Courts Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in

clause 51, page 25, line 7, at end insert—

'(c) requirements in respect of the uniform or badge to be worn by a court security officer to ensure that he is clearly identifiable—

(i) as a court security officer; and

(ii) by his individual name or number.'.

I shall deal with the amendment extraordinarily quickly because, by my reckoning, we now have less than two minutes to spend on each clause that has been selected for discussion today. Amendment No. 132 suggests that the Lord Chancellor may by regulation make requirements in respect of uniforms or badges worn by security officers. There is already sensible provision in clause 51 for the court security officer to be identifiable by means of his uniform or badge.

A person should be able to identify an individual officer. The officers have substantial powers similar to those of a police officer, including powers of search, powers to restrain, exclude or remove persons. When they are exercising those powers, they should be identifiable to the person on whom they are exercising those powers as an individual, so that, if there is any complaint about the conduct of an officer, it can be correctly attributed to a particular officer instead of the generality of court security officers. Not only is it necessary to set out what is required in terms of uniform but an individual number or name should be clearly included so that the officer can be identified.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall also be brief. The hon. Gentleman may find that there is even less time if the information coming to me is correct because we may be about to have a Division in the House.

I agree with this sensible amendment to require clear identification and I need say no more than that I concur with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leslie: I, too, will be brief. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point in tabling the amendment, although I emphasise the provisions in subsection (3), which give a measure of protection, although not necessarily with the detail that he seeks.

One of my concerns about the amendment is that it is not appropriate to prescribe in regulations the type and style of the uniform or badge that a security officer wears. That is an administrative matter and not appropriate for that secondary legislative tier. Moreover, subsection (3) makes explicit the requirement that a court security officer acting in the execution of his duty must be easily identifiable as such. Departmental guidelines will be produced for in-house staff and contractual standards for external security officers will specify the uniform, and that badges or other items must enable easy identification. That will be evident to those drawing up the guidelines.

Mr. Heath: The Minister is going a long way towards what I want, but he has not yet said whether there will be a requirement for an officer to be individually recognisable. That is very important. It exists for police officers and many other officers in uniform. It should exist for court security officers.

Mr. Leslie: I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we have not decided what level of detail should be in the guidelines. However, as

Column Number: 131

there has been strong representation about the importance of some level of individual identification, whether by name or number, and the hon. Gentleman's comments have been recorded, I will give closer consideration to them when I look at the guidelines.

Gareth Thomas: People are often confused in court and I know from experience that they often mistake ushers for security people.

Mr. Leslie: Again, that involves having different uniforms so that security officers are easily identifiable from ushers, but that will have to be dealt with as an administrative matter when the design of uniforms and so on is considered. It is not appropriate for that to be in the regulations and I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Heath: I disagree with the Minister and believe that the matter should be covered in regulations because it is crucial. However, I do not intend to pursue it today and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52

Powers of Search

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—Interpretation of sections 52 and 53—

'In sections 52 and 53 the term ''any person'' does not include judges, barristers, solicitors and justices of the peace who are present in, or seeking to enter, a court building for the purposes of their duties.'.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall have to be brief because the Division Bell may ring at any moment. I want to make it clear that we feel strongly about new clause 1 and if the guillotine prevents the Minister from responding in detail this afternoon, I hope that he understands that we shall certainly return to the matter on Report.

As I made clear in a debate on a previous group of amendments, we are very concerned about court security, but we are also concerned that those who are representing the forces of justice and law and order

Column Number: 132

should not have their passage into and out of courts delayed unnecessarily. New clause 1 is simply to ensure that the provisions of clauses 52 and 53 should not delay those who are concerned with the administration of justice. From my fairly extensive experience of practice in the courts—from the Court of Appeal and divisional court to the magistrates courts—there is a greater level of security in some court buildings than others. That is understandable, but we do not want every judge or lay magistrate, nor all barristers and solicitors to have to go through a slow and tortuous searching process along with defendants and witnesses. That would be nonsense.

Even if the Minister cannot accept new clause 1, I hope that he will at least talk to officials to see whether something can be done. Although searching is important—it is right that it should be included in the Bill—it should not delay those who are concerned with the administration of justice. It is a small, shortly stated point, but an important one. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, if not today then on another occasion. If he cannot accept it today, I hope that he will take seriously what I have said, as we shall return to the matter.

4.55 pm

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

5.10 pm

On resuming—

It being after Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Orders of the Committee [26 June 2003 and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clauses 53 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 8 July at half-past Nine o'clock.

The following Members attended the Committee:
O'Brien, Mr. Bill (Chairman)
Cameron, Mr.
Cranston, Ross
Goodman, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr.
Heath, Mr.
Hesford, Stephen
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Kidney, Mr.
Lamb, Norman
Leslie, Mr.
Miller, Mr.
Moffatt, Laura
Prentice, Ms Bridget
Thomas, Gareth
Watkinson, Angela
Woodward, Mr.
Wright, David

 

---

Prepared 1 July 2003