---

Broadcasting

31. Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): What discussions he has had with the BBC regarding its coverage of online pre-legislative scrutiny by the House. [180770]

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the BBC on that subject. However, I have had informal discussions with the BBC about widening access to parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Allen: I would like to welcome the fact that the Government have put to online legislative scrutiny almost every appropriate Bill that has come before the House, but unfortunately I cannot do so at present as it would be a little premature. I hope that my hon. Friend will enter serious discussions with the BBC, because its website obviously has an even greater attraction than our parliamentary website and would for the first time open up real law-making to the general public as well as to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Woolas: I commend my hon. Friend's persistence in pursuing that point. I believe that he realises that we are sympathetic to his point of view; online consultation is opening the scrutiny of law   to a much wider public. The website www.tellparliament.net, which is managed for us by the Hansard Society, is becoming widely known. That is not contradictory, and would not exclude the BBC from taking such opportunities further, but I caution that such matters are also for Committees of the House as well as for my hon. Friend.
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 155
 

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): As the BBC receives public money and has a public service obligation, should not it provide active links from its news and current affairs output, and from BBC Online, to our online parliamentary forums? What do the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House plan to do to ensure that we make the most of online forums, given their success when they have been used?

Mr. Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that the opportunities that such
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 156
 
technology opens for us to allow the public much greater access to scrutiny are to be welcomed. That is why we have made developments. As he knows, Select Committees and Standing Committees are available live on the webcast and the BBC follows those events. He will know through the PARBUL—Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—Committee that those things have been discussed, and I look forward to a situation in the none-too-distant future where such facilities will be widely available. However, I emphasise that the matter is not just for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but for the House as well.

 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 157
 

Points of Order

12.33 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

This is a gentle and 90 per cent. genuine point of order. In the very courteous and helpful answer from the Advocate-General to Question 17, she said, in relation to the Lockerbie trial and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that it was up to my ingenuity to find a way of raising the issue in the House and that on the whole it was a question for the Scottish Parliament. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is rather more than that. It is not a question of my ingenuity or lack of it, but of the rules of the House and the delicate grey area in such matters of the relationship between the House and the Scottish Parliament. May I ask you to ask the Clerks to think carefully about the issues raised, in the event of some very interesting and perhaps important conclusions from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister was really saying that the Father of the House always shows great ingenuity anyway. The best course of action is for the Father of the House to go to the Table Office and perhaps discuss this matter. He is quite right to suggest that, usually, his points of order are 90 per cent. genuine—it is the 10 per cent. that always worries me.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be open to the Father of the House or any other right hon. or hon. Member to pursue this point by requesting an Adjournment debate to be answered by the Advocate-General? Would that be in order?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order to try, and then I can come to a reasoned decision.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Advocate-General's questions, the Advocate-General admitted that it is almost impossible for her to answer any question that is put to her because of parliamentary convention. Would it therefore be possible for perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, but certainly the Government to consider what the purpose of that short Question Time is and how necessary it is?

Mr. Speaker: The question rota is matter for negotiation between the usual channels.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How could I raise Lockerbie?

Mr. Speaker: If I needed advice on how to raise Lockerbie, I would go to the Father of the House.

 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 158
 

Antisocial Behaviour

12.36 pm

Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about antisocial behaviour.

Antisocial behaviour is, unfortunately, the single biggest concern of my constituents. Over the past 12 months, I have received numerous reports of unacceptable behaviour in different parts of my constituency. I shall give a few examples. In Ystrad Mynach, there have been complaints about young people drinking in the town centre and about rowdy and abusive behaviour. Recently, it was even reported that an elderly person's front window was smashed and that numerous gardens have been vandalised and garden sheds demolished in the area.

In Senghennydd, a group of young men have been intimidating local shopkeepers and residents, and elderly people find it almost impossible to leave their homes on occasion. Recently, a lorry was even set on fire in the middle of the village. In Caerphilly, parts of the Lansbury Park estate are virtually no-go areas for the local residents. Unfortunately, there has been at least one very serious example of racial abuse. I am pleased that antisocial behaviour orders are at least being introduced, but nevertheless there is ongoing cause for concern in that area.

In Nelson, residents of the Maes Mabon estate have been abused by youngsters from outside the area. Fires have been lit in the streets. Cars have been burned out. Mud and eggs have been thrown at houses. Youngsters have even ridden bicycles on the roofs of senior citizens' bungalows. In the village itself, drunken youths have occasionally blocked the main road. All those are examples of unacceptable behaviour. Of course, what I have cited is not peculiar to my constituency alone. Hon. Members tell me that similar problems are witnessed throughout the length and breadth of this country.

It is wrong to exaggerate the scale of the problem. We are always talking about a small minority of people, particularly young people. It is true that young people simply congregating on street corners can be seen as a problem, and sometimes the perception is that more trouble takes place than actually does. We have also seen good examples of communities pulling together to tackle those problems. Indeed, there is clear evidence that the Government's policies are working and that police action is succeeding.

One of the most successful measures that we have seen over recent years is the introduction of police community support officers, who are uniformed civilians employed by the police. They have been introduced gradually over the past couple of years. By the end of January 2004, we had some 3,219 CSOs in 38 police authorities, and that figure has now increased to 3,300. The number of CSOs engaged throughout the country varies. In West Yorkshire, for example, there are 206 CSOs. There are five each in Dyfed-Powys and Staffordshire. There are some 50 CSOs operating in my area of Gwent, and it is expected that some 4,000 CSOs will be in place by the end of this year.

We were told about the role of community support officers in the Government White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform". It was said that
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 159
 
they would empower local communities and individuals so that the police would be able to carry out their functions effectively. We were told that CSOs would provide

"a visible presence in the community with powers sufficient to deal with anti-social behaviour and minor disorder."

From my experience, there can be no doubt that CSOs have a good visible presence. Mr. Neville Davies is a CSO in Caerphilly, and he frequently pops into my constituency office for a chat about how things are going in the area. I recently spoke to a senior citizens' group in the centre of Caerphilly and was reassured to note that all its members knew Neville Davies, saw him frequently and were aware of the good work that he was doing. He relates well to young people, too, and has been instrumental in furthering several antisocial behaviour orders.

Similar feedback has come from other parts of the United Kingdom. Only today, a press release issued by the chief constable of Essex police said:

"The evidence so far suggests we have an effective team of appropriately-trained, well motivated, fully-integrated police community support officers who have made a valuable contribution to the provision of policing within the county  . . . They have been warmly welcomed, not only by the communities they serve, but by police officers and police staff colleagues."

That is all extremely encouraging, but the work of CSOs in Essex and elsewhere could be even more effective if they had more powers.

The powers of community support officers are set out in the Police Reform Act 2002 and subsequent legislation, and we could extend their powers in certain areas. For example, I believe that CSOs should have the power to confiscate alcohol not only when cans are open, but when they are closed. They should be able to confiscate not only from young people, but from misbehaving adults. Fixed penalty notices have been introduced successfully in several pilot areas, so CSOs in all parts of the country should be able to perform the essential function of issuing them.

It is important to consider carefully whether CSOs should have the power of detention. In six trial areas, including Gwent, CSOs have the authority to detain individuals for up to 30 minutes, until such time as a
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 160
 
police officer arrives on the scene or an individual agrees to be accompanied to the police station. That important pilot initiative should be extended to all police authorities. I also suggest that CSOs should have the power of arrest in specific clearly defined circumstances relating to antisocial behaviour. If the Government go down that road, as I hope they will, it is clear that CSOs will require more training. They receive only three weeks' training at the moment, so that period would have to be extended significantly. CSOs require far more resources if they are to do their jobs effectively, especially if their powers are to be increased.

At present, there is no financial commitment for CSOs beyond 2006. I think that there should be. It would be wrong if, in 2006, police forces across the country had to choose whether police resources should be allocated to the continued employment of CSOs. There should be sufficient resources for police and for CSOs in all parts of the country, which is the first proposal in my Bill. The second proposal is that CSOs' powers should be extended, particularly regarding the confiscation of alcohol, which is the cause of much antisocial behaviour. Thirdly, the Bill provides for CSOs to be given the power of arrest in clearly defined circumstances, initially in pilot areas.

Antisocial behaviour is a scourge of today's society, and there is no easy to solution to the problem. We need an array of complementary policies, but CSOs should play a permanent part in our policing, and will be more effective if they are given reasonable powers, enabling them to make an even bigger contribution to the ending of antisocial behaviour.

---