Clause 36 - Community safety accreditation schemes
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
I apologise for being marginally late this morning. I was accompanying a school in my constituency on a walking bus, which arrived on time. Unfortunately, the train from Lewes to London did not, hence my slight delay.
It would help the Committee if I were to set out briefly our vision for policing in so far as it affects accredited officers, who are the subject of the clause and the amendment. My colleagues and I have said on several occasions that we would like a system that is as simple and accountable as possible. One of our concerns is that the arrangements that the Government would like to put in place would lead to myriad bodies with unclear responsibilities and differing powers. The public would not know where they stood.
We are keen to have a two-tier system. One tier would consist of properly trained full-time—and part-time, if necessary—police officers and specials. The second would consist of everyone else, and would include CSOs, accredited community safety officers and traffic wardens, all of whom would have the same powers. That would have the benefit of simplicity and accountability. However, that is not what is proposed in the Bill. Through the amendment, we are trying to make the best of a bad job. I hope that the Minister does not think that it is unduly impolite to put it in those terms, but that is how we think of it.
Amendment No. 144 seeks to increase accountability. I will not speak for long on the subject because we discussed it when we considered the accountability of CSOs. In some respects, accredited officers are one stage further removed in the accountability process than CSOs proper. It seems from the Bill that virtually anyone can accredit officers to do virtually anything in any area. Although that is
a slight exaggeration, there is considerably more flexibility in this scheme than is afforded to the arrangements for CSOs in previous clauses.
The Government propose that accredited officers will be employable by the private sector and will operate in the interests of the private sector in many ways. We see that in more detail in Amendment No. 12, in the next group, which increases the need for accountability and approval by the democratically accountable police authority. That is why amendment 144 seeks to require the chief of police to obtain approval from the police authority rather than simply consulting it. Otherwise, the following scenario is possible. A group of people, a private company that may be controversial in some respects, may wish to have accredited officers. The chief of police may agree and even though the police authority may be wholly opposed, it could not do very much about it.
As the Minister said last week—and I agree—any chief officer would be foolish to go down that road against the clear wishes of the police authority. Nevertheless, the Bill as drafted would allow that to happen. It is better to prevent errors and problems than trying to correct them subsequently—perhaps by getting rid of chief officers using the wide powers that the Minister is giving himself. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to that argument.
I welcome Government Amendment No. 214, which increases consultation. It seems to go further than our amendment No. 145, so I have no problem with it. Amendment No. 146 seeks a review period after 12 months. The Government propose to embark on a new form of policing that is a radical departure. It involves the private sector far more than previously and involves a new tier of officers or wardens, or whatever the public comes to call them. It also involves a range of different and new powers for people who did not have them before. Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to have a requirement to stop and take stock after 12 months, and see whether the scheme is working.
We should see whether the scheme has delivered a safer environment. Do people feel better on the streets? Has it dealt with the problems of vandalism and disturbance that we all want to see tackled? Or, has it led to a withdrawal of police in favour of second tier officers, or whatever the official term will turn out to be? Has it led to problems for those people in their interface with the public? Has it led to the police being called to deal with more argy-bargy between accredited officers and members of the public? In other words, has it exacerbated the situation that it is meant to deal with?
The latter is a pessimistic scenario, and the optimistic one may turn out to be true—doubtless that is what the Minister will argue. Either way, I am sure that he will accept that the scheme is a radical departure. Under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask for a review after 12 months, which I hope would involve not only the police authority but the community at large. Indeed, if the Minister is right and the officers will be welcome in the
community, he should welcome a review, because it would help cement the relationship, ensure that the foundations that have been built are secure, and that the roots go deeper into the ground.
It is not unreasonable to ask for a review. In many ways, to refuse it would be a sign of weakness and a lack of confidence that the system will work. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept the logic of a review. At various junctures in their contributions to the Bill, the Conservatives have suggested pilot schemes. In a sense, our amendment would make this a pilot scheme to be reviewed after 12 months. We should proceed carefully, slowly and with proper monitoring procedures rather than go hell for leather and regret mistakes afterwards.