| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 30:
- After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as is well known, it is an offence to impersonate a police officer. The Bill makes it an offence to impersonate an accredited person or a designated person. It also increases the power of a traffic warden to stop individual vehicles, but it will not be an offence to impersonate a traffic warden. My amendment seeks to correct that anomaly.
In his rather weak reply on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the provisions were not previously thought necessary and that he had received no representations from ACPO. I am sure that that is correct, but the provisions were unnecessary until the powers of traffic wardens were increased. The noble Lord also said:
The noble Lord also claimed on Report that it was necessary to consult "interested parties". I agree. When the Government decided to increase the powers of traffic wardens, it is a little unfortunate that they did not find it necessary to consult the relevant trade associations whose members will be affected. In any case, my suggested new offence is consequential on the increased powers of traffic wardens.
The noble Lord identified drafting errors in the amendment that I put forward on Report. I have, therefore, redrafted it. My proposed new clause seeks to add reference to "traffic wardens" to Section 90 of the 1996 Act—the section that makes it an offence to impersonate a police officer. I hope that the noble Lord has reconsidered the position since the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has made a very convincing case for his amendment. Clearly, there is an unforeseen gap in the law, and one that could be dangerously exploited by those with criminal inclinations. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the amendment on which the noble Earl has taken much expert, first-class advice. Indeed, he has obviously taken a great deal of care in an effort to get the amendment into an acceptable form.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was trying to be helpful to the noble Earl on Report. I thought that I was quite kind in my comments. I am not sure that I gave a weak response; indeed, I thought it fairly robust under the circumstances. I am unable directly to support the noble Earl's amendment today. However, I can put on the record the fact that I have some sympathy with the intention behind it. I do not envisage a great number of people queuing up to impersonate traffic wardens, but I recognise that the position could cause problems in certain circumstances.
Essentially, the amendment would put traffic wardens in exactly the same position as police officers, special constables and "designated or accredited persons". There is undoubtedly some logic in that proposal. It would also address one of the arguments advanced in the past against extending to traffic wardens the unrestricted power to stop vehicles, as the Bill does; namely, the risk of facilitating robbery and hijacking if vehicles have to stop for a wider range of people.
How far the latter is a valid concern is not entirely clear. The impersonation of a traffic warden has not previously been thought to merit a specific offence. So far, there has been no pressure for it to be made one, either formally from ACPO or from traffic warden
Against that background, we believe that the noble Earl's proposal merits some further thought and consultation, which we have not had time to accomplish between the Report stage and Third Reading. Given the number of noble Lords in the Chamber today, I suspect that the noble Earl might press the amendment successfully if he were really building up a head of steam behind it. However, I give the noble Earl the following undertaking. If he declines to press his amendment at this stage, we will agree to take forward his proposition, make a decision on whether a new provision is necessary, and decide if and how it should be introduced.
I hope that the noble Earl understands that I cannot at this time offer him any undertaking that the Government will table an amendment in another place. The consultations and discussions that we would need to have with the many interests concerned would not enable us to do that in the time frame permitted. To one extent, the Bill is perhaps somewhat distant from creating a specific criminal offence of impersonating a traffic warden.
We shall certainly undertake to consult with the Association of Chief Police Officers and, I suspect, the representatives of traffic wardens. No doubt their union will want to say something about the idea as well. We shall do that as quickly as possible. We do not necessarily see this Bill as a vehicle for an amendment, but we think that the noble Earl's proposition merits further serious consideration.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I assure him that from these Benches we generally support what he said. Carjacking is increasingly prevalent. The Government will not have received any representations from ACPO or from the traffic wardens' trade unions on the power to stop vehicles because it is not a power that traffic wardens have enjoyed so far. On the assumption that they are going to have the power, it would be as well if the two organisations and the trade associations were consulted.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have supported my amendment. On the one hand I am grateful for the Minister's comments; on the other hand I am slightly disappointed that he has not snapped the amendment up. I am still a little unclear as to why it was necessary for the Bill to make it an offence to impersonate an accredited or designated person but not a traffic warden. However, if I pursued the amendment any further today, I should make myself extremely unpopular with my noble friends on the Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Nationality requirements applicable to police officers etc]:
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 31:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with two amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who have both expressed concern about the apparently unqualified nature of the clause. We have pressed the Minister on the issue on a number of occasions. He has done his best to explain the present situation and what the clause means. However, although I have listened with great care and read his remarks, I am still not certain what the clause means.
In casting around for an answer to that problem, I came fortuitously across the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is before the other place. It is a Bill and not yet an Act of Parliament, so its contents are not certain. Clause 1 of that Bill contains some interesting references. For the ease of all concerned, I shall read from the interpretation—if I can use that word—in the Explanatory Notes to that Bill. This is a way of lifting us out of our difficulty. The Explanatory Notes on Clause 1 say:
In view of the open nature of Clause 68, it would be prudent to insert the provisions of Clause 1 of that Bill into this Bill. Unfortunately, as that Bill is not yet an Act, its provisions cannot be inserted into this Bill. However, I had very good advice from the Public Bill Office, who said that I could insert a reference to the appropriate provisions of the 1981 Act, because if the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is passed, the amendments that it makes to those provisions will become the substantive provisions of the schedule to that Act and will therefore apply. That seems to meet the requirement for qualification for naturalisation to this country. It would not be tolerable to have a qualification for a person to apply to be a member of the police force that was less rigorous than the qualification that would apply to a person seeking naturalisation. It would be appropriate for the qualifications to be in parallel. My amendment would give that effect to
"IMPERSONATION OF A TRAFFIC WARDEN
(1) Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (impersonation, etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for "or special constable" there is substituted ", special constable, or traffic warden"; and
(b) for "or constable" there is substituted ", constable or traffic warden".
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) after "constable" there is inserted "or traffic warden";
(b) after "police uniform" there is inserted "or traffic warden uniform"; and
(c) after "police force" there is inserted "or of a traffic warden".
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) for "or special constable" there is substituted ", special constable, or traffic warden"; and
(b) after "police uniform" there is inserted "or traffic warden uniform".
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after "article of police uniform" there is inserted "or traffic warden uniform"; and for "or special constables" there is substituted ", special constables or traffic wardens"; and
(b) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
"(c) "traffic warden" means a traffic warden appointed by a police authority.""
"Moreover, if impersonation facilitates the commission of an offence, it would be the substantive offence that is most significant".—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 874.]
Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right. However, if the police detect a known criminal lying in wait to ambush a commercial vehicle carrying a
valuable load, and he is wearing a traffic warden's uniform in order to carry out the crime, no offence will have been committed—apart from a conspiracy, which would be very hard to prove. I believe that the lack of an offence in this respect will severely limit the ability of the police to investigate a possible serious offence.
Page 62, line 34, after "birth" insert "but subject to the requirements for naturalisation under Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (requirements for naturalisation)"
"Subsection (1) adds to Schedule 1 of the BNA 1981"—
the British Nationality Act, to which my amendment refers—
"a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom.
Subsection (2) enables provision to be made by regulations for determining whether a person has sufficient knowledge of a language and whether a person has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom for the purpose of an application for naturalisation".
The reason for the reference to "a language" is that Gaelic and Welsh are included as appropriate languages. The Explanatory Notes go on:
"By subsection (3) the regulations may make provision about how those requirements of sufficient knowledge of language and about life in the United Kingdom are met (for example, by reference to a specified qualification or attendance on a specified course)".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page