| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Before my noble friend Lady Hanham rises to reply, I should like to raise a point which was first covered in the debate on Second Reading. London boroughs would like to see a halfway house between the accredited person and the community support officer. They would like to be able to run things jointly with the police and to be involved in these affairs. That would put them in a much
stronger position. However, the one problem about that would be whether the police would then be able to whisk the neighbourhood policemen away.Can the Minister consider whether it would be possible to bring forward an amendment which would allow the joint commissioning of a force between a local authority and the Metropolitan Police? Many London boroughs would welcome that kind of arrangement.
Lord Rooker: I dare not respond to that on the hoof. We have here two quite specific and distinct areas: community support officers and community safety accreditation schemes. One of those proposals is fundamentally opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but the noble Baroness now asks me to look into creating a hybrid of the two.
In effect, we can only repeat that it is up to chief constables to decide, first, whether to take on community support officers and what those officers will do and then to confer the necessary powers. Secondly, we will give chief constables the right to decide whether they will accredit community safety schemes with or without local authorities and with or without the private sector.
It may be that in a place as varied as London, with 8 million people, several thousand police officers and some 32 boroughs—each a great deal smaller than Birmingham, I might add—some operations that would suit both the police and the local community could be considered. However, from a standing start, as it were, I cannot give the noble Baroness the specific answers that she requires. I believe that these proposals are outwith what is set out in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look into this matter to the extent only as to whether the chief officer would have the power to agree to have community support officers run jointly between the Metropolitan Police and a local authority. Would he have the right to do that or would such a power have to be created? I am happy to wait for the Minister to write to me on this.
Lord Rooker: As always, I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness. Of course, it may be a question of who pays for the community support officers. Those are issues that must be considered. As I have said, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hanham: I think that we have raised here a point that slightly differs from what is in the Bill; that is, the possibility of creating borough constables and their being funded by and large by local authorities. My local authority is now prepared to commit quite substantial sums of money to this.
I shall return to where I started. My concern over the right to use reasonable force is that if there are going to be accredited persons on the street, they should have the power to hold someone for 30 minutes while,
presumably, the police are summoned to come and help them. It is not much use if the person being held is allowed to scarper off down the road and no one has the right to bring them down with a rugby tackle. Perhaps that exaggerates the case a little. However, what is being suggested here will probably leave the accredited officers without the tools to do the job.I understand the Minister's explanation that under normal circumstances the chief constable would have to authorise the right to detain a person using reasonable force. However, would the Minister be kind enough to look into whether there is some way the provision could be amended to enable such forces—which I believe may now spring up all over the country as local authorities take it on—to be given the right to use reasonable force? If he will, then I shall withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rooker: I am willing to look at all of these suggestions. On the other hand, I think that the noble Baroness is proposing something that contradicts the heart of our proposals. It may be that I have to be wholly negative in my response. Nevertheless, I have heard what she has said. I shall take it away and seek further advice.
Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 254B:
- Page 124, line 11, at end insert—
(1) This paragraph applies in respect of an accredited person—
(a) whose accreditation specifies that this paragraph applies to him; and
(b) whose employer, for the purposes of section 35 of this Act, is a local authority.
(2) If an accredited person to whom this section applies has given a person a fixed penalty notice under section 54 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalty notices) in respect of an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 (c. 50) (riding on a footway) committed by cycling he may seize the cycle in respect of which the alleged offence was committed.
(3) If any cycle is seized under sub-paragraph (2) and the person to whom the fixed penalty notice was given pays the fixed penalty before the end of the suspended enforcement period, the cycle shall be returned to that person.
(4) The provisions of sub-paragraphs (5) to (9) shall have effect if—
(a) any cycle is seized under sub-paragraph (2); and
(b) the fixed penalty has not been paid in accordance with Part III of the 1988 Act before the end of the suspended enforcement period.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), following the conclusion of any proceedings in respect of the alleged offence the cycle shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless the court orders it to be forfeited under sub-paragraph (7).
(6) If the recipient has not given notice requesting a hearing in respect of the offence to which the fixed penalty notice relates in the manner specified in the notice, the local authority may make an application to the court for an order that the cycle seized under sub-paragraph (2) shall be forfeited.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8), the court—
(a) by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under section 72 of the 1835 Act committed by cycling; or
(b) to whom an application for forfeiture is made under sub-paragraph (6),
may order any cycle produced to the court, and shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence, or as the case may be the alleged offence, to be forfeited and dealt with in such manner as the court may order.
(8) The court shall not order a cycle to be forfeited under sub-paragraph (7) where a person claiming to be the owner of or otherwise interested in it applies to be heard by the court, unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why the order should not be made, and in considering whether to make such an order a court shall have regard—
(a) to the value of the cycle; and
(b) to the likely financial and other effects on the offender of the making of the order (taken together with any other order that the court contemplates making).
(9) The court may order forfeiture notwithstanding that the value of the cycle exceeds the maximum penalty for the commission of an offence under section 72 of the 1835 Act.
(10) In this paragraph "local authority" means—
(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council or a London borough council; and
(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council; and
"suspended enforcement period" has the meaning ascribed to it under section 52(3)(a) of the 1988 Act (fixed penalty notices)."
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. One of the powers that the accredited officers of organisations will have is to issue fixed penalty notices for those cycling on the pavement. All I can say is, "Yippee", because we have been waiting for a long time for someone to issue a fixed penalty notice to those who bowl down the pavements and knock people over.
I am seeking an extension of a power which is also in the Bill to enable those officers to confiscate the bicycle until the fixed penalty notice is paid. We seem to be able to confiscate everything else under the Bill and I am seeking to add bicycles to that power of confiscation. It would make things easier and resolve the problems more quickly. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. In particular, I should like to emphasise how effective confiscation of, for example, hot dog stalls has proved. The local boroughs have found that confiscation is the only sanction that has any effect.
If the confiscated bicycle has to be transported and stored, presumably the owner will be treated in a similar fashion to a motorist who has his car towed away and will have to pay a small penalty or costs.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of the amendment. I agree that cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and can be dangerous. That is why we are including in the Bill the power for the extended police family, the accreditation scheme, to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling, littering and riding on footpaths. That power is there because those are the kinds of issues which are suitable for the
As the Committee is aware, we are determined under this part of the Bill to ensure that the community support officers and members of the community safety accreditation schemes are given powers consistent with their training and the public's expectation of their role. I realise that the expectation of their role for the noble Baroness includes taking the bicycle as well as the fixed penalty—I accept that—but we have always been clear that we do not want accredited people such as neighbourhood and street wardens, which is what we are effectively talking about, involved in potentially difficult situations—and putting a bicycle on your back could cause a problem.
The power to confiscate could mean accredited people coming across resistance from a cyclist who may or may not have dismounted, and could involve a tricycle, which would be somewhat difficult to confiscate. They would not have the powers or the training to deal with that kind of resistance, and we do not want the people acting in this role placed in that kind of situation. That could undermine their credibility.
This is one of the issues where we have opened up not so much a can of worms but a box of gold—although not in a money sense—which will be good for local communities. The noble Baroness is right: people do want to go a little further. I am delighted to see overwhelming support from the noble Baronesses, which is somewhat in contrast to the speeches made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. That is a pretty sour note to end on and I am sorry about that.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page