---

Police Reform Act 2002 (Standard Powers and Duties of Community Support Officers) Order 2007

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for tabling this Motion. It does indeed address an important issue and I welcome the Government’s attempt to make a step in the right direction by introducing the order. However, in the opinion of this side of the House, it does not yet constitute a big enough step. I appreciate the Government’s efforts to try to codify formally the basic duties and standard powers that are open to police community support officers and I am grateful to the noble Lord for describing the balance between centralisation and localisation in this respect, but, if we are truly to maximise the effectiveness of this force, greater clarity is still needed. As an example, PCSOs in Bedfordshire do not have the power to search detained persons for dangerous items, while in neighbouring Hertfordshire they do. In Leicestershire, PCSOs have the power to disperse groups of people under 16 years old; in Lancashire, they do not. Indeed, as was mentioned in another place in reference to the matrix, published in May and outlining PCSO powers as designated by the respective constabularies and police force areas, out of the 44 areas listed in England and Wales, at first glance, no two forces seem to have the same spread of the 59 designated powers. We on these Benches welcome the positive step introduced by the order towards standardising and codifying these powers but feel that it only scratches the surface of what could be done to make PCSOs a more efficacious force. The effect of that lack of clarity is a concern in terms of the impact on the British public and community support officers themselves. In order for PCSOs to operate effectively—indeed, to provide the security and increased sense of safety that they were created to provide—more of an effort needs to be made to ensure that they are respected. Greater continuity in the capabilities that these officers possess would go much further to ensure that they receive this support. An article in the Times by Libby Purves, addressing the more controversial point about PCSOs’ uniforms, points out: "““At the moment the public are entitled to be irritated and confused. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ought to be able to peck like a duck””." The problem with these orders is not so much looking and quacking like ducks but that we do not know which ducks can peck and which cannot. Knowledge among those committing offences of the discrepancies of the powers could begin to stir up disrespect and indeed resentment. The offensive labels some have given these officers—““plastic policemen”” and ““glorified traffic wardens””—are unfortunate precisely because PCSOs are obviously much more than that. I sincerely hope that this statutory instrument will go some way towards recognising the important position in the community that these officers occupy. Greater clarity helps PCSOs to have greater understanding of their objectives and to be able to achieve them as effectively as possible. Thus, the intention behind this statutory instrument—to set a minimum standard—is certainly welcome, but there remains far too much subjectivity and inconsistency across the force as a whole. I encourage the Minister to review PCSOs’ designated powers with all interested parties, and I am grateful for his clarification that this was a widespread consultation. I hope that we will see the emergence of a common set of powers and responsibilities throughout the country in the near future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.