Police and Justice Bill |
|
Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way? Hazel Blears: I just want to make a bit of progress. I want to put some points on the record, and we will probably be short of time. Column Number: 120 The amendment duplicates, to some extent, provisions already in the Bill, which provides that in seeking to make an order around a standard set of powers there has to be consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. It is not a matter of our simply coming to a conclusion. There has to be proper consultation, and that is exactly what has happened. In some cases, the Police Federation wanted wider designation than other parties. Clearly, people will take different views. Unison, the trade union that represents the majority of CSOs, wanted a wide range of standard powers at its members’ disposal to help them to do the job properly. The hon. Member for Hornchurch wanted some reassurance about the direction of travel. I hope that I have given him that. The powers allow CSOs to deal with low-level antisocial behaviour, to have maximum time out on patrol, not to be taken off the street to do administrative or managerial tasks, and to play the role that they are there to play. Clarity of that role is important, and police constables and sergeants in the neighbourhood policing teams will co-ordinate, manage, task and deploy the team, look at the national intelligence model and consider problem-solving and operations. CSOs will help in carrying out that task, but it will be much better done together. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked whether this is policing on the cheap. Clearly, that is not the case. It is policing done in the way in which the public want it done, with the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time, and hopefully, with the right attitudes. That is the essence of neighbourhood policing. The Bill contains a commitment to the adequate training of police community support officers. That is very important. They were experimental when first introduced, but now they will be a mainstream part of our work force. That means that when there are 24,000 of them, they will need to be properly trained, and we are working on national standards for that. The hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for The Wrekin raised the issue of special constables. I am pleased to be able to say that for the first time in a long time we have managed to reverse the decline in special constable numbers. This year, the figures are going up. There has been a 14 per cent. increase in the 18 months from 31 March 2004 to 30 September 2005, and we now have more than 12,500 special constables. A further 4,000 applications are being processed. In a large part, that is due to the excellent television recruitment adverts that we put out last year, which have drawn an awful lot of interest in the special constabulary from people who traditionally might not have got involved. Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware that West Mercia unfortunately is not experiencing that national trend of increasing numbers of special constable but has in fact seen a cut of more than 50 per cent. since 1997? If she is not aware of that, will she undertake to drop a note to Mr. West, the chief constable, and encourage him to follow the national trend? Column Number: 121 Hazel Blears: I am sure that the chief constable is doing what he can to encourage special constables, but I will have a look at that situation. It may well be that in recent times, he too has been the beneficiary of the new recruitment campaign. There are a series of schemes whereby special constables can be paid—I think five schemes are currently operating—but people have different views on that issue. In fact, many special constables do not necessarily want to be paid because they see it as a voluntary job. However, in the areas in which they get an allowance, it is useful. Michael Fabricant: I did not understand something that the Minister said earlier. She said that PCSOs could not use force—perhaps I have got it wrong—but that they can detain people for up to half an hour and get their details, while they wait for police officers arrive. If the miscreant or the person that they are trying to detain does not want to be detained, how can they be detained without the use of force? Hazel Blears: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the powers, which are to detain and to seek a person’s name and address. If a person decides that they are not going to remain in that place, they can walk away but will be guilty of an offence. PCSOs do not have the standard power to use reasonable force to detain, but they do have the power to detain and to get a name and address. They have the power to use reasonable force only when exercising a power for which, were a police constable exercising it, reasonable force would have been needed. So the use of reasonable force is a very limited power. Hon. Members are looking puzzled. I say to them that if they had to study the provisions as closely as I have had to, they would understand the fine nuances and interpretations of those provisions. I am always trying to enlighten certain Opposition Members about the intricacies of the powers. That is the position, and if somebody chooses to walk away before the police constable arrives on the scene, they will be guilty of an offence. Mark Pritchard: I am happy to reciprocate in this period of enlightenment. If a PCSO is known to have made an arrest, given that they do not have the power of arrest, does that mean that any such arrest would have been unlawful, or could it be that the PCSO has made a civil arrest? I ask because I am aware that Arriva Trains has just appointed PCSOs who apparently have the power of arrest—that is in Wales and Shropshire. Hazel Blears: I am sure that hon. Gentleman has information that I may not have, but I am not aware of any PCSOs with the power of arrest. They are not police officers and should therefore exercise the powers with which they are designated under legislation. They cannot exercise powers that are not designated to them. He may give me more information about that case if he wants to. The standard set of powers proposed, which is aimed at low-level antisocial behaviour, is perfectly appropriate to the role of PCSOs. I commend the
Nick Herbert: I confess to being slightly bemused by all this. The Minister has obviously had a little more time to study it in detail. Despite the fact that a majority of respondents to the consultation exercise agreed that power should be standardised, there was minimal support in some responses for standardisations that have nevertheless found their way into the proposal. Only 35 per cent. of respondents were in favour of granting CSOs a standardised power to issue fixed penalty notices to deal with dog fouling, but that power has found its way into the proposed powers. Similarly, only 41 per cent. of respondents supported giving CSOs the standardised power to require a name and address in relation to antisocial behaviour, but that power has also found its way into the proposals. I am concerned that the views of consultees such as ACPO and APA, which want to see more discretion in these matters, are not being taken into account. The Minister relied on the explanation that chief officers will still have operational independence, in that they will be able to tell PCSOs whether to use powers, but I am not sure that that is a very good principle. Chief police officers seek the power to decide exactly what powers should be available to their forces, but I am not sure that it is a good principle for Ministers to set standard powers through Parliament and then say that it is all right for chief constables not to use them if they do not want them. To what extent will chief constables be open to attack, or even judicial review, if they suggest that CSOs should not use powers that they have been given by order? I am not sure that that is a sensible balance. James Brokenshire: What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on the fact that PCSOs have the power under terrorism legislation to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians when in the company of an appropriate officer? That raises some issues that I highlighted earlier about safety and training. Someone might be under the supervision of an officer, but in terrorism situations and with the heightened threat that we all face, PCSOs might become more actively involved in the campaign against terrorism. Nick Herbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I was not aware of that. We should keep under review the exercise of warranted officers’ powers under the terrorism legislation. I return to the point that I made to the Minister earlier, to which she did not respond, that in spite of the fact that I have been clear about Conservative support—albeit with some reservations—for the deployment of CSOs, a Home Office study found no discernible differences in trends in the numbers of crimes and incidents between areas with and without CSOs before and after their introduction. That is rather a damning finding. When PCSO powers are standardised, it will be necessary to keep under close review the question whether the right balance is being achieved between,
4.45 pmIt probably makes sense, subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, to allow Ministers to make those judgments about the right balance of powers, but I am disappointed that the Minister felt that it was not necessary at least to include in the Bill the requirement to have regard to the need to give chief constables discretion. That is a further small piece of evidence in support of the view that the Bill tends to accrue power to the Home Secretary. The Minister is tending to resist proposals that would devolve the power in some way, or make it clear that decisions and discretion should still rest either with police authorities or the chief constables. That tendency was evident this morning and is evident in a small way in the provision that we are discussing. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
I fear that we may tread on some similar ground, in discussing my amendment, to the ground that we covered in considering the previous one, as the confusion surrounding the clause continues. The amendment is a probing amendment, intended to discover the nature and extent of the powers that the Secretary of State might want to introduce under the clause. It is rather strange that, as the Minister has already begun to explain to us in some detail, extremely detailed powers are included in schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002, explaining exactly the powers that PCSOs can exercise: issuing, in effect, fixed penalty notices; detaining, for up to 30 minutes, suspects who fail to give details; and using reasonable force to detain people in those circumstances—I think. The Minister may well correct me. Michael Fabricant: There is a matter on which I am genuinely unclear. We have heard from the Minister that force cannot be used to detain someone, but a person who then walks away in that situation has committed an offence; I understand that. However, if the person also says, “I am not going to give you my name and address,” and then walks off— Hazel Blears: They can take a picture. Column Number: 124 Michael Fabricant: The Minister says, correctly, that a picture could be taken to identify them. That is assuming that there is CCTV available. It all seems a bit wet to me. Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining yet again the extent of the confusion about the powers. I must admit that I was under the impression, from the research that we did, that PCSOs could use reasonable force in some circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will correct me when she comments. At the very least, an extremely long and detailed list of the powers that PCSOs can use is given in the Police Reform Act 2002, which seems appropriate in a measure that comes before the House. Therefore, it is curious that when the opportunity is presented by clause 4 of the Bill, no such powers are forthcoming. Nothing in clause 4 gives details of any possible new powers for PCSOs. Subsection (2) includes a proposed new section 38A of the 2002 Act, but that includes no details of added powers. Explanatory notes are sometimes helpful, but in this case, bizarrely, they state:
the 2002 Act—
That seems completely tautological to me; I think it really means that the only powers that the Secretary of State can confer are the powers that the Secretary of State is given the power to confer. The purpose of this probing amendment is to draw out from the Minister what powers might be conferred in addition to those in the 2002 Act. We have picked the example of detention, which is perhaps one of the more contentious. Would she care to go beyond the limits suggested by ACPO when the 2002 Act was passed? It advised not using PCSOs in circumstances where
That sphere of action would extend their powers beyond what everybody imagined when PCSOs were first established. Indeed, it might extend them beyond what PCSOs were capable of doing, given their training. That begins to blur the line between PCSOs and full officers. In due course, we would no doubt find out what the additional or varied powers were by laying an affirmative resolution before Parliament. Indeed, the Bill provides for that, but why leave things to an affirmative resolution, which we could only oppose or support? Why not put things in the Bill, as we did in the 2002 Act? Would the Minister care to enlighten us? Hazel Blears: I will do my best to enlighten the Committee. Let me explain the structure of the legislation. The schedule to the 2002 Act outlines a set of powers for community support officers. The Bill does not introduce new powers—other than the truancy power—but decides which of the powers in the schedule should be standard powers for CSOs and which should still be designated only at the chief
There are two tables in annexe A to the explanatory notes. One is entitled, “Powers intended to be included in the first set of standard powers for community support officers” and includes alcohol and tobacco powers, powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, enforcement powers and security powers. The other is entitled, “Powers that can be given to CSOs but which are not intended to be included in the first set of standard powers”. That second set remains to be designated at the chief officer’s discretion. We therefore have two sets of powers, but none of those powers are new—they are all in the Act. One set will be designated as standard powers, which all CSOs in all forces will be able to exercise, and the other set will be designated at the chief officer’s discretion. The first set includes the power to detain for 30 minutes, but the power to use reasonable force to detain is in the second set of powers, which are to be designated at the chief officer’s discretion, so we are maintaining the distinction between powers that do not involve confrontation and powers that might. I am concerned to ensure that we do not necessarily put CSOs in positions of confrontation, which might mean that they get taken off for lengthy training, as hon. Members have said. That, then, is the structure of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that section 38(8) of the Act gives CSOs the power to use reasonable force when exercising a power if a police constable would have the right to use reasonable force when exercising the same power. To give two examples, a CSO might use reasonable force when exercising their power to enter premises for the purposes of saving life or limb or their power to photograph somebody. Therefore, if a police constable has the power to use reasonable force when doing something, a CSO doing the same thing by virtue of the powers designated in schedule 4 would also have the power to use reasonable force. I hope that that is clear to hon. Members. If not, we can probably provide a master-class in the designation of CSO powers. That might be helpful at some point. The amendment is not needed. We have the affirmative resolution and can look at the issue. It is appropriate that we have had a lengthy consultation period, and we have had a whole series of responses. That is the appropriate way for us to proceed. Having had that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment is not necessary and withdraw it. Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for her impressive exposition on the detail of schedule 4 to the 2002 Act and the contingent contents of the Bill. I feel the haze lifting slightly and I look forward to the day when some villain who has not properly analysed schedule 4 fails to walk away from a PCSO, under the
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Community support officers: power to deal with truants Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Nick Herbert: I want to raise an issue relating to the proposed additional power for community support officers to deal with truants. The Police Federation says that truancy is a serious problem which can be very time-consuming for fully sworn officers, and expressed the view that this is a sensible measure that should allow police officers to spend more time fighting crimes that require more skills, training and experience. It is also consistent with the type of powers that CSOs were originally envisaged to hold. However, organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform have expressed concern about giving CSOs, who may be untrained, the power to deal with truants. A document from the Howard League points out that child truants are often very vulnerable and challenging, and awarding CSOs the power to remove them could put children and officers at risk. It states that child truants should be dealt with by people who are “expert and trained”. That is a perfectly fair observation on the need to ensure that CSOs are properly trained to deal with truants. The Minister said that clause 4 puts a training provision into primary legislation for the first time, which we welcome. Is that also the case in relation to clause 5 and the additional powers that CSOs will have to deal with truants? If not it is an omission, because training in the exercise of the power to deal with young offenders—albeit that it is something that we welcome CSOs being able to do—would be an important counterbalance to the extension of that power. Hazel Blears: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants: CSOs who have this power will have to receive proper and adequate training to deal with young people. The power of CSOs to do truancy sweeps will be universally welcomed as they often know the young people in their area and it will free up police officers’ time. It is also important in tackling antisocial behaviour. As we know, young people who are out of school hanging around the shopping centre or on estates during the daytime can easily be drawn into antisocial behaviour and even more serious activities, so the power will be very welcome indeed. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that CSOs should be adequately trained to exercise the power, and I give him that assurance. Column Number: 127 Nick Herbert: Will the training that the Minister promised be provided under the statutory provision in the Bill? In other words, will chief officers have a duty to provide the training under clause 4(6) or will it be a discretionary matter? Was the Minister just expressing a desire that there should be training? Hazel Blears: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that clause 4(6) relates to additional powers that are designated, so it does not apply to this power. It is section 38(4) of the 2002 Act that provides that there should be adequate training. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 Police bail 5 pmNick Herbert: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in schedule 4, page 75, line 10, after first ‘a’, insert ‘senior’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 136, in schedule 4, page 75, line 25, at end insert—
Nick Herbert: We now come to the part of the Bill that extends the concept of street bail, which was introduced in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I have considerable concerns, which I expressed briefly on Second Reading, about the provisions and how they will operate. I have therefore tabled amendments, which I believe will be complementary to those that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, to suggest some moderation in the operation of those provisions. What I have to say is not to be taken as a challenge to the concept of street bail, which I recognise as valuable. Where police officers arrest a suspect but for some reason find it difficult to fulfil their statutory obligation to take them straight to a police station, street bail allows them to impose the condition that they report to a police station at a later stage. We know from a report published in 2001 by the PA Consulting Group that the average time taken to process an arrest is three and a half hours. Given the potential difficulties for police officers, particularly early on in their shifts or when they have to deal with a large number of offenders, it makes sense for them to have the discretion to require people to report to a police station at a later stage. However, the Bill goes considerably further by enabling police officers to attach a wider range of conditions to street bail than simply having to report to a police station. Those conditions include not
Such conditions could be imposed for lengthy periods of time, despite the fact that the offender had not been charged with any crime. I cannot see any measure in the schedule that will put time limits on those conditions. The conditions could include curfews, tagging and restrictions on whom a person can meet and speak to, so they are potentially onerous penal conditions. The role of the independent custody sergeant, as a semi-independent arbiter of bail conditions—a role that is important in the current process of granting bail at police stations—is effectively eliminated in such cases. The provision has given rise to worry outside the House not least on the part of Liberty, which said:
We shall come shortly to amendments that will deal with that worry by bringing the provisions of the extension of street bail under the auspices of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so I shall not discuss them now. That would be one way in which to deal with the extension of power. My amendments are not mutually exclusive; they have the same objective. They propose an additional way in which to moderate the use of the sweeping additional police power. Under amendment No. 135, the power to confer street bail and set the conditions should be exercisable only by a “senior” constable. Amendment No. 136 defines a senior constable who is designated as such
In part, the amendment is probing, because I am not sure of the extent to which the office of senior constable may or may not exist under current legislation. I do not believe that it does, but we are moving to a criminal justice system where, increasingly, such discretion will be given to police officers. We are moving to a remarkable extension of summary justice through the Bill and through other measures that form part of the Government’s respect agenda. We must bear in mind the Prime Minister’s proposal to bypass the court system and to speed up the process of justice. All such matters give rise to serious issues about whether such discretion should be exercised by relatively inexperienced police officers. When punitive conditions can be set by police officers, not only do they need to be subject to proper constitutional checks and safeguards, but those powers should be exercised under supervision and by police officers with more experience than a recent trainee graduate. That view is shared broadly by
The Police Federation said that, while it welcomes the decision to extend street bail, police officers should still be subject to the scrutiny of a police sergeant, which is important to ensure integrity and proportionality. The body that represents police officers is expressing some worry about the extension of the discretionary power that will be given to police officers. Other countries have the position of senior constable. For example, in the Australian federal police, the position requires six years’ service in community policing. In New Zealand, it requires 14 years’ service. The Tasmanian state police have grades of constables: for example, first-class constable first grade and first-class constable second grade. That sounds wonderfully old-fashioned in many respects. The concept that there should be constables in whom powers, which are not regarded as appropriate for use by all police officers, are vested is important. I resisted the temptation in amendment No. 136 to designate a senior constable by reference to their length of service, because that is more a matter of judgment on the part of chief officers as to whether an individual has the maturity as well as the experience to fulfil that particular role. We can debate that. This Committee, or a future one considering a similar proposal might judge that a statutory term of experience is necessary. I am open to such a suggestion. My alternative is in line with the principle that I have been trying to set out during our deliberations: where possible, chief officers should have discretion over these matters. I propose that chief officers could make the judgment. It is possible that relatively young officers or those who have spent relatively little time on the beat might nevertheless be of a calibre, and have sufficient maturity to be able to exercise the powers; it is not just a matter of experience. I hope that there will be work force reform that enables police officers to be recruited who are not necessarily at the young age of those who are currently being recruited. I hope that the Minister will respond by addressing my substantive concern about the operation of these powers and by recognising that we do not seek to oppose wholesale their exercise. There is an important debate to be had about the extension of summary justice and the need to try to ensure that police officers have immediate powers to deal with things such as antisocial behaviour and exercise their role on the streets appropriately. If the police are to have these powers, it is important that they are balanced properly and that the public’s confidence in the system is maintained. My view about this matter was reinforced when I met a constituent last week. He is a highly respectable senior businessman who encountered some youths in an unpleasant way in a local car park. Some
I am concerned that, if we give these sweeping additional powers to police officers who do not have the experience to exercise them—leaving aside the civil liberties implications of what they are doing—it will lead to an undermining of the relationship between the police and the communities that they serve. The fact that the Police Federation has expressed concern about the supervision of the powers should send a strong warning message about whether we are doing the right thing by extending street bail conditions in this way. I hope that these amendments and the concept of the introduction of a senior constable will be taken seriously by the Minister. 5.15 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 22 March 2006 |