Criminal Justice Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Hilary Benn: This has been a useful debate. We have covered all the ground on the clause in debating the amendment.

The clause originates in the review of PACE that was undertaken and published earlier this year, as hon. Members will be aware. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that there was a strong police request that stop-and-search powers be extended in such a way. The reason for the clause has been acknowledged in several contributions, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right when he said that in the end we were discussing a balance. In a sense, all police powers are an infringement on the liberty of the individual, but we decide to give the police certain powers in the interests of protecting the rights of others or of society as a whole. Therefore, one has to balance the impact that stop-and-search can have with the sheer misery caused by crime. The police are conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

We should not question the interests of any member of the Committee as regards their constituents, whether they live in leafy suburbs or deprived inner-city communities. Many of my constituents do not have a lot of money and live in areas of great deprivation. They tend to experience more crime than those in the leafy suburbs, but it can occur in any part of the country. I would not want any member of the Committee to question the bona fides of any other. By all means, let us say that we do not think that the argument has been put correctly; by all means, let us say that we do not think that hon. Members have balanced correctly in their contributions the need to protect the rights of the individual against the need to protect people that we all represent from utter misery. The clause is about giving the police more power to protect those people. That is why we are trying to get the balance right.

In asking the Committee to resist the amendments, I want to explain why the points that have been

Column Number: 29

legitimately raised are covered by what the clause proposed, or would have other adverse consequences that probably were not intended by those who tabled them. I can tell the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking, in relation to the point about ''going equipped'' and robbery, that there is no need to add the offences suggested in amendment No. 1, as they are covered by the general reference to ''theft'' in section 1(8)(b) of PACE.

As for ''going equipped'', we are talking about items that will be made, adapted or intended for use for stealing—for theft. For that reason, the wording of section 1(7) of PACE makes the Government's view clear. We do not disagree with the intention that going equipped should be covered by stop-and-search powers, which is why we are firmly of the view that it is already covered by legislation. Similarly, those considerations apply in relation to robbery, which is defined as stealing with force or threat of force.

I remind the Committee that in exercising stop-and-search powers, police officers must have a reasonable suspicion. The PACE code of practice A describes the types of circumstances that can be taken into account. I refer hon. Members who wish to consider the matter in more detail to that document.

Amendment No. 27 is unnecessary, because the current stop-and-search framework set out in section 1 of PACE makes it clear that a constable can stop and search a person only if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find articles made or adapted for use in the course of, or in connection with, a relevant offence, or intended by the person having them for such use. The test is whether the item is made, adapted or intended for such use. That list currently applies to burglary, theft, offences under section 12 of the 1968 Act, and offences under section 15 of the 1968 Act. A new section 1(8)(e)—on criminal damage—will be added to PACE. Therefore, the point made in amendment No. 27 is already catered for. The amendment would also stop a constable from searching for articles specifically made or adapted for use in destroying or damaging property.

Mr. Grieve: I can see the force of what the Minister says. It seems that if the failure lies anywhere, it is with the way that PACE was originally drafted. The provisions were extremely opaque, and only as the debate proceeded did it become apparent to me what the Minister was trying to say. I cannot blame the Minister for that. However, it is rather unlikely that many items will be made or adapted. It is always likely that an intention will have to be shown, because of the very nature of the items under discussion.

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He rightly detected the thought processes that have gone on in the course of the debate. If the concern that he raised was correct, the existing parts of section 1(8) of PACE—burglary, theft and other offences—would not apply to the question of intention. That was clearly not intended. For opaque reasons that I do not pretend to understand fully, the advice is that such provisions apply. We can therefore safely add a new section 1(8)(e), which will deal with the problem of intent.

Column Number: 30

As I am sure hon. Members acknowledge, everything will depend on the circumstances. A police officer who, for the sake of argument, entered railway premises at night where trains had been spray-painted—as happens regularly—and encountered two young people would have reasonable grounds both for suspicion and to stop and search, to see whether those people were carrying a can of spray paint. We shall of course have to rely on the discretion and common sense of police officers to apply the new law in that way. That is why the power would be welcome.

Finally, on Amendment No 71, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that no discourtesy was intended in relation to the previous debate. I must be more fleet of foot. He made many good points. He appears to have tried to draft an alternative approach to dealing with the problem about which he spoke with such passion. It is unfortunate that his amendment would only cover articles that had been used in the commission of such offences. Our proposed clause would cover items made, adapted or intended for such purposes, and would therefore be more useful to the police, enabling them to deal with the types of problem that, I am sure hon. Members recognise, cause our constituents distress. That is why I believe that the clause as currently drafted achieves the objective.

I hope that I have satisfied the Committee on the points that have been raised, and I would resist the amendments that have been debated.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for his careful and considerate reply. I also press him to write to me regarding the arguments that I advanced in the debate on the programme motion. It would be extremely helpful to put those points to rest.

Hilary Benn: I will.

Mr. Allen: I am grateful for that reassurance. The Minister has been well probed and has responded to our promptings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on

the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Warrants to enter and search

Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, after 'powers', insert 'and duties.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 28, in

clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 84, in

clause 2, page 2, line 1, after second 'the', insert 'direct'.

Column Number: 31

No. 4, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 'and with the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.'.

No. 68, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end add 'and shall be subject to the same disciplinary and complaints procedures as apply to a constable.'.

No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) He shall be required to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier.'.

No. 69, in

clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(2C) any person so authorised shall be identified, together with his rank or office and his place of business or employment, to the owner or person in charge of the premises concerned.'.

No. 91, in

schedule 1, page 152, line 28, after first 'the', insert 'direct'.

Mr. Malins: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 2, 4, 3 and 28. The clause extends the existing range of warrants to give an authorised person who accompanies a police officer the same powers as that officer. Amendment No. 2 would insert ''and duties'' after the word ''powers'' and amendment No. 28 would omit the extension of the power to the execution of the warrant. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are probing amendments; they suggest that the person accompanying the officer should have a duty to carry evidence of identity and to produce it to the occupier. Likewise, such a person would need the written authority of a chief inspector or more senior officer.

The issue of warrants is a difficult area for the courts. I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying that my experience in that regard makes me slightly concerned about giving very broad powers to an authorised person accompanying an officer. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant to enter and search premises can be executed by any constable and such a warrant may authorise persons to accompany any constable executing it. Little or nothing else is said about the accompanying person.

Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I picked up a copy of PACE and found what I was talking about in section 16. I then looked at ''Archbold'' and a photostat of section 16, and found that that covered something else completely, and that I needed section 10. I hope to goodness that they are both relevant.

Now, picture the scene: Bow Street magistrates court on any Friday—in my rare moments away from my constituency, I sit there as a district judge. An application is made for a warrant. Before the district judge comes an officer who lays before him the information that a warrant is necessary in relation to certain premises because it is believed that there are drugs or documents involving a financial swindle there. Accompanying the information are sufficient details to enable that judge to form a view as to whether the warrant should be issued. It is no good a policeman turning up and saying, ''I apply for a

Column Number: 32

warrant for these premises,'' because the answer will be, ''Go away. You can't have one,'' unless that policeman has details of the basis on which the warrant is sought.

Every district judge or magistrate carefully examines an application for a warrant and, if satisfied, grants it. Every district judge or magistrate knows that under PACE the police occasionally take with them someone who is authorised. Our probing amendments try to put a dampener on the clause because it gives the accompanying person and the police officer the same powers. I understand that a policeman has large powers in respect of the warrant—for example, the ability to force entry if required and the ability when inside the premises to seize and confiscate items. Constables are in a unique position; they are given authority by the citizen. We should know what we are doing before we allow the clause to give the accompanying person the same powers as the constable in a blanket fashion. There are reasons why that is important.

My first question to the Minister is, who can be an authorised person under proposed new section (2A)? I am informed in various briefings that it is likely to be an IT specialist, for example, who may be dealing with a computer-related offence. Is there an exhaustive list? Are those who are not fully fledged constables but are part of the community police force—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will correct me if I use the wrong term—to be included and given the same powers?

 

---

Prepared 17 December 2002