Police and Justice Bill |
|
Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady is right to say that the amendment covers some of the ground that we have already discussed. The aim of granting bail is to enable the person to be released from custody. At times during this debate, we have lost sight of that. Under section 37(2) or (7)(b) to PACE, bail is granted pending the outcome of further police inquiries prior to a decision to charge or refer to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on a charge. Paragraph 6 of schedule 4 to the Bill before us amends PACE to enable the normal conditions of bail, which currently can be attached to bail that is granted pending the decision of the CPS to charge or refer, to be attached to the other categories of bail. As I have said, that is aimed at raising the ability and confidence of the police to enable people to be released from custody for a period sufficient to enable the necessary further inquiries to be completed. The hon. Lady put forward the idea that the police might use that as a punitive end in itself, or as a method for simply never bringing a charge. That would be an
The hon. Lady’s amendment would impose on the system a new and extensive bureaucracy, and require police and magistrates to review conditions even when the person who is subject to those conditions has not sought to change or vary them, or asked for them to be reviewed. It is difficult to see how an effective review could be carried out without contacting that person on virtually every day of their conditional bail to see whether those conditions are still appropriate and proportionate. Again, that would involve extensive bureaucracy, and would take officers off the front line so that they could go and find those people to check their conditions. The amendment is poorly thought out. The hon. Lady talks about a maximum period of 96 hours. That is arbitrary, and I see no evidence to suggest that four days is the period for which bail conditions can normally be sustained. If bail conditions are issued at the custody station, in the normal course of events, people can be on bail for a significant time. I see no evidence whatever to suggest that the conditions set out in paragraph 6 would be more onerous than those that would normally apply, or that four days is the maximum period for which they should be sustained. The Bill contains safeguards. I said in the circular that has been issued that street bail is not expected to last for a period longer than six weeks. In most cases, a person will answer to their bail much sooner. We are looking at a fairly short period in which people will have conditions so that while they are on the streets, they are not reoffending or interfering with witnesses. That will ensure that the investigation into the offence can proceed properly and that further police inquiries can be carried out while that person is on conditional bail. After four to six weeks that person will answer to the bail and the matter will be dealt with. I really feel that the hon. Lady is painting a picture and imputing to the police service motives that it would not accept. She is suggesting that it would misuse those powers in a punitive and unlawful way. She is wrong to set out that scenario, so I ask her to consider withdrawing the amendment. If not, I ask the Committee to oppose it. Column Number: 147 Lynne Featherstone: I was not impugning the police force; I am examining the extent to which those powers could be extended and the possibility of unintended consequences. That is my job, but this is a probing amendment, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clause 8 Power to stop and search at aerodromes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Flello: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) has raised with me the power to stop and search at aerodromes and the practical difficulty that arises where police officers might wish to enforce football banning orders. Under the law as it stands, somebody with a football banning order against them who has surrendered their original passport may intend to travel with a duplicate passport for which they had previously applied and that they had stuck away somewhere. They might attend a football match abroad and cause trouble, perhaps at the World cup, which is coming up. I understand that, at the moment, the police do not have the power to stop such a person. What can be done to address that situation, under clause 8, or by using a similar provision? That would certainly put at rest the minds of the likes of Michael Downes, the national representative from the Police Federation, who has done some research on this issue. Hazel Blears: The clause introduces a new power for the police to stop and search any person at an aerodrome. It uses “aerodrome”, rather than airport, which sounds fairly old fashioned, because apparently that has a wider meaning and covers major airports, as well as airfields used only by private flying clubs. That was news to me. The lack of appropriate stop-and-search power has been an obstacle to the police when conducting anti-smuggling operations and particularly in detecting staff collusion in theft. The current powers available to the police are not sufficient to provide a comprehensive deterrent, because airports are strange places—sometimes they are private property, with restricted access—providing significant opportunities for criminal and terrorist activity. Minor criminal activity could be exploited by terrorists, with disproportionate effects. Police powers at airports are variable, depending on whether the airport has been designated. There are currently nine designated airports in the country where police constables have additional stop-and-search powers that are not available at non-designated airports. That is why it is important to get a consistent set of powers across different kinds of airports. Column Number: 148 Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware that the policing of designated airports has to come from the budget of the respective police forces, so there is not an overarching incentive for senior officers to put police officers there 24 hours a day, seven days a week? In fact, there are many loopholes in police coverage at the nine designated airports. Hazel Blears: I am aware of the policing at the designated airports throughout the country. Chief constables take their responsibilities seriously and provide appropriate policing relevant to the nature of the security risk and threat. Clearly, it is for chief constables to determine operational matters, but I am satisfied that they are making appropriate decisions to ensure that security is of the highest order at our airport facilities. These are important matters, particularly in the counter-terrorism context, so it is vital that airports are properly policed. A current review, by Stephen Boys Smith, is looking at funding for designated airports, because there can be disputes about who is responsible. I am not sure when he is due to report, but perhaps I could let the hon. Gentleman have that information in due course, as he has expressed an interest in it. The point made by my hon. Friend Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) was raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. I undertook to examine whether it would be possible to give constables the extra powers that she mentioned. Extending the provision to provide a constable with the automatic power to check passports would represent a significant departure from the safeguards and protections in PACE code A, which is intended to minimise arbitrary interference with the individual. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green would welcome that. We are ready to consider the potential for extending the power to a constable within the confines of an aerodrome, provided that benefits can be shown in terms of security and public reassurance and that sufficient criteria are developed on the exercise of the power and accountability. I am keen to ensure that such issues are brought to the fore. We are ready to examine any further evidence that the Police Federation may wish to submit in support of such a power. I cannot offer any firm undertaking that we will be able to address the point in the Bill, but it is an important issue and if we can find a way of making the power practical and useful, we should do it. Our proposals on football banning orders have been very successful in limiting opportunities for football hooligans to travel internationally. The reputation of our international game has been enhanced as a result of rigorous policing and the new legislation that we have introduced to tackle such issues. Mark Pritchard: Who will pay for officers from this country to go to help the German police when the World cup comes along? Will that be paid for by German or British taxpayers? Column Number: 149 Hazel Blears: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but the hon. Gentleman will know that some reciprocal policing is going on. Some members of the German police are coming to this country to work in close liaison with our officers. I am sure that he would welcome such international co-operation between police forces. Mr. Carswell: European co-operation. Hazel Blears: It is not the creation of a European police force; I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that, although I am sure that he would welcome mutual aid and assistance, which could be beneficial to this country. I do not have the information that the hon. Member for The Wrekin sought, but perhaps I could write to him with it. I shall be writing him a longer letter than I originally anticipated but am more than happy to do so. In fact, I can tell him now that the review of designated airports is likely to be completed by spring 2006. Sometimes, in Government-talk, seasons last a long time—sometimes summer extends to November. If I can be more definite later, I will be. I am sure that the powers of stop and search at aerodromes set out in the Bill will be welcomed by hon. Members, and I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Information gathering powers: extension to domestic flights and voyages Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 57, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
No. 58, in clause 9, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
Column Number: 150 No. 59, in clause 9, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
Lynne Featherstone: To a great extent, the amendment runs over territory covered on Second Reading in addressing the extension of the powers granted in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to reveal passenger lists to the law agencies. Those powers will be extended under the Bill for domestic flights—that is, flights starting and ending in this country. Our concern and the reason for the amendments is increasing surveillance. We want to support the Government in disrupting terrorism or preventing crime but, as ever, doing that leads to tensions over people’s civil liberties and the right to a private life. I should also like to query how effective the measure will be, because there will not be equal surveillance on the roads and on rail. A terrorist who is creating a pattern for police officers to observe might well choose different forms of transport, so I am not sure that such powers are an effective tool in disruption. However, I am willing to say that they could be, so we should consider them seriously. We need to consider appropriate safeguards to protect the individual’s right to privacy. There is also the question of whether a circuit judge is the appropriate level for the measure. In some ways, a magistrate might be more appropriate, because the Government propose that a superintendent make a request for information, and a magistrate is about the equivalent level. There is a belief on our side that some judicial oversight is needed because, as I understand it, there is a principle in common law that a decision that has been made should, by law, be able to be reviewed later. The Minister might argue that the police want powers that are not directed at individuals. However, I understand from the Home Office that the purpose is to spot developing patterns and to track such things so that crimes can be prevented and terrorism disrupted. 6.30 pmIf those patterns can be spotted, there has to be concern that the search would be based on, for example, Muslim surnames. That must be taken into account when we consider whether it is appropriate for that information to be mined. We argue that there should be oversight. Our amendment does not affect the ability of the police to use the network to make connections between people. However, although detection and prevention of terrorism and crime are clearly to be desired, a circuit judge would have to be satisfied that such activities did not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998, and that they were for police purposes under section 21(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, safeguarding national security and any other purpose that the Secretary of State decides and is passed by order. That would add some protection, as I said on Second Reading. Column Number: 151 Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Pope. I understand, through the wonders of modern technology, that the Metropolitan police have just launched an investigation into the alleged sale of honours by the Labour party. I wonder whether any member of the Committee feels an urgent need to give immediate evidence and assistance to the police. The Chairman: Whether or not they wish to do so, that is not a matter of order for me as the Chairman of this Committee. Lynne Featherstone: It is jolly interesting, though. In the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) had been informed in a letter that there would be an audit trail, and that the matter would be looked into. The amendment seeks to put further safeguards in place. Hazel Blears: The amendments seek to require a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above to apply for a warrant from a circuit judge before being able to submit a request for passenger, crew or service information from the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft. Requiring a police officer to obtain a warrant from a circuit judge every time they want to submit a request for data would be hugely burdensome for both the police and the courts. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the power is intended to be used in relation to assessments of threat or risk; it is not intended that the police should have access to the 40 million or so domestic journeys that would fall into those categories. They would seek to use the information in the course of their inquiries, in seeking to find out patterns of travel and to build up an intelligence picture. There are powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to obtain information on international flights. The clause seeks to introduce the same power for domestic flights, ferry crossings and journeys from ports. Often, the domestic leg of a journey can be influential and important in a criminal investigation. Such journeys are often connected to international flights, and people stop off and travel around the country. Therefore, it is important for the police to be able to build the proper intelligence picture, so that they can not only respond to events when they have happened, but, if they have built up a picture, intervene. That might allow them sometimes to prevent serious crime and terrorism from taking place. Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware of unease in the intelligence and police services about when they receive passenger manifests? If she is, will she tell us what consideration has been given to the American approach, where passenger manifests are received four days ahead of international scheduled flights? Hazel Blears: Clearly, this is a new power for us and a new area into which we are moving. I am sure that the police will learn from their experience of using the power whether it is fit for purpose. Column Number: 152 The current proposal is for a request to be submitted to obtain advance information. I am not sure how far in advance some domestic carriers would have that. We are currently in negotiations with the industry, for example, about what documentation people need to produce for domestic flights. Currently, people do not need to produce passports for such flights, so we need to try to ensure that we get sufficient information to be of use to the police. However, we should not ask for too much information because that becomes a burden on both the carriers and the individuals concerned. We are trying to ensure that the costs for and requirements on the carriers are minimised, while ensuring that we have useful information that we can use for crime prevention and detection. Mark Pritchard: Given the growth in electronic ticketing, surely the information that the police require needs to reach them in time for them to investigate any suspect passengers. Currently, they so often receive manifests after the event. Professionals have told me that they are concerned that the measure will still not give them enough time. If that is the case, it needs to be re-examined. Let me give an example. I am going to the United States on a private visit in the next few weeks. I have already booked my ticket and therefore I will be known to the authorities. Hazel Blears: I wish the hon. Gentleman well on his visit. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): One-way, I trust. Hazel Blears: I would not say that to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will find out some interesting information on his visit that will help us to take this forward. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that information that the police request from carriers will include passenger name record data, which is a generic airline term used to describe the information that the carrier collects about a passenger in the normal course of its business. I am sure that the information will be transmitted by electronic means. We have Project Semaphore, which is co-ordinating information in relation to border policing. It is part of the e-borders programme. It will process advance passenger information and passenger name records data. The data will be sent to a newly created joint border operations centre where officers from the border agencies will confirm that the traveller identified is the same person who is of interest to them. There will be an extensive system to ensure that we can get information that is of use to us. All I was saying was that I do not know whether four days should be the period; I do not have that detail at the moment. We need to ensure that we have the information in good time to enable us to track the kind of people that we want to be able to track. The Terrorism Act 2000 contains powers whereby examining police officers can request information relating to counter-terrorism powers at port or border areas, but they cannot obtain the same information to
Under the Data Protection Act 1998, there are provisions for people not to disclose information in an unauthorised way. People would be subject to a criminal offence is they were to do so. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the police have a duty to ensure that they comply with convention rights. A series of safeguards are in place, through those two 1998 Acts, to ensure that information is not used inappropriately. It is important, particularly in the light of the threat that we face from serious and organised crime and terrorism, that we give the police sufficient powers to enable them to protect the security of this country while at the same time maintaining safeguards. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I will constantly disagree about where the balance properly lies, but we can probably agree that there needs to be a balance. In this case, there are sufficient safeguards in the system to obviate the need for an application to a circuit judge before any application for data can be made to the carrier itself. That would be far too burdensome a procedure to go through and could mean that vital information slips through the net. Our police service would then not be able to protect the people of this country in the way in which it should be able to. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment. Column Number: 154 Lynne Featherstone: I should have said that this is a probing amendment. We agree with the Minister that it is important for the police to have the power to disrupt terrorism and prevent and track organised crime. We also accept that speed is of the essence. We are talking about a balance, and my balance shifts to what the review process should be, to what checks and balances can be used to look retrospectively at requests and to consider whether there was a trend or anything untoward in those requests. When we consider new clause 3, we will examine such points. I would be equally happy to have the provision that I seek in a review process that would not interrupt the police’s speed and efficiency. I am relieved to learn that there will not be a database into which all of the information will be put, but we must remember that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was to be reapplied for in each part of London, is now permanent across London. Such things can escalate and become permanent, which is a small concern for us. On the basis of the Minister’s explanations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 agreed to. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 23 March at five minutes to Nine o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 22 March 2006 |