One of the reasons why I want to speak to this amendment is to pay tribute to the Home Office. Heaven knows that in recent weeks the Home Office has not had many friends in this House. I want to take this opportunity to point out that CSOs have been one of the big success stories of the last three years. The Home Office has to take some of the credit for that, both for securing the finance and for making sure that all police authorities came on board and realised their usefulness. That has to be said, and I wanted to begin by saying it.
In Lancashire we saw very early on the value of community support officers. We asked for a lot of them right at the start. I think we had the highest number outside London and Manchester. We used them throughout Lancashire and they were a very effective part of our extended police family. In the next three years, community support officers will be an invaluable and integral part of the rollout of the neighbourhood policing initiative, which both sides of the Committee will welcome. That is why it is so important that we look at that role, see how they have been used, and use them most effectively. They have been successful and will be even more so.
Lancashire was one of the forces to have a pilot scheme in relation to detention powers. CSOs operated with powers of detention in two divisions in Lancashire. In one division it worked very effectively; in the other division it did not. Interestingly, at the end of that experiment, Lancashire Constabulary felt that it did not want powers of detention for CSOs. I think that is a point worth making, because it tried all this. My own preference—although I would not push it too vigorously—would be for the chief constable to have discretion over these areas. I say that only because, as I have already argued, these community support officers are going to be an absolutely essential community resource in the next few years. We need to try, as far as we can, to get the relationship and powers right so that we can use them to maximum effect. While I would not strenuously oppose what is suggested, I would like it noted that I think maximum flexibility and discretion may well be the most effective way forward here.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Henig
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c171-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:20:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334470
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334470
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334470