| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: I was rather surprised that the noble Lord did not mention that in its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no comment whatever on the order-making power contained in the clause, other than to confirm that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate. I rest my case.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I had to leave the Minister something to say! He is quite right, but that does not mean that one has to accept or agree with the report. I hear what he said and I shall not oppose the Question whether clause stand part.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Code of practice relating to chief officers' powers under Chapter 1]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 266 and 267:
- Page 36, line 26, after "police" insert "and by Directors General".
- Page 36, line 31, after "police" insert "or a Director General".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 39, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Bradshaw: I believe that this matter returns to the discussions we had about Part 1 of the Bill. We received assurances from the Minister that he will come back to us on that point. But there are issues in the clause we do not like. We want there to be a requirement to consult the police authorities which will have community support officers, and in future we want that to be a permissive power. I shall not go on at length about that at this time of night, but we wish formally to oppose Clause 39 because we believe that it will be subject to amendment at a later stage.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hope that at this hour of the evening I shall not be held to be unduly suspiciously minded in asking the Minister what is behind the clause. Rightly, he has told us on many occasions during the course of debate today that the employment, for example, of the community support officers will be completely under the control and in the hands of the chief officer of police of the area concerned. Then we find that Clause 39 suddenly seems to give a great deal of power back to the centre. It states that:
- "The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice about the exercise and performance by chief officers of police of their powers and duties under this Chapter",
- "shall have regard to the code".
I ask the Minister whether that means that the Secretary of State may, if he wishes, issue a code of practice which states that the chief officer of police shall exercise his powers and duties under this chapter by the employment, for example, of community policing. We were told that it is clear that it is to be left to the local chief officers and local areas to decide whether that is suitable for their purposes. Yet it seems to me that the clause, as it stands, gives powers to the Secretary of State to make orders which could direct chief officers to employ such people when they may not necessarily wish to do so.
As I said, I am probably being unduly suspicious. But I have a slightly suspicious mind when it comes to this Government appearing, on the one hand, to convey power to other people but, in fact, bringing more and more power into the centre.
Lord Elton: I associate myself with those remarks, which chime very closely with what I said during
debate on an earlier amendment about exercising power from the centre by means of direction. This is being done by means of guidance. It is the same wolf in a different sheep's clothing.
Lord Tope: In our earlier debates on parts of the Bill the Minister was emollient—I believe that that was the word often used—about consultation with the APA and ACPO. Should this clause be agreed to, and should the Secretary of State be empowered to issue a code of practice, there is nothing in the clause that requires him to consult in any way the APA or ACPO. Can the Minister show that he is still emollient and assure us that, if the clause remains, he will return with a requirement that the Secretary of State will consult the ACPO and the APA before issuing the code of practice?
Lord Rooker: I am a naturally suspicious person, but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the code of practice would not allow the Secretary of State in effect to order chief officers to operate the community support officers scheme. That would be contrary to provisions on the face of the Bill in previous clauses. The code of practice, which I referred to in passing on one or two other amendments, cannot be used to do that. It contains, for example, advice on protective clothing and equipment and on making a criminal record check before persons are designated. That is the meat of the code of practice. Its purpose is not to undermine or overturn what is in the earlier part of the Bill. The criteria to satisfy the test in Clauses 33 and 35 concern the capability of persons to carry out certain functions and standards of training.
The purpose of the code is to make the scheme operational, not to make the whole country the same. I suppose that the code will have to state that the badge for accredited officers must be of a certain size and colour. The purpose of the code is not to reverse fundamentally what we have discussed.
I have no problem with consultation, and shall take that away for consideration. It seems to me inconceivable that my right honourable friend would issue a code of practice without consulting with ACPO or the police authorities. However, we shall take that away for consideration.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I thank the Minister for giving me the assurance that he did on the way in which the code of practice will operate. I accept his account of what he says he will do. I have nothing further to add on the clause.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Offences against designated and accredited persons etc.]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 268:
- Page 36, line 33, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We were fascinated by this part of the law. I can well understand that if one assaults an accredited person, one is committing an offence.
However, one wonders why one needs to create yet another offence of assault. My legal eagles tell me that there is a well- established criminal law against assault enacted in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I have difficulty in understanding why that would not apply if someone committed an assault against an accredited person. This is a neat, probing amendment to see why we need to have yet another specific assault law when assault is already well covered. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am not sure that this issue is covered. I believe that we need this part of Clause 40 and it would be a mistake to remove it. Everyone acting in an official capacity within the police service should be able to do so without fear for their own safety. Where they are exercising police powers, however high or low such powers may be, they are right to have a reasonable expectation that an attack on them would be treated with the same seriousness as an attack on a police officer. That is why we do not want to accept Amendment No. 268. It follows, therefore, that this clause is an important part of the Bill.
Aside from the offence of assaulting designated or accredited persons, the clause sets out various other offences relating to obstructing or impersonating such persons. That is not an unimportant point. There will be more uniformed people on the streets of this country at community level. It is important that people with other purposes in mind do not abuse that. We must ensure that impersonating designated or accredited persons is an offence. That parallels the provisions for assaulting, obstructing or impersonating police officers contained in Sections 89 and 90 of the Police Act 1996. Not only should there be protection for support staff; there must be appropriate penalties where others seek to deceive by suggesting that they are designated or accredited persons. There is also an important safeguard for the public in that it is also an offence for a designated or accredited person to make any statement or to act in any way that falsely suggests that he has powers over and above those that he has. That itself is not unimportant, given that we have said throughout that chief officers have a menu from which to choose.
Chief officers will choose which powers accredited persons and community support officers will operate. They will vary in different areas. It would be wrong and an offence for accredited and designated persons who feel that they should have powers not given them by the chief constable to claim that they have those powers. I ask the noble Lord to think twice before pressing his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister seems to assume that the amendment relates to Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. In fact, Amendment No. 268 simply deals with assaults on accredited persons. I am surprised if we are not creating specific offences to deal with assaults—as earlier police Acts have done in respect of police officers. The reason is almost certainly that each time that was done, it raised the level of penalty. In light of the Minister's explanation, which I shall study, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page