HC Deb 15 May 1984 vol 60 c284

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 26, line 34, leave out 'None' and insert `Subject to section 35(2) below, none'.

No. 88, in page 26, line 34, leave out second 'of' and insert `for the time being exercisable by'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I beg to move amendment No. 317, in page 26, line 39, leave out from 'custody officer' to end of line 41.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 316, in page 26, line 39, at end insert 'Save in case of an emergency'. No. 318, in page 26, line 41, at end add— '(5) An officer performing the duties of a custody officer shall not be required to perform any other duties save those that are directly related to the functions of a custody officer, save in case of an emergency.'.

Mr. Griffiths

Again, this issue was discussed at some length in Committee, and so I shall not detain the House. The problem is that we will the end but we do not will sufficient means. I want the custody officer to become a success. I believe that he will be not only the keeper of the station, but the guardian of civil liberties. It is essential that he should be able to do his job properly. However, he cannot do so if he does not have the appropriate rank. I am sure that he cannot do it properly if he is overburdened with duties that will require him to leave the task of custody officer in order to do other things.

Therefore, save in case of emergency, I suggest that the police officer required to act as the custody officer should have no other duties and should generally hold the rank of sergeant. My concern is eminently practical. I ask the Government to give the matter further thought, because, with great respect, they are badly advised.

Mr. Hurd

We went over this matter in Committee. I agree with that the custody officer should generally hold the rank of sergeant, but the question is how closely one pins that down. It is a matter of how much operational flexibility the police have. For the reasons that I gave in Committee—and we have reconsidered the issue since then—it would be a mistake to pin the police down as tightly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) wishes. I entirely agree about the importance of the custody officer. He has a key role to play in making a success of the new provisions for detention. I entirely accept that, and that is not in question. The question is whether one needs to define his rank and the possibility of his doing other duties so closely as to deprive chief officers and others concerned of the opportunities for flexibility, which is particularly important in rural areas.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to