| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that some hon. Members might have to suck or chew something unobtrusively if they have a sore throat, but I find it somewhat paradoxical in a debate about the respect agenda that a Government Member should be very visibly chewing gum. Is it in order for an hon. Member—I shall not embarrass him by naming him—to chew gum obtrusively in the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order for the Chair. I hope that all hon. Members will be polite in their behaviour when present in the Chamber.
Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that some hon. Members may be suffering
in that they are trying to give up smoking tobacco and may be masticating medicinally on occasion and should therefore possibly be forgiven?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That thought crossed my mind, but I thought that it was better not say it in case that was not so. I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is satisfied with that explanation.
6.1 pm
Mr. David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): Let us get back to the Bill.
I should like to make a brief contribution, and I am pleased to be able to participate in what has been a very important debate today. Of course, the Bill's aims of building safer, stronger communities and instilling a culture of respect are highly commendable and would be welcomed by all hon. Members. Whether legislation can ever achieve such aims remains an open question.
I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who gave a powerful presentation of the case against some
6 Mar 2006 : Column 648
aspects of the Bill and highlighted some of our concerns. We all agree that the Bill has some good points, but Conservative Members have great concern about the centralising influences that the Government seem to show in all their measures, and the Bill is no exception.
Yes, real issues to do with antisocial behaviour and police restructuring have come across in the debate today, but some of us are rather concerned that the Home Secretary did not answer the point that was made in interventions on him that the real reason for the Bill is perhaps police authority restructuring. That is behind the Bill, which is being wrapped up under the guise of an antisocial behaviour measure, when something a little more sinister is, in fact, behind it. Phrases such as "technical", "bureaucratic" and "too much central control" seem to be the hallmarks of large parts of the Bill.
In my constituency, however, the most important issues are those associated with the antisocial behaviour that our constituents face every day of their lives, and I want to centre my limited contribution in today's debate on those issues. In particular, police community support officers have been mentioned in general, but I want to highlight how important they have been in improving community safety in my constituency.
I was one of the sceptics when the proposal for CSOs first came into being. I was sceptical because I wondered how they could do the job and what contribution they could make to improve antisocial behaviour and reduce criminal activity in our borough. I was sceptical, too, about their training and about their role—their powers and their responsibilities—but I welcome what CSOs have achieved so far and what will happen under the Bill to standardise their powers and responsibilities. I still have some doubts about their training and wonder whether it could be better and more extensive, but I am sure that that will be debated at length in Committee.
It is true to say that when we go around any Conservative Member's constituency we see that the police are very much respected and their work is much appreciated. However, the tide of antisocial behaviour, vandalism and graffiti that has occurred during the past decade is still growing worse and worse—in fact, it has become an epidemic in some areas—and residents, shopkeepers, business people and visitors are all appalled by the situation in which we find ourselves in a society where people do not have a great deal of respect for one another. Of course, that is the reason why we are debating the Bill.
I met some of the residents of the Hurst Place estate in the northern part of my constituency. They came to see me because they felt that the vandalism, graffiti and bad behaviour of the youths in our society was out of control. That is the key issue that most people find: they are worried about where things are going and how they will end up. Anything that can be done to improve those aspects of antisocial behaviour will be welcomed. Part 3 is welcome, because local authorities will have a new role with oversight committees to scrutinise crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which is very positive.
As always, the worry with this Government is the vagueness of the call for community action. They use wonderful phrases in their approach, but what does it actually mean in reality? Of course, the Government say that they will allow communities to request action on the
6 Mar 2006 : Column 649
community safety issues that they consider the police or other organisations and crime reduction partners have failed to address adequately, but I am not sure what that means in reality. What does it mean for the people who are already suffering? In Committee, we look forward to taxing out more from the Government.
Mr. Evennett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not happy with the word "taxing", but we do not get any meat from the Government; we get a bit of waffle in many ways.
The third issue is the extension of the range of agencies that can enter into parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders. I intervened on the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) when she was being very negative about that proposal. She was concerned about training and the organisations that might be included, but I welcome that measure. If we really want to get to grips with the problems, we must be positive. The Liberal Democrats were not positive, but I welcome what the Government are endeavouring to do in that respect. However, the restructuring of other organisations is very technical, and many hon. Members are not happy with those parts of the Bill. We should concentrate on the real issues that affect individuals.
I was interested to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who made a very powerful contribution and highlighted the other issue that I was going to raise in my contribution, but as he said it in such a powerful and interesting way, I will not continue with it, other than to say that he makes a valid point about which Conservative Members are very concerned. I know that the Minister has been listening avidly not only to what I have said, but what he said on the matter, and I am sure that she will take on board the issue, so that we can have some action on it.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, but there are other areas where we feel that there is another agenda, which is to do with police restructuring and taking the decisions higher up and away from the local community. Conservative Members believe that localism is important and that people should feel an affinity with their local police force and with the people who enforce the law in their localities. In many ways, aspects of the Bill give more and more power to the Home Secretary and assign things to larger organisations. That will not deal with the problems or allow organisations to feel ownership of the solution for dealing with antisocial behaviour in their localities.
There is much that is good in the Bill, but we are concerned about aspects that take things in the opposite direction to the way in which we believe that they should be going, which is to make sure that local communities have ownership of local problems and the solutions, too. As the Bill proceeds, we will push hard on the two or three points that I have highlighted.
6.10 pm
Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab):
I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. It contains numerous measures across
6 Mar 2006 : Column 650
a wide range of areas that will improve our police forces and the quality of life in all our constituencies in many ways. I am pleased that that is recognised on both sides of the House and that the Opposition have said that they will not divide the House on Second Reading.
I welcome the strengthening of the powers and role of community support officers in part 1. The Bill standardises CSO powers so that CSOs can contribute fully to neighbourhood policing and deal with more issues on the spot. I also welcome giving police CSOs the power to deal with truants. They are well placed to deal with them because they are on duty in the community and can obviously spot truants, especially the regular ones. That starts to give one the image of a Britain of yesteryear, when the local bobby would be on the beat and spot little Johnny or Betty and know them by name and where they live, and would then escort them home to surprised and often cross parents. That was a time when communities worked together for all their inhabitants and when the police and all other public servants were accorded much respect—I am sure that the House would agree that they deserved it, as they do today.
I also welcome the strengthening of powers to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour and especially the extension of the number of agencies that can enter into parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders. That brings me on to part 2, "Powers of police". With regard to the new extension of powers for the police to stop and search people at airports, I want to draw the House's attention to the practical difficulties of enforcing football banning orders. The other point that I want to raise relates more specifically to persons entering or leaving the country, who are under no obligation to account for their identity to the police if requested to do so. I am keen to move quickly on the issue because of the 2006 World cup, which is being hosted by Germany, and the likelihood of officers being required to perform port operations to screen football fans without the legislative backing to do so.
While researching the matter, I have spoken to numerous representatives from the police, including Michael Downes, who is a national representative on the Police Federation. He has conducted numerous pieces of research and has spoken to experts in policing football disorder and members of the police who conduct port operations during international fixtures.
I will give the House some background to the operation of football banning orders. Letters are sent to persons subject to the orders prior to or at the commencement of the control period, which is usually five days before the event or fixture. The letters direct those persons to comply with the order, which could involve surrendering a passport or signing in at a police station. There is no national policy or approach to ensure that the orders are complied with. Research suggests that it is unlikely that they are, or that breaches are detected. That is often because the matter is simply not a priority in all forces and little or no training is given to front-counter staff in this area of legislation.
In addition, there is no requirement to inform the authorities of a change of residence, and although the Violent Crime Reduction Bill tries to deal with that, it does not appear to cater for persons working away from
6 Mar 2006 : Column 651
home. That is a major problem for police officers, who are often not told that X or Y is working away for a week or so, thus making it impossible to police the order.
Persons are also entitled to apply for duplicate passports if they claim that the original has been lost or stolen. They can also be issued with a duplicate passport if they claim that they are waiting for a visa application to be processed. In addition, if travelling in the EU, there is no requirement to possess a passport. A driving licence can be accepted as sufficient identification to travel. That is not a major problem at present because most airline operators have a company policy that requires a passport to be produced on departure. It should be noted, however, that car ferry companies often record only the lead name plus the number of passengers. It is likely that a large number of the fans who attend the 2006 World cup in Germany will travel by car and ferry. Approximately 48 ferries leave Dover a day, each with a capacity of 2,000 passengers. Dover is, of course, only one major shipping port. Others such as Hull will also play a major role during the event.
Entries are made on the police national computer showing details of football banning orders. However, because of technical difficulties, people are shown as "wanted/missing". That is also the case for sex offenders and persons subject to antisocial behaviour orders. That causes two major problems. First, people are being detained unlawfully because they are shown as "wanted", and, secondly, port operations are not as efficient or effective as they could be.
Police officers have no power to request the production of any form of identification from persons entering or leaving the UK. If a police officer saw a person leaving the country and wanted to establish their identity—for example, to find out whether they were wanted on a warrant or for an arrestable offence, subject to a football banning order, or recorded on the sex offenders register—they could not do so. In addition, at the moment—this matter is included in the Bill—police officers have no authority to examine rail, shipping or flight manifests. That is why I welcome the extension of powers in the Bill.
British Transport police play a key role in port operations as a result of Eurotunnel and subsequent rail links into France and onwards. Legislators often use words such as "port" or "police officer", but they cause British Transport police officers some difficulty. All Eurotunnel journeys commence at railway stations, not ports, which is where the difficulty arises. It would also be more useful if the term "constable" was used as an alternative to "police officer", as I note that it is in the Bill.
The points that I have mentioned cause police officers considerable difficulties in performing their duties efficiently and effectively. I hope that the majority of the issues will be addressed in Committee.
I welcome many other aspects of the Bill. I not only welcome the powers on stop and search, but ask for them to go further. Part 3, which I will not speak about in detail, covers the measures in our respect agenda to deal with antisocial behaviour and improve the parenting of young people. Those measures should be welcomed by the whole House, as they are. I look forward to following the Bill's progress in Committee.
6 Mar 2006 : Column 652
6.18 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |