House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Apr 1996 (pt 42)

Mr. Kirkhope: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The term "in public" includes any public highway or any other area accessible to the public. I hope that that short response assists the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw: It assists me mightily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 2, line 8, leave out--

'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'or both'.

Mr. Canavan: The amendment would delete the reference to a prison sentence. Under the Bill as it stands people could be sent to prison for up to six months simply for failing to stop when required to do so by a constable exercising his powers under the clause.

There are already far too many people in our prisons and far too many anomalies in our judicial and penal systems. Many people are sent to prison simply for not paying fines and others, strangely, receive non-custodial sentences although some of them have committed serious crimes, including violent crimes and sexual abuse of children and so on. It would be unfair if people who had committed offences that were not nearly as serious as some of those to which I have referred were sent to prison for up to six months.

For example, someone might be in a hurry to get to work and might not know that the surrounding area had been designated by a senior police officer in accordance with the Bill, perhaps during the night or early in the morning. That person might brush past a policeman, and refuse to stop in order not to be late. A woman might refuse to be searched by a male police officer. The Home Secretary said earlier that it was perfectly permissible for a male officer to subject a woman to a search; some women--perhaps even most women--might object strongly to that. I think that it would be unjustifiable for people caught up in such circumstances to be imprisoned for up to six months.

Mr. Kirkhope: The penalties provided in new section 13B mirror those provided in respect of offences committed under the existing section 13A. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that the penalties are excessive, or that they should be changed. If a person fails to stop for a search, or obstructs a constable, that will immediately give rise to suspicion that he may either be carrying terrorist or other prohibited material, or deliberately be causing a diversion to divert police resources from the real bomber. In such circumstances, I think it entirely proper to leave it to the court to decide whether a prison sentence is appropriate.

2 Apr 1996 : Column 279

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who clearly feels strongly about the issue; but I feel strongly about it as well, and I think that, while the conclusions reached by the courts are a matter for them, the penalties should be those that we have proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 13, at end insert--

'and in any case not later than 24 hours after it has been given orally.'.

Clause 1 gives the police power to make an order that can last for 48 hours, but must then be confirmed by the Secretary of State or lapse. The person giving the authorisation must ensure that the Secretary of State is informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, that it has been given. We believe that a time limit should be placed on what is reasonably practicable: we believe that the information should be given not later than 24 hours after the authorisation has been given orally. We are saying that the power can operate for a day, but after that the Secretary of State must be informed. That does not mean that the power cannot exist for another 48 hours. The Secretary of State will not be prevented from deciding when the matter should be dealt with, but the amendment imposes a duty on the police authority to ensure--to overcome the suspicions felt by many of us--that the police inform the Secretary of State of the action that has been taken within 24 hours.

Mr. Kirkhope: There is obviously a clear operational need for the police to be able to respond quickly to intelligence or discoveries of terrorist activity. That is why the stop-and-search power can be invoked orally. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, the amendment would require a stop-and-search operation that had been authorised orally to be confirmed in writing within 24 hours.

The police would not want--nor would they have any reason--to delay written confirmation of the powers. A number of bombs and false alarms on the same day might make it very difficult to obtain written authorisation without taking a senior officer away from critical operational duties at that time. For that reason, we cannot afford to impose an inflexible and rigid 24-hour limit.

12 midnight

Furthermore, under clause 1(8), a person giving an authorisation for the use of the power must inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable, and, as I said a little while ago, if the authorisation has not been confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of its issue, it will lapse. I do not therefore believe that there is any need for the amendment.

The same powers for oral authorisation, followed by written authorisation as soon as is reasonably practicable, are also being provided for in section 13A stop-and-search powers by clause 1(6). In the circumstances, the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.

Mr. McNamara: What has been said makes the amendment necessary and practicable and the Bill should be amended. It is not too much of an imposition on the police to require that within 24 hours of taking such an extraordinary power they should inform the Secretary of State of what they have done.

2 Apr 1996 : Column 280

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Madden: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 35, at end insert--

'(11) For the purposes of this section any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.'.

We have been given the impression throughout the proceedings that pedestrians who are stopped and asked to undergo a search will be required to do so only by a single police officer in standard uniform. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is very likely that police officers will be in groups and wearing protective clothing when stops are made. I am also sure that he appreciates that such protective clothing would often obscure the officers' numbers. The permanent and provisional guidance to which the Home Secretary has referred should therefore urge police officers in all circumstances to give their warrant number to the person who is being stopped and searched.

Taking into account the comments of several hon. Members, it would be very helpful if the guidance also ensured that, so far as is reasonably practicable, a woman police officer were always included in the group of officers undertaking such stops and searches. That would certainly allay some hon. Members' anxieties.

Lastly, we hope that the powers will be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. I hope that that will also apply to Sikhs who wear turbans, because any request for a Sikh to remove his turban--particularly in a public place, as envisaged in the Bill--would cause grave offence. I hope that the guidance will emphatically urge police officers not in any circumstances to request a Sikh to remove his turban.

I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment, as no amendment has so far been accepted by the Government. This is a reasonable request that should be accepted by the Minister. If a pedestrian is stopped in these circumstances, the least he should be given to allay any anxieties is the warrant number of the officer concerned. That is a basic requirement, and I hope the Minister accepts that.

Mr. Kirkhope: I hope that what I have to say will reassure the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I certainly understand his concerns, and we are completely at one in thinking that the new powers will need to be applied carefully, sensitively and appropriately. I believe that that will be done, but perhaps I can take my reassurance further.

I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The hon. Member for Bradford, West will be aware that the new powers will be subject to PACE code A--the code of practice covering the stop and search of persons--in the same way as the police powers under section 13A are now. He will also know that PACE code A requires a constable to give the person concerned his name, warrant or other identification number and the name of the police station to which he is attached before carrying out any search. The constable is also required to explain the object of the search and his authorisation for undertaking it.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked whether the powers applied to constables in uniform, and he will see that clause 1(2) of the Bill

"confers on any constable in uniform the power".

2 Apr 1996 : Column 281

He also mentioned a matter that has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary--namely, the question of having women officers available when women are to be searched. I must repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this; in operational terms, we cannot guarantee that. There is probably a preference within the police that--where it is possible and appropriate--a woman constable should be involved when dealing with women, but I cannot give a guarantee or an assurance in the circumstances.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, West is to some extent reassured by the nature of the obligations that exist under PACE code A and to which reference is made in the Bill. Because of that full information, I hope he will agree that his amendment is not necessary.