice, accredited people will ask to see proof of identity and address, and we will set out guidelines in the code of practice, under Clause 39, about this matter. We need not amend the Bill; it can be done through the code of practice.
We have made it abundantly clear, whatever our conclusions, that we will not introduce any form of entitlement card that a person might be required to carry and produce. That is ruled out. I have to say that every time, so that there is no misunderstanding in the media. It is not noble Lords who will misunderstand; it is others who are out to scupper the plan, even though we have not consulted on it yet.
In the recent White Paper on immigration and asylum, there is an announcement that the Government will, in the summer, produce a full, detailed and comprehensive consultation paper on the issue of entitlement cards—whether they are good or bad, whether we ought to have them and how they might work. However, as I said, I hope that we can
cover the fair points raised by the noble Baroness in the code of practice. That having been said, I hope that she will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 254A:
- Page 123, line 17, at end insert—
(1) This paragraph applies where the accreditation of an accredited person—
(a) specifies that this paragraph applies to him;
(b) specifies that any or all of paragraphs 1 and 2 also apply to him; and
(c) sets out the matters in respect of which he has the power conferred by this paragraph.
(2) The matters that may be set out in an accreditation as the matters in respect of which a person has the power conferred by this paragraph shall be confined to—
(a) offences that are relevant fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to the accredited person;
(b) offences that are relevant offences for the purposes of the application of paragraph 2 to the accredited person; and
(c) behaviour that constitutes acting in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)).
(3) In any case in which a person to whom this paragraph applies has imposed a requirement on any other person under paragraph 2(1) or 3(1) in respect of anything appearing to him to be a matter set out in the accreditation, he may use reasonable force to prevent that other person from making off while he is either—
(a) subject to a requirement imposed in that case by the accredited person under paragraph 2(2); or
(b) accompanying the accredited person to a police station in accordance with an election made in that case under paragraph 2(3)."
The noble Baroness said: I feel like Charlie Drake playing in the orchestra when he stood up with the triangle and missed the beat. I have tabled only two amendments to the Bill, Amendments Nos. 254A and 254B, and I want to make it clear at the outset that I am a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That borough has asked me to bring forward these amendments.
As I indicated earlier, the Royal Borough is seeking to introduce borough constables. That is being done in co-operation with the Metropolitan Police. The intention is that they should be fully trained in conjunction with the police and should be a well-geared force. The one aspect that is difficult is that, while they will have the powers to detain, they will not have the powers enabling them to use reasonable force.
To all intents and purposes, borough constables will do the same job as will be done by the community officers. It would seem sensible that they should have the same power to use reasonable force, however "reasonable force" is to be defined. People will not then be able to put up two fingers to them, as described
It may be that before the powers are granted to an individual borough or accredited organisation they need to be sanctioned by someone else. Whether that should be the local police authority, as suggested, or the Secretary of State I know not. However, somewhere along the line it will be important that there is the right to use reasonable force. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. As I said at Second Reading, the boroughs want the right to work in conjunction with the police. However, they want in particular to be able to retain people within their own neighbourhood so that they cannot suddenly be spirited away somewhere else. That is why such provision is most important.
Lord Rooker: There is a fundamental reason why we cannot accept the reasonable use of force. The accredited persons are not under the direct and specific control of the chief constable; they are employees of someone else. That is why the reasonable use of force is ruled out.
The issue of their being spirited away from one borough to another should not exist. If they are employees of the borough and the council, they are employees of the borough and the council. The employer would decide where they were located, not the police. A separate issue is therefore involved. There is no reason to suppose that if the borough is organising an accredited community scheme it will not be in control of the people. It will be in control of the people because it will be the employer. There will be no question of people being spirited away. However, as the individuals will not be directly employed under the control of the police the question of giving them the power to use reasonable force is ruled out.
The borough constables will have most of the powers of community support officers but they will not have the power to issue fixed penalty notices; they will not have the power to use reasonable force; and they will not have the power of entry to save life or limb or to prevent serious injury or damage to property. There are also a couple of other powers which they will not have. It must therefore be said that they are more limited than the community support officers, but, as we said earlier, those officers will be employees of the police authority and under the direct control of the chief constable. That is the fundamental reason why I must say to the noble Baroness that I cannot accept her amendments.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page