| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hanham: I am tempted to try to extend the confiscation to the dogs, but I shall not. I am hanging on to the bicycles in the hope that, with proper training, we will be able to confer that confiscatory power on these people. I heard what the Minister said. I shall consider it and I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Supplementary provisions relating to designations and accreditations]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 255:
- Page 34, line 37, leave out "to that person, if requested to do so" and insert "to such person as may be present and affected by the performance of that power or duty"
The noble Lord said: We are back in the business of discussing public confidence. I forgive the Minister for the slight tweak at the end of his previous remarks. We do that kind of thing to each other from time to time. It keeps us awake.
The Bill provides that if an accredited officer exercises police powers on someone else, he shall show his accreditation to that person to prove that he is who he says he is. The amendment merely expands the scope of that requirement to include others who might be present so that everyone is aware that he is who he says he is. Otherwise, one can imagine the possibility
of a secondary fracas arising which might cause a problem. This is a simple amendment. I ask the Minister to think about it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): If Amendment No. 255 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 255A.
Lord Rooker: In responding, it is worthwhile reminding the noble Lord of the wording of the amendment. It seeks to,
- "insert 'to such person as may be present and affected by the performance of that power or duty'".
Let us imagine that a community support officer rescues a child from a burning house using a power conferred on him. The amendment requires the community support officer to show his designation to everyone who was present and was affected by the rescue. It could be quite a crowd—the child's family and friends, playmates, neighbours and other passers-by who were witness to the events. It could be disruptive, and logistically difficult, to ensure that they were all shown the designation. Also, would the community support officer be in breach of his or her duty under this amendment if he or she were unable to track down all those who had been present?
Or let us imagine an accredited person tackling a group of children where one or two of them were smoking and drinking alcohol. If the person had to show his or her accreditation to every member of the group and to any passers-by before being able to seize the tobacco and alcohol, it would fundamentally undermine their effectiveness.
On that basis, I believe that we have got the balance about right. If a member of the public is happy not to see the accreditation or designation, it seems sensible not to create an extra bureaucratic process that must be gone through. If, on the other hand, they do wish to see the accreditation or designation, then the Bill provides for that. So it is not a question of the public being denied, of the person concerned saying: "Who are you? What is your power? Where is your badge?". That is fair. At present, we do not know what form it will take. It may take the form of a photo identity card, it may take some other form.
All designated officers—community support officers, detention officers, escort officers and investigating officers—will be uniformed and easily identifiable. They will carry their designation and will
be required to show it to the person to whom their actions relate when asked to do so. I believe that that is a fair way of operating.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In view of the first everyday example given by the Minister, will the accredited officer then have to show people the MBE which he received for saving the child from the house?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. I was tempted to say touché, but then I realised that the Bill would require the person rescuing the child from the fire in the house to show the child his accreditation before he rescued him. We have a little difference between us on the issue, but I am being facetious. The Minister has provided a reasonable explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255A not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257:
- Page 34, line 39, leave out from "designation" to "35", in line 40 and insert "by a chief officer of police under section 33 or his accreditation under section"
- Page 35, line 5, at end insert—
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 258:
The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to ensure that, in the event of a chief officer withdrawing a designation from an individual or a firm, there can be no kickback to him for so doing. That seems a sensible precaution.
The same principle applies to Amendment No. 259, which would leave out the question of liability. It would remove the possibility of the employer of an accredited person being found liable for, shall we say, a misaction by one of his employees when that employee was using police powers.
Both amendments are sensible. Although we covered the points raised in the second amendment earlier to some extent, I hope that the Minister will consider them. They do not seem unreasonable additions to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: Throughout today's debate and a good part of our earlier debates, it has been stressed that we are putting the role into the hands of the chief officers. It is their decision whether to go down this road. They will be able to remove accreditation and it will be their decision to do so.
A code of practice will be issued to chief officers covering the exercise of their powers to modify or withdraw designations and accreditations. Where they
Overall, it is probably right that the Bill should not give a right of appeal against removal or modification. That power should lie with the chief officer's discretion. Obviously, it cannot be done unreasonably. There has to be a reason. There will be a code of practice to govern such circumstances.
It may look a little unfair that there is no right of appeal, but the initial designation and accreditation is done not in a prescriptive fashion, but by an enabling power at the police officer's wish and decision and not at that of anybody else. The policing of an area is the responsibility of the chief officer. If they decide to change the rules and remove or modify designation or accreditation, it should be up to them. They will, of course, be subject to other rules, such as the reasonableness test and employment law in other respects, but we should not interfere by putting in a right of appeal as is envisaged.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am fascinated by the Minister's reply. The amendment specifically states that accreditation
My amendment therefore seems to express the Minister's desire, and there seems to be nothing between us. The Minister even seems inadvertently to have agreed my amendment. It is an interesting situation. I think that, with that happy thought, we shall both go away and study the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259 to 261 not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 262:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Removal of restriction on powers conferred on traffic wardens]:
"( ) A Director General may at any time, by notice to a person he has designated as an investigating officer under section 33, modify or withdraw that designation."
Page 35, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The decision by the chief officer to modify or withdraw the designation or accreditation shall not be subject to appeal or judicial review or found any claim for damages at law or otherwise."
10.30 p.m.
"shall not be subject to appeal or judicial review or found any claim for damages at law or otherwise".
Page 35, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of an employee of a Service Authority, conduct by such a member in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 33 shall be taken to be conduct in the course of his employment; and, in the case of a tort, the Service Authority shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page