| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton : My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
This new clause will allow the British Transport Police to set up a railway safety accreditation scheme. The scheme will be closely modelled on our proposals for community safety accreditation schemes. It will allow the British Transport Police to benefit from the provisions in the Bill concerning community safety accreditation schemes. The clause creates two additional powers specific to the problems of safety on or near railways available to be conferred on persons accredited under a railway safety accreditation scheme. They are the powers to issue on-the-spot fixed penalty notices for the offences of trespassing on a railway and throwing stones at trains.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved an amendment designed to bring the British Transport Police within the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill. I trust that my noble friend will welcome
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police;
(b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;
(d) the British Transport Police Committee;
(e) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities;
(f) the Mayor of London; and
(g) such other persons as he thinks fit.
(10) In this section -"local authorities" means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London; and"policed premises" has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix)."
29Clause 39, page 38, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—
"(1) Section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton : My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. The amendment covers the changes made in another place to the powers available to designated and accredited persons under Schedules 4 and 5. It also further tweaks the powers available to traffic wardens.
The last time the Bill was in this House, there was extensive consideration of the enforcement powers that we proposed to extend to community support officers and accredited community safety officers. That consideration led, ultimately, to the removal by your Lordships' House of the powers of detention in Schedules 4 and 5. We debated long and hard the issues concerning the detention powers that would be exercised by community support officers—police authority employees—with the right to use reasonable force and by the wider police family—accredited organisations—without the use of reasonable force.
The issue is how we give such people's enforcement powers appropriate teeth. Without the ability to identify the suspected offender, it will be difficult to enforce, say, a fixed penalty notice or to gather evidence for an anti-social behaviour order. What offender will identify himself to a CSO if he knows that failure to do so is unlikely to lead to further action? It is important to give those who will deal with even seemingly low-level offences the ability to identify offenders. The Met believes that it is essential to the effectiveness of CSOs.
We accept that there is concern about making available a power to detain suspects to those who are not sworn constables. We weighed those concerns, expressed in both Houses, against the need for CSOs and accredited individuals to be effective. Consequently, in another place we restored to the Bill the power for accredited persons to request the name and address of someone who commits an offence. That was part of the power of detention that was lost from Schedule 5. As a result of those concerns, we have not sought to restore the power of detention to accredited individuals.
It remains the case that failure to give a true name and address will be an offence that could be handled by the police. Noble Lords opposite accept that accredited persons should have powers to issue fixed penalty notices for dog fouling and dropping litter. If an accredited person is to issue such a notice, he must be able to require the offending dog owner or litter lout to give his name and address. We cannot sensibly confer one power without the other. It is important that CSOs have the ability to detain an offender until the arrival of a constable. The Metropolitan Police, in particular, have made it clear to us that they see the power of detention to be an essential part of the CSO scheme in London. We have therefore reintroduced the detention power for CSOs.
At the same time, the Government are keen to allay any remaining concerns about conferring the power of detention on non-police officers. We have therefore set on record our commitment to pilot the power before it is made available to all forces. Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has agreed to report on the evaluation of the pilots, and a copy of his report will be laid before Parliament. The pilots will run for two years in up to six forces, including the Met. I am confident that the detention power is appropriate, proportionate and workable, and the Met are confident that it is workable and necessary. The report of the pilots will, I anticipate, bear those views out.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 29, 73, 109 and 142. At present, only the police have a general power to stop vehicles and only the police and traffic wardens have a power to direct traffic. That means that police officers must be employed to stop vehicles even though their only function is to flag vehicles down. The amendments will free up police officers to concentrate on their core activities.
The Bill already removes restrictions on traffic wardens' power to stop. As traffic wardens already have a power to direct traffic, they will therefore now be able to undertake escorting duties. The amendments make it clear that their power to stop includes a power to stop vehicles for tests of their roadworthiness and compliance with construction and use regulations. That will benefit the other agencies and hauliers, as they will have a more guaranteed service. The amendments will also give community support officers and accredited persons a limited power to stop vehicles and direct traffic. The power will be solely for the same escorting and testing purposes.
The amendments will allow for local authority parking attendants to be given the power to stop traffic for those specific purposes. It would not be necessary to confer on such local authority traffic personnel any of the other powers that may or may not be conferred on other accredited persons within the force area. They can be accredited and trained for the use of the power to stop traffic only. The amendments will free up police time for crime reduction, facilitate the enforcement of other legislation, promote road safety and provide a better service to other interests. I commend them to the House.
I confess to being somewhat surprised by the opposition from the Liberal Democrat Benches to Amendment No. 142. When it was debated on Report in another place, along with the parallel amendment to Schedule 4, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench home affairs spokesman, the honourable Member for Lewes, Mr Norman Baker, said:
The other amendments in the group tidy up the powers of investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendment Nos. 140A and 142A, to which I shall speak.
We opposed this aspect of the Bill on Report. Despite our efforts in the House of Commons, the issue remains unresolved. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has indicated that she is unable to support us on the amendment. However, I note that she still has concerns about the issue.
Plans for accredited officers employed by a range of organisations are wrong in principle and practice. The public may welcome having extra eyes on policing matters, but the scheme is bound to cause muddle in practice. There is also a serious concern that there is no independent oversight of complaints against such officers. It is of paramount importance that anybody employed by the police or supporting the police should be subject to an independent complaints procedure, just like the police themselves.
The amendment would improve the Bill. We do not oppose the proposals to have community support officers. That was shown in the quotation that the Minister used. We suggested such a scheme in our manifesto and have always supported the principle. Almost all research points to the fact that fear of crime is greater than crime itself. Society is entitled to protection, and there must be no ambiguity. That would be more meaningful if the vision were based on simplicity, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. We all recognise that crime is not simply a matter for the police. All of us are involved, and we are entitled to every available help to tackle it.
The starting point of my argument is that our police are probably the best in the world and that we continue to train them to be even better. Training is an essential element. The police have far-reaching powers that could oppress citizens if wrongly used. Yet we will have community support officers with substantial powers but little training.
Any arrangement should be simple and effective. It should encompass all officers who are not police officers, and it should include traffic wardens. In the House of Commons, the Minister said that we might get to that position in the long run. Surely, we should get it right in the first place. The danger of the
The question uppermost in my mind is that of accountability, especially of accredited officers who are not even employed by a public authority. How do we measure efficiency and effectiveness—the Government's key indicators—if the public is not sure what powers they have? The questions will arise as to who employs whom and where one lodges a complaint, if need be.
We attempted to ensure that CSOs, as well as being employed by the police, could also be employed by local authorities. Therein lies the democratic accountability which is lacking in the Government's proposals. It would also help to cement the Government's initiative on crime and disorder partnerships. This would be welcomed by such partnerships. That would be a good way to proceed since crime and disorder partnerships form an essential element of the crime reduction programme.
The emphasis we place has three main ingredients: they are simpler, they are understandable and they are closer to the community. Let us look at the powers of traffic wardens. Those have been exercised locally. If they apply to traffic wardens, surely the analogy with CSOs is important. Local authorities need a clear role in the kinds of powers that they wish to give to CSOs. We do not dispute that CSOs will have to be approved by the local chief constable and that they would have to be properly trained. Thus police involvement is not ruled out.
Perhaps I may turn to accredited officers, which is where the problem starts. There is a whole range of bodies with police forces. Does that mean that companies both good and not so good could have employees with police powers? The Government have introduced amendments to include the fragmented railway industry. Does not that sound like the part privatisation of the police? That is for the Government to defend. The question I must pose is that those who employ accredited officers will wish to have them act in the interests of their companies. Where does the general public fit in?
We will have private companies undertaking public functions without being subject to the independent Police Complaints Commission, which we all approved in the Bill. The IPCA will deal with police officers and CSOs, but it will have no locus on accredited officers employed by the private sector. That must be a recipe for disaster. It is no good for the Government to try to convince us that these are low-level police powers. We do not disagree, but will the general public understand it?
So there is the scenario: members of the public being confronted by a private sector employee with some police powers. That is unlikely to build the confidence that has stood the test of our policing methods. People are bound to resist enforcement measures which they do not see as coming from a police officer. We do not
What we are doing here is giving private sector employees police powers. That is at the heart of our objections. The Government have not thought through this proposal and I trust that, even at this late stage, the Minister will see fit to amend it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the points put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have been raised and debated fully in the course of the passage of the Bill both through this House and the other place. I understand that what lies at the heart of the noble Lord's objections is the question of accountability and being able to hold those acquiring police powers to account. I wish to make it clear, as it has been made clear on a number of occasions, that before designating or accrediting any person, a chief officer must be satisfied that he is suitable to carry out the functions in respect of which he has been designated or accredited. He must be capable of exercising effectively the powers conferred on him and he must have been adequately trained. Furthermore, a chief officer may modify or withdraw a designation or accreditation at any time.
CSOs will be accountable in the same way as police officers. In particular, they will be under the direction and control of the chief officer and subject to the new independent police complaints system when it comes into force. Any use of these powers by accredited persons will be subject to a protocol agreed between the chief officer and the employer—for example, a local authority or vehicle inspectorate—that the powers will be used only in strictly controlled circumstances. Finally, it will be a criminal offence to impersonate a designated or accredited person.
I know that that does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would wish, but it provides levels both of protection and accountability. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to
(2) In subsection (2)(c) (powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) which may be conferred on traffic wardens), after sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
"(ia) section 67(3) (which relates to the power of a constable in uniform to stop vehicles for testing);".
(3) In subsection (3)"
"The Government amendments seem eminently sensible. I have no problem with them. I am happy to support them".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/02; col. 816.]
7.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page