COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 22 July 2002)

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. As your Lordships will be aware, one of the key aims of the police reform programme is to free police officers from the bureaucratic burdens that keep them in the police station, in order to get them back onto the streets, fighting crime and providing a visible presence that reassures communities.

Since the publication of the Bill, several police forces have been in touch with us about their plans to contract out custody services to private providers and told us that it would help to maximise the effectiveness of such plans if private providers could make use of the various custody-related powers that we are aiming to open up to civilians through the Bill.

As an illustration of the potential benefits to the police, Cheshire Constabulary has suggested that contracting out escort duties relating to custody could save 27,000 police hours per annum, or the equivalent of 15 officers released to frontline operational duties. Further significant savings would be available from contracting out detention duties within custody suites. Cleveland Police is looking to free 23 police officers through a similar scheme.

There are clearly potential benefits from civilianisation in improving efficiency, saving resources and freeing police officers for other duties. I see no reason why, with suitable safeguards in place, 83 some of the powers open to police authority-employed, designated persons should not also be available where civilians are employed by a private provider.

The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 16 sets out the framework of powers for contracted-out staff. That third category of empowered civilian staff will be employees of companies contracted to provide detention and/or escort services to the police authority. Such a person would be able to apply to the chief constable for designation as either a detention officer or an escort officer, or both. Before granting designation, the chief officer would have to be satisfied that the person was suitable to exercise the relevant powers, capable of carrying out the associated functions and appropriately trained—as is the case for designated civilians employed by the police authority. Additionally, the chief officer must be satisfied that the contractor is a suitable person to supervise the designated person.

As part of the designation process, the chief officer would be able to endow the contracted person with appropriate powers. The relevant sets of powers would be those currently described in those parts of Schedule 4 that cover detention officers and escort officers. The chief officer could choose freely from those lists of powers in respect of each individual designation, and each power would come with the capacity to use reasonable force, where such a capacity was available to a constable using the same power. Where a designated person ceased to be an employee of the relevant employer, or the contractual arrangement between the employer and the police authority was terminated, the designation would lapse.

Much of the supporting infrastructure of provisions already envisaged for police authority-designated and accredited persons will also be applied to contracted-out persons: for example, the requirement to wear uniform; the offences of assaulting, obstructing or impersonating a designated officer; the obligation on contracted-out staff to have due regard to the relevant provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice; and the provision for the chief officer to modify or withdraw the designation at any time.

In addition, the new clause includes provision for dealing with complaints or allegations of misconduct by contracted-out staff who are exercising police powers. Designated persons will work closely with the police—in the custody suite, for example—and will be recognised by many as part of the police service as they carry out what are traditionally police functions. We intend that when designated workers provide services to the police, complaints about them or allegations of misconduct should be handled in a manner which is as close as possible to the procedures followed when police officers and employees of the police authority are involved.

Regulations under the new clause will ensure that there is one system for dealing with complaints involving police officers and designated persons. We want to avoid a member of the public having to pursue 84 several complaints through different avenues when they arise from a single incident involving both a police officer and a designated person. Because contracted-out staff have different employers, we cannot simply slot designated persons into the existing police complaints provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations under subsection (9) of the new clause to ensure that there is a system for dealing with misconduct that, as near as is practical, mirrors the procedure applicable to regular police officers. This will include bringing them within the remit of the independent police complaints commission. Subsection (10) of the new clause provides that those regulations may apply any provision of Part 2 with respect to complaints against the police to complaints against persons designated under this clause.

Part of the chief officer's responsibility in determining the fitness of the relevant employer would be to ensure that he has satisfactory arrangements in place to deal with disciplinary issues that might arise. Of course, the chief officer will be able to remove a person's designation if, following an investigation, either he or the IPCC is not satisfied with the person's behaviour or the way that the employer has dealt with any misconduct.

The other amendments in this group are largely consequential upon the new clause.