| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 205:
- Page 135, line 27, at end insert—
(1) This paragraph applies to an accredited person if—
(a) he is an employee of a local authority;
(b) the Secretary of State, on the joint application of the local authority and the chief officer of police, has decided that this paragraph shall apply to accredited persons who are employees of the local authority; and
(c) the accreditation of the accredited person—
(i) specifies that this paragraph applies to him;
(ii) specifies that any or all of paragraphs 1 and 2 are also applied to him; and
(iii) 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 sub-paragraph 2(2); or
(b) accompanying the accredited person to a police station in accordance with an election made in that case under sub-paragraph 2(3).
(4) 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."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes originally tabled this amendment. Unfortunately, she is unavailable and I agreed to move it on her behalf.
We return to the need for accredited persons to be able to use "reasonable force" to enforce 30 minutes of detention. I believe that without this amendment Clause 36 is unworkable.
Let us take the example of an 11 year-old boy—the "little darling". He has been detected by an accredited person vandalising a car. The offence would come under the provision in paragraph 2(5)(b) of Schedule 5:
Like all youngsters, the little darling knows his rights. The accredited person can use no force to detain him. How will the accredited person enforce the detention? Will not the accredited person be bound by a fairly detailed rulebook? Will he not be in a weaker position than the motorist who, in practice, could and would detain the little darling who had been damaging his car until the police arrived? Of course, if a motorist chose to give a lesson to the little darling, he would be committing an assault and would be liable to prosecution.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has modified her original Committee stage amendment. The amendment now provides that an accredited person must be employed by a local authority, and that the local authority and the chief officer must jointly apply to the Secretary of State to have such powers.
In Committee, the Minister had a fundamental objection that the accredited person is not under the direct and specific control of the chief constable. What happens if an accredited person detains me in error? He can do so for 30 minutes, which could cause me to miss a vital business meeting. I would comply, because it would be an offence not to do so and I do not want to have a criminal conviction on my record. That is not a consideration for the little darling, who would just run away. The little darling would not be apprehended, but my business could be seriously damaged by a person who is not under the direct control of the chief constable. I beg to move.
"to have caused . . . the loss of, or any damage to, any other person's property".
6 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is reasonably known that the line of inquiry that underlies the amendment derives from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I hold no brief to speak for the Royal Borough, but it is desirable that the concept should be aired again, as my noble friend Lady Gardner aired it in Committee and as my noble friend Lord Attlee has done now.
The logic of my position on community support officers in London is that a London borough, especially under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, has to take an interest in the quality of life within its boundaries. I shall not go over the ground that my noble friend has gone over, but, as he rightly said, the amendment that was moved in Committee has been tightened up.
In response to amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Peyton in the group starting with Amendment No. 140, the Minister argued that the power should not be increased for such officers. I am moving, mutatis mutandis, to the ones dealt with under this amendment. The Minister's responses to our debates are highly persuasive and convincing, but I thought that in this case his response to my noble friend Lord Peyton was a little less convincing than he habitually is. That is why I support my noble friend Lord Attlee.
I understand that the Metropolitan Police is willing to work in collaboration with a London local authority in planning such a scheme, which suggests
sympathy on the part of the Met, perhaps under the Crime and Disorder Act, for the provisions. The problem is that if such a body set up by a local authority does not work and the Minister's faith that all will be well under the 30-minute rule does not stand up, the whole concept of the borough constabulary will be damaged in the process. There is a considerable amount to play for.Of course, the proposal is directed at low-level crime. The borough constabulary will not be seeking to be confrontational. The Minister has shown considerable sympathy with the desire to suppress such low-level crime and the irritation that it provides to people in central London, just as in his former constituency. In the circumstances, I hope that it will be possible for him to be sympathetic to the general proposition that underlies the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about where the amendment derives from. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made the position clear in Committee. I do not want to repeat the points that I have already made about the differences between community support officers and accredited people, because I shall constantly be repeating myself otherwise, and I shall seek to be persuasive—although I obviously did not do very well yesterday—and constructive. Under the Police Act 1996 it is already open to local authorities, such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, to give a grant to the police authority and attach conditions to it—if the chief officer agrees; the issue cannot be forced. No extra powers are required for that. If the commissioner agrees, there is nothing to stop the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea giving the Metropolitan Police a grant to ring-fence a number of community support officers who, it could be agreed, would be deployed predominantly within that borough.
It is a two-way process. On the one hand we know that the Metropolitan Police wants to use the powers for reasons that vary across London, as we have heard. It is also open to local authorities to seek to purchase on behalf of their residents. That relates to the point made by the noble Baroness that it should not be just rich individuals who can make a phone call to be escorted to their front door; it should be open to all citizens. The process could be highly targeted. The power already exists under the Police Act 1996 for the local authority to give a grant. I realise that grants have to be paid for and the money has to be found. There is nothing for nothing. I also accept that the amendment has been refined somewhat since Committee stage. However, if local authorities want people who are not police officers to be employed to exercise substantially more powers than the accredited officers, it is up to them to convince the chief officers to employ community support officers. In that respect, it is also possible for the local authority to meet the cost of that and to put conditions on it if the chief officer agrees.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he explain what is to stop the little darling
from totally ignoring an accredited person? The accredited person will have no physical way of stopping the little darling running away.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in a way, the answer is "nothing". It comes down to the training and common sense of the accredited officer, just as it comes down to the training and common sense of the community support officer. We are not saying that the proposal is a panacea. I appreciate the way in which the noble Earl has put the case. On an individual basis it might work, but a tribe of the noble Earl's little darlings might be a different bag of chips altogether and it might not be possible to take action. However, the community support officers and accredited safety officers will provide more eyes and ears on the street and better intelligence, so a plan can be made to do something about persistent problems. There is no easy answer for isolated cases, but if the problem is persistent, the extra eyes and ears and the uniformed presence on the street make it possible to plan to do something about it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page