Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Simon: My Lords, it is appropriate that I declare my close association with the police, albeit that that association is almost exclusively confined to the traffic police.
The Bill creates a single organisation that should have as its raison d'être the capability of fighting serious and organised crime. It is to be supported. However, there are those who believe that in the best interests of the public and the police it should have been presented in two separate Bills. Nevertheless, while I support the Bill in general terms, there are some aspects that need further attention during its passage through your Lordships' House. I acknowledge the detailed briefing that I received from an officer in the Police Federation of England and Wales and thank him for it.
It seems that functional clarity is missing about which crimes SOCA will deal with and where police responsibility lies. The result is that cross-border activity between SOCA and police forces is likely to be confusing and mismanaged. Further, unless clear understandings are agreed, SOCA runs the risk of demarcating itself from the wider police service. There is concern as to the funding commitment for SOCA. While I am sure promises have been made, detail is currently missing.
Your Lordships will have read in the newspapers about the concern that too much power will be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State to control and direct, with the result that SOCA will be politically controlled and go outside the traditional fabric of policing. I feel that the new agency should be politically accountable, like any police force, but not politically controlled, as mentioned by other noble Lords.
As we have heard, the Police Federation has written to its members, currently on secondment to the National Crime Squad, advising them not to take up an offer of direct employment with their present organisation, which would lead to automatic transfer to SOCA where they would cease to be police officers thereby losing their status as Officers of the Crown.
However, the new incumbent of the post of director general of SOCAwho used to hold the rank of Chief Constablewill be given the authority to designate the powers of a constable to his employees on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis. If one follows this through, it means that an official appointed by a politician will decide who exercises the powers of a constable over their fellow citizens. Giving powers of a constable to those who do not hold the office of constable severs the link between office and Crown. It is that crucial link that ensures that police officers act impartially, independently and outside political control. Police
14 Mar 2005 : Column 1172
officers are accountable for their actions both on and off duty but will SOCA employees given the powers of a constable uphold these values? I wonder.
The potential pick and mix powers which can be used to suit the occasion or event of the day might lead to concerns about undermining the office of constable. There is, also, the potential for interaction between SOCA officers and operational police colleagues leading to a muddle, confusion and communication problems which will be of benefit only to the criminal.
Community support officers, who are supposed to be the eyes-and-ears, visible but non-confrontational street presence in support of the police, are having more powers thrust on them by the Bill. This is the third helping of powers piled on their plate since their introduction two years ago. The additional powers proposed by the Bill are without any evidence as to the value of the exercise of their existing powers. I would like to mention my concern that Highways Agency Traffic OfficersHATOswhile welcome for the job they were initially employed to carry out in support of the police, represent a similar threat in the "auctioning off" process of police work.
It is now time to address the position of custody sergeants being civilianised, which has come up regularly in the debate. Perhaps it would be best to remind your Lordships that a police officer, of whatever rank, is a sworn constable and, as such, one constable can correct or give advice to another constable irrespective of rank.
A custody sergeant has to determine whether an arrested person should be detained or go free, making quasi-judicial decisions dictating the individual's liberty. Only police officers, in no less than the substantive rank of sergeant, have the authority and accountability to carry out that role. That is what the law currently says. In that role they provide careful leadership and guidance to operational colleagues and are wholly responsible for the well-being of detained persons.
Those officers have considerable experience which, despite assurances given in the other place, cannot be imparted simply by training a civilian. And if retired police officers are to perform the role of custody sergeant, where is the recruiting to come from when they, too, finally retire? The question that should be asked is not, could the role be civilianised, but should it? There is simply no benefit on either economic or operational grounds for this proposal.
It seems as if most chief constables, including the newly appointed chief executive of Centrex, himself an ex-chief constable of a large forceMerseysideare uncomfortable at this proposal. Professor Michael Zander QC, the expert on police and criminal evidence issues, has expressed great reservations. He states:
"To entrust the role to civilians would be to downgrade its importance. It would send a message to the force generally that the significance of the role was reduced. That would be a deplorable development".
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Mackenzie and the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, bringing station sergeants to your Lordships'
14 Mar 2005 : Column 1173
attention. These were very well respected officers, respected by those both below and well above their officer status. I remember the officer who occupied that rank when I did my first advanced traffic course. I support the proposal of reintroducing the rank.
Perhaps your Lordships would permit me to mention three new measures for consideration. First, a measure to authorise a constable to secure the hands of an arrested person by handcuffing, until such time as the constable has determined that the arrested person will not present a danger to himself or others, or seek to escape from lawful custody. Secondly, a measure to ensure that CSO and other support staff uniforms are distinctly different to police uniforms, so that a member of the public would not be under a misapprehension that a CSO or other was a police officer. Thirdly, a measure to extend to scope of those persons who may be represented by the Police Federation to other persons employed in the police service as the Secretary of State may determine, subject to the agreement of the Police Federation.
I have said enough. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, what a wonderful Bill! It reminds me of almost my first Christmas stocking, a rather darned, grey one, which had things in that you fiddled around with in the dark. I found that I did not like Brazil nuts, or oranges really, although they were rare.
I shall speak today about persecution; persecution and prejudice; the persecution of those in medical research and the persecution of those who hold their religion dear. I must be careful after the warning given by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, about lawyers and judges. I shall prefix my speech with the words, "without prejudice", should I fail to cause harm. The words, "without prejudice" do not carry any meaning unless they are written at the top of a letter that you write. So I will leave the medical side alone. I declare an interest as president of the Anglo-Swiss Society. I can tell your Lordships that Swiss companies are no longer investing in the United Kingdom because of fear, and they may well withdraw. That is enough of that, so I shall turn to religion.
I shall go back to two great debates that were moved by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, one in October 1999, and the other in April 2003. On that day in 2003, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth was in charge of Prayers, and he used that classic prayer that says, "setting aside all private interests, prejudices and partial affections". I am going to set aside the first two, but I do have a partial affection for religion. Over my life, I have traded insults, sometimes traded punches, I have been in trade, and I have always held that religion is effectively the word.
"Abstract nouns in 'io' call Feminina one and all Masculin can only be things that you can touch or see".
But you cannot actually touch or see religion; it is all around. I remember almost crying as a small boy when I told my mother that I could not see God, and I asked what was wrong with my eyes. Then later I learnt; was God masculine, feminine or neuter? When your Lordships listen to the right reverend Prelates, they have got it wrong, because they are ambidextrous. Some of them say, "Our Father, who art in Heaven", and others say, "Our Father, which art in Heaven". They also mix up, "on Earth" and, "in Earth". I was always told that this was because of the original Latin, that it was neuter; and therefore I assumed that God was neuter, but he might be equally friendly to both male and female.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |