| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We believe that new clause 8 is proportionate and reasonable, and that as part of a framework of measures it will help to take weapons off our streets and make our communities safer places in which to live. As for whether the Government will feel persuaded to adopt our idea later and we will gain a new “magpie Minister”, we shall have to wait and see, but this is a serious and considered proposal. It provides an addition to the law that we believe will make an important contribution in helping to prevent serious crime, which is supposed to be at the heart of the Bill. It is intended to help in the fight against gun crime, knife crime and other crimes of serious violence, in which one victim is one victim too many. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to put it to the vote, and that it will receive the backing of the House.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): Let me begin by saying that this is no “magpie Minister” but an eagle, willing to swoop down and deal with all the dreadful criminals who are engaged in such awful behaviour.
I think we all share the concerns that have been expressed by both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the high-profile crimes that were committed in the summer this year: crimes such as the one against Rhys Jones, which have literally shocked the nation. Although crime has been falling, it is right for the Government to try to ensure—especially in this Bill—that the police are given sufficient powers to be able to deal with an increase in serious crime. It is also right for that to be done in this place, and for us to debate the issues.
I think the Minister will find that there is all-party agreement about the need for us to give the police the powers that they need. However, I want to strike a note of caution over the proposals for extension of stop-and-search powers. I will not oppose the Government, because I believe that the thrust of what the Minister has said is correct, but I ask him to bear in mind a number of key facts, and I hope he will do so with the care with which I have always associated him.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) served on the Home Affairs Committee before I became its Chairman, and participated diligently in a report on young black men and crime that was published in the summer. The Government’s response arrived last Wednesday, within the time limit of two months but at a time when the Committee was abroad taking evidence on counter-terrorism. Nevertheless, it addresses the Committee’s concerns.
On the issue of stop and search specifically, the Committee’s view is clear. Although there are benefits in giving the police additional powers, the Committee concluded unanimously that they were outweighed by the implications for the community trust and co-operation that the police need if they are to do their jobs effectively. That is, I think, the key fact.
Our debate has been enlivened by the comments of Keith Jarrett, chairman of the National Black Police Association, who said over the weekend, in an open and transparent way, that he considered it important for the powers to be extended because that would give the police a better way of reaching those who commit
crimes. I disagree with that view, as do other members of the association. I think that we need to look at the factual information before deciding to increase any powers. I have received no representations suggesting that the community want more stop-and-search powers because they would result in more people being apprehended; nor, I think, did the Committee during its extensive inquiry, which included the taking of evidence from young black people themselves. It is right that there should be engagement, and both the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the Minister, in their measured responses to this problem, pointed out the need for us to work within the community. Neither of them specifically said that the community itself was calling for increased powers.
It is worth examining the statistics to get a brief flavour of the facts that have emerged as a result of the police use of stop and search. In 2004-05, 839,977 persons were stopped and searched and 12,400 stops of vehicles were recorded by the police under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation. Of those, 118,165 or 14 per cent. were of black people; 59,954 or 7 per cent. were of people of Asian origin; and 12,733 or 1.5 per cent. were of people of other ethnic origins. For England and Wales as a whole, the number of stop and searches rose by 14 per cent., from 737,137 in 2003-04 to 839,977, although that was less than the figure in 2002-03. Most of the rise was accounted for by an increase in the stopping and searching of people who were not black or Asian.
Overall, black people were six times more likely to be searched than those who were not black—the ratio in 2003-04 was 6.4 times; if the figures for London are excluded, the ratio falls to 4.9 times. Asian people were 1.8 times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people, compared with 1.9 times as likely in the previous year. The important fact is that 11 per cent. of stop and searches resulted in an arrest. The proportion varied between police forces, from 7 per cent. in Gwent to 20 per cent. in the City of London. The problem facing us, which was correctly identified in the Select Committee report, is that the hit rate was still too low. People are prepared to accept an extension of powers if the hit rate will be improved or increased, but there was no indication from the Minister that that would happen as a result of what he proposes.
We need to be cautious about the impact of this proposal. The hon. Member for Hornchurch, in his usual eloquent way, talked about proportionality. It is the big buzz word whenever we discuss such an issue, be it the 28-day detention period or another civil liberties matter, and it becomes extremely important. That is why I ask the Minister to examine the impact that the proposal will have on the black community. It is not right that we should have a certain set of laws that will result only in certain types of people being affected by an increase in police powers. It is important that we examine those figures.
In conclusion, I accept the thrust of what both Front-Bench spokespeople say, although I do not support new clause 8, because it is not right when dealing with such serious issues that we should level down the rank of the person making the important decisions. The Minister is right to say that that should be kept at a certain policing level, because the difficulty of levelling it down is that things will increase. We need
people of sufficient seniority to be able to deal with these important issues. He says that his proposal will help in the fight against serious crime, and I believe him, because he would not have brought the measure before the House unless he felt that it would help in the fight against crime. However, I ask him to examine the impact on communities, because once we start stigmatising communities in our country we shall be on the road to ruin for our multicultural society.
6.45 pm
Mr. Jeremy Browne: I echo the sentiments of every previous speaker about the shock and public concern that rightly and inevitably arises from the terrible incidents that have had a high profile in the media in recent months, particularly those involving gun crime. May I suggest how the Government should proceed on this topic? There is a danger that we discuss stop and search narrowly. It is sometimes a vital power in the armoury of the police, but it is not the only power available to them. Another power is the so-called “mandatory sentence” that goes with being caught with a gun. People in my constituency and elsewhere do understand why it is not used more widely. They are led to believe that the mandatory term of five years automatically flows, save in exceptional circumstances, from someone being caught with a firearm, but it is applied in only a minority of cases. That stretches the word “mandatory” beyond most people’s understanding of its definition.
The second area on which the Government need to concentrate to a greater degree is the smuggling of firearms. The third area, which has rightly been discussed by all political parties, is how we can culturally change attitudes to guns, particularly in some communities where they often appear to be regarded as a fashion accessory rather than the lethal weapon that we know them to be.
Gun crime attracts far more media attention than some other crimes, often because the consequences are particularly devastating, despite its rarity. Annually, more people are killed by knives than by guns, and it is worth recalling that when we have this type of discussion. It is also wise not to exaggerate the scope of the problem. That is not to say that it is not a problem in every community—it could be, at any given moment, a problem that could affect anybody in this country—but more than half of the firearms incidents recorded in the most recent year, 55 per cent. to be precise, happened in just three police force areas, those of the Metropolitan police, in whose area we are having this debate, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. All three of those force areas have their own specialist units to tackle gang-led drugs and gun crime: Trident, X-Calibre and Engage, in that order. Special provisions are being put in place where gun crime and other types of violent crime are particularly prevalent. Stop and search has a part to play in that, but it is not the be all and end all.
I say that because we must strike a careful balance between protecting the individual’s physical safety and protecting the liberties of the individual citizen. It is a quite a draconian measure for the state to be able to stop people who have committed no criminal offence, or appear not to have done so, and search them. The power should be used with discretion and intelligence. I
welcome the measures in the Government’s new clause 9, specifically the four changes that I have identified that take the debate forward from the suggestions made in another place earlier in the passage of this Bill.
First, the Government are widening the scope of stop and search to non-firearms, including knives. I have mentioned just how important that consideration is for many people. Secondly, I support the oral authorisation being allowed in the exceptional circumstances that the Minister outlined. It is important that when such instances arise, the police can be fleet of foot and are not held up in a way that most people would think perverse. Thirdly, and this is where I differ from the proposals being put forward by the Conservative party, there is a need for a senior officer to authorise these decisions. If that power is to be wielded at the expense of an individual citizen going about his or her ordinary business, people will be reassured if the decisions are made by a senior officer. Finally, I am encouraged that the Government have removed some of the grey areas that were mentioned in the other place, especially the expression “by any means necessary”, which is too wide a definition of how powers of stop and search can be used.
I am also confused by the Conservatives’ position and perhaps a Front Bencher could assist me. The Conservative party’s proposals, which were published on 28 August and which have the racy title, “It’s Time to Fight Back”, which is what one gets if one employs the former editor of the News of the World to decide one’s policies, contain a description by the party leader. He says:
“This document sets out what the Conservative party would do in Government to tackle Britain’s crime crisis.”
“Abolish the stop form...A Conservative Government will scrap the stop form and allow officers to stop and question an individual without making a written record.”
However, new clause 8, tabled by the Conservatives, states:
“Any authorisation under this section shall...be given in writing signed by the officer giving it.”
“Where a vehicle is stopped by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the vehicle was stopped under the powers conferred by this section...A person who is searched by a constable under this section shall be entitled to obtain a written statement...Where a constable has carried out a search in the exercise of the power under subsection (4) he shall make a record of it in writing”—
James Brokenshire: I am delighted to have the opportunity to intervene. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is an important distinction between a stop and a stop and search. We believe that a stop form for a stop is inappropriate, but we recognise that recording in relation to stop and search is a different matter.
Mr. Browne:
I am grateful for the clarification. So were the Conservatives’ policy to be implemented, no form would be required on stopping and questioning an individual, but if they were searched by a junior officer it would have to be put in writing. It was worth clarifying that point, because the impression created by
Conservative Front Benchers is that all the paperwork is terribly burdensome and were they ever again in a position to implement policy, they would do away with all those burdens that the police find so irksome on occasion. However, that is not what new clause 8 says. I suppose that they have managed to achieve the objective of satisfying the public that the powers will not be widely used while also satisfying those who are concerned about civil liberties.
To highlight a concern for people who take civil liberties seriously, I wish to refer to two written answers that I have received this year. On 17 April, the Government confirmed that there were 41,300 incidences of stop and search in 2005, and that represents a 94 per cent. increase in the past 10 years. On 16 October, the Government confirmed that there had been a fourfold increase in the number of people stopped under the Terrorism Act 2000, to 32,062 in 2004-05. I draw the Minister’s attention to the scale of that activity. To extend the scope of stop and search and the circumstances in which it can be used will not automatically imply that more people will be stopped and searched. It may mean that the power is used with greater targeting, accuracy and effect, and for the sake of everyone who is concerned about gun and knife crime, I hope that that is the case.
Mr. Cox: The power to stop and search randomly is a power that should be exercised with the greatest of care. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made some telling points about the sensitivity that the exercise of such an apparently random power requires, especially in communities where ethnic minorities predominate. There is no doubt that in the past the power has been exercised without the necessary sensitivity, and that has caused considerable resentment in many of the communities that have been exposed to it.
There is also no doubt, however, that we are faced with an unprecedented situation. Serious violent crime is rising. The prevalence of the use of knives on our streets is a phenomenon that is growing alarmingly. We can all cite anecdotal evidence of the use of knives at increasingly younger ages. The law enforcement authorities are faced with the impossibility of preventing the use of knives on our streets with ever diminishing inhibition by ever younger perpetrators.
It is in those circumstances that we have heard voices recently drawing to our attention the need for greater powers for the police to be able to stop and search. It is important to recall that the powers that are exercisable under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 can be exercised only if an inspector has decided that he has reasonable grounds to suspect that a serious violent incident may take place in a particular locality or that in that particular locality there are grounds to suspect that someone is carrying a dangerous weapon.
It is important to carry out the kind of community relations and consultation of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is important to get across to those communities that when the police use the power that they were given under the 1994 Act, they are doing it to protect the public, including not only those who have not been stopped, but those who have been stopped
and are innocent. It is not always done with the necessary sensitivity. The right hon. Gentleman may have had experience, in a professional capacity, as I certainly have, of incidences of stop and search that have not been carried out with the sensitivity required. However, it is vital that we should remember that that critical power is used to protect all members of society, including vulnerable members of the public who are at risk from those wielding those types of weapons.
We must start from the position that the House has conferred, in carefully safeguarded circumstances, an important power on the police. We have to ask whether we have reached a situation in which we need to consider a limited—and also carefully safeguarded—extension of that power. I believe that we have reached that position. The tide of violence that seems to be sweeping our streets among not even adults, but children, needs some measure of response. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his impressive contribution, it must be a measured and limited extension. That is why the Government’s intention in the amendment is understandable and laudable. They propose a narrow extension. They wish to clarify the law so that there is no doubt that, where a serious violent incident has taken place, a police officer of the rank of inspector may say, “I have reasonable grounds to believe that somebody may be carrying the weapon that has been used in that incident, therefore I shall authorise random stop and search powers, in the interests of detecting crime”—note that it is for the purpose of detecting crime, not preventing it.
7 pm
The provision relates not to preventing crime but to detecting it, so, having reflected on what the Minister said, I can see that there may be some value in a clarification of the law, because it must be arguable that the law already extends to that situation. Equally, no doubt, I can imagine—I blush to confess it—a member of my profession advancing to a learned judge the proposition that the statute is plainly intended for the prevention of crime, not the detection of crime, so to purport to exercise the power under the provision is unlawful.
The new clause clarifies the law. It does not really extend the law, as the power may already exist, but makes it clear that the law can be used for the detection of crime, not merely for the prevention of crime under the proposal. The serious violent incident could have taken place some days previously; there seems to be no proximity of time and perhaps the Minister could assist me on that point in his closing remarks. The provision does not seem to require there to be any proximity in time between the serious violent incident and the authorisation of the stop and search power. The serious violence could have taken place some months beforehand, but if the officer conceives that the weapon used in the incident is in a particular place, he can authorise the use of stop and search.
Such clarification may be useful, but I urge the Minister to reflect on the fact that the time may have come for a measured extension of the power, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) proposes just such a measured extension. My constituency covers a large rural area, which includes five or six market towns many miles distant
from a major conurbation. Their police stations are often manned not by inspectors, but by sergeants. If there is disorder in a market town or a large village—such disorders can occur even in small villages—the sergeant will be faced with the decision about the police reaction to the disorder. It may thus be valuable to permit the sergeant, without seeking out his inspector, who may be 50 miles away and have no real knowledge of the circumstances that led to the sergeant wanting to take the action, to authorise for a limited period of time—we propose six hours—the use of the stop and search power. It must be remembered, however, that the officer can do so only if he has reasonable grounds to believe that a serious violent incident may be committed or that a person is carrying a dangerous offensive weapon. In far-flung rural areas, such as the one I represent, entrusting that power to a sergeant, who may be in charge of the police station in which he is based, could be a valuable and useful measure.
Our proposal could be valuable and it is worthy of serious reflection. It would invite, I respectfully submit to the Minister, wide consensus and it is not to be dismissed out of hand.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. I did not serve on the Committee, but I speak as a parent. Like many Members, I am appalled and heartbroken every time I see yet another mother or father—another family—mourning the loss of a child. It is not just the life of the child that is destroyed—gone, vanished—but many connected lives: brothers and sisters, friends, grandparents, mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles. It is a tragedy beyond compare when a young life is needlessly taken, which is why it is so important for us in this place to come together, not just today but every day, to try to reduce the incidence of such tragedies.
I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He made some good points. A couple of weeks ago, I was pulled over by my police when I was with my daughter travelling back from the school play. We had bought a bag of doughnuts from Tesco and were on our way home when for no reason that I could see—although it was something to do with my driving—I was pulled over by a police car that had followed me for a mile and a half. I was angry and frightened—that is me, a middle-class Member of Parliament. When I recounted the story to a friend, he asked, “How would you feel, Charles, if that was happening weekly or fortnightly and if you were black or Asian?” I can tell the House that I would feel hurt, angry and embittered towards those subjecting me to such searches. That is why we need to be careful.
We need to balance the interests of communities and the people who live in them with the interests of those who are stopped and searched.
Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recounting that story. What was the police explanation for why he was stopped?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |