|
Ms Blears: Hon. Members are right to probe the issues through their amendments, because the law is being changed, but I hope to be able to give them some reassurance.
I must resist amendments Nos. 251 and 305 because the national security designation category for the new offence of trespass on a designated site would be removed from the Bill, and the Government believe that it is essential to retain that category to enable us to designate sites as such. However, I understand hon. Members' misgivings about the width of the definition of national security.
It is general Government policy, not just of the current Government, not to define national security, as that could hinder our flexibility in dealing with new and emerging threats. A single rigid definition could prevent us from dealing with issues that arise. It has been recognised by the courts, both here and in Europe, that the definition of national security is primarily a matter for the Executive, in this case the Secretary of State through the order-making power of designation. In addition, the House of Lords ruled in the case of Rehman in 2001 that national security embraces a precautionary approach, that is, potential threats as well as actual threats, which gives the Executive fairly wide leeway for making definitions.
We envisage being able to designate land belonging to the Crown, land belonging to the Queen or the Prince of Wales in their private capacity, and any land that falls under the national security designation. The provisions therefore cover places like Windsor castle and those parts of Buckingham palace not open to the public—clearly, some parts of the palace are open to the public, and as long as the public keep to those areas they will not be committing an offence. I hate to legislate in a reactive fashion, but hon. Members will be aware of the recommendations in the Armstrong report that followed Aaron Barschak's intrusion at Windsor castle and the security commission inquiry's report into Ryan Parry's intrusion into Buckingham palace. The clause is a result of those various security authorities' recommendations to us. The legislation is designed to address a particular set of circumstances,
Column Number: 327
specifically mischief, although we are not in the business of using that as a catch-all to enable a wide designation of sites across the country.
I am concerned about the amendments relating to public access, because they would prevent sites where there is such access from being protected. The provision for a defence that people did not know the site was designated would be sufficient for them not to be prosecuted. Not only is there a defence, but the prosecution would have to have a realistic chance of success, which will militate against frivolous prosecutions of people who have unwittingly trespassed on a designated site. We have tried to draw the legislation to ensure that it is not a massive extension of restrictions on people's ability to enter various sites.
We do need a deterrent and an incentive for people to leave a designated site. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield made a genuine point about the need to put up signage so that members of the public actually know that the site is designated and do not accidentally wander in and find themselves committing a criminal offence. There is provision in the legislation to allow the Secretary of State to put up signage. The various sites will be designated through order, which will need to be laid before Parliament.
This is a fairly modest set of proposals, designed to attack the particular mischief of people getting into Buckingham palace and Windsor castle. It may well be that, in future, it will be considered appropriate to designate the Palace of Westminster on grounds of national security. Clearly, that will be a matter for consideration of the Secretary of State when drawing up the designated orders. As I think that the amendments would undermine the purpose of the legislation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister, and I will ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. However, at the end of a speech that otherwise filled me with considerable comfort, the Minister properly highlighted the fact that there might come a day on which we would have to designate the Palace of Westminster or, as I think she is more likely to mean, parts of it. That might get us into difficulties. I want the Minister to reflect on my concern that the proposals be kept simple. One of the concerns that underlay the tabling of the amendments was that once we start to designate parts of sites but not entire sites, we start to create quite a complicated set of rules. It may not be impossible. I suppose that we could end up with little notices down the Members' Corridor, which I have to say has now become a public freeway. It certainly was not 25 years ago when my father was in Parliament: no one went down there except for Members and senior staff. We will have to put up notices, and that could turn out to be quite intrusive. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that if the
Column Number: 328
measure starts to become disproportionate, it will quickly be brought into disrepute. Subject to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Designated Sites: powers of arrest
Amendment made: No. 259, in clause 121, page 86, line 20, at end insert—
'(3) A constable in uniform may, in Scotland, arrest without warrant any person he reasonably suspects is committing or has committed an offence under section (Corresponding Scottish offence).'.—[Ms Blears.]
Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 122, 125 and 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Anti-social behaviour orders etc.: reporting restrictions
Amendment made: No. 260, in clause 127, page 91, line 47, leave out
'after the definition of ''British Transport Police Force'''
and insert
'before the definition of ''the commencement date''.'.—[Ms Blears.]
Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 134
Publication of local policing information
9.30 am
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 197, in clause 134, page 100, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) Such a report shall include a report on matters relating to the policing of each local authority area within the police authority's area;
(1B) In this section ''local authority'' means—
(a) in relation to England—
(iii) a council of a district comprised in an area for which there is no county council,
(iv) a London borough council, or
(v) the Common Council of the City of London;
(b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 198, in clause 134, page 100, line 15, leave out 'Such a report' and insert
'A report issued under subsection (1A).'.
Column Number: 329
Mr. Heath: We are now dealing with the provisions on producing local policing information. The Government's idea in that regard is perfectly proper, and I commend it; it is important that people know how their local police force is performing its duties and have genuine information about what is happening in their area. My difficulty is simply with the terms in which the clause is couched, because it refers to the police authority area, rather than to something to which people can genuinely relate.
Of course, it is of interest to know how one's police force as a whole is operating, but we may be dealing with joint forces, covering more than one county area. I am thinking, in my case, of the Avon and Somerset police and, in the Minister of State's case, of the Greater Manchester police; there are also the Thames Valley police. It is of limited value having an overall view of how such a force is doing if the information is not broken down to show what is happening in the locality in which one lives.
The amendments would bring the local policing summary down to the level of at least the local authority area—the district in which one lives. One could argue that it would be possible to break the summary down in several ways, and the basic command unit might be appropriate, although that is a policing term, rather than a term that the public understand. Similarly, a policing sector is a particular entity in policing terms, but I am not sure that the public always understand it. In the Somerton part of my constituency, for instance, there are always considerable concerns about crime levels. Although I share some of those concerns—certainly those about the level of policing—I also have to explain to people that the Somerton sector actually comprises a very large area and that crime levels in Somerton itself are in fact relatively low. That is just one example, but I am sure that it applies in many other areas.
Similarly, in the London boroughs, knowing what the Metropolitan police are doing as an entity is of limited use; knowing what was happening in the borough in which one lives is of considerable use. Providing such information would not only inform the public, but enable elected members of local authorities properly to question police commanders in their area about their performance and priorities. Of course, that would also build on the policing partnerships and other provisions that the Government have already put in place.
I think that good police authorities will want to do what I envisage; they will want to break down information so that it is relevant to local people. However, that is not required by statute, and I very much want that to happen. I have argued, and shall continue to argue, that the whole structure of policing should be more localised—not in terms of breaking down force areas, but in terms of making policing relate much more closely to local communities. Indeed, I would change police funding to reflect that, so that local authorities, district councils or borough councils had a direct relationship with policing in their areas and could negotiate a guaranteed level of policing, with people paying towards its funding.
Column Number: 330
That, however, is an argument for a different day; today, we are talking simply about information. If we can break information down to the local level, people will have genuine information about what is happening in their areas and will be able to hold their police to account. Furthermore, people on Exmoor, for instance, will perhaps not be frightened by levels of crime in inner-city Bristol, when those in fact bear no relationship to what is happening in their area. Saying that there is a massive increase in gun crime or in street mugging and relating that to what happens in Dulverton or Dunster, where the level of street crime and gun offences is low, does a disservice to the consumer of that information and to the person who should be holding the police properly to account.
|
