| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Walker:
First, the officer asked whether I had been drinking, to which I replied that I had not had a drink for three and a half years. I asked why he had pulled me over and he said that my driving was erratic. I disagreed with that. Then he said, “And you were following
the speed limit all the time we were behind you.” I explained that as the local Member of Parliament I tend not to speed in my constituency as I do not want tickets. I was also told that I came under suspicion because I approached a roundabout at 20 mph, whereas most people do so at between 30 to 40 mph.
There is a place for the proposed laws, but we need to make sure that they are applied sensitively and that we do not alienate members of the community whom we need on our side. If we are to tackle the appalling rates of gun and knife crime, it must be a community-wide exercise. We cannot rely on the police to do it for us, because if we do so, they will surely fail. We need to involve community leaders, parents and schools. They have the power to reach young people at an early age and set them on the right path, to teach them the difference between right and wrong.
These laws alone will not end gun and knife crime. When they come into force, gun crime and knife crime will not fall quickly or automatically. The laws are part of a template; they are building blocks for reducing gun and knife crime, but to do so we need fully to engage our communities and the people who can and do reach young minds to ensure that they choose the right path and make the right decisions.
It is not just that the young lives of those who are killed so tragically are snuffed out; the perpetrators of those crimes are affected, too. Often they are young people or children—almost babies. As soon as they use a knife or a gun their life, in effect, is over, too. It is important that the House understands that the issue is deeply complex. All parties must work together to ensure that over the next decade we have a happier story to tell than over the past decade.
Mr. Coaker: I thank all Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for an excellent debate. It would be easy in such debates for hon. Members on both sides of the House to grandstand, to try to grab headlines and to make the easy speech. However, as Opposition Members and my right hon. Friend have said, this issue cannot be solved by headline-grabbing or populist measures, but requires a menu that includes all the various options available to us.
No one can fail to have been moved by the families involved, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), my right hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members have met some of them and seen the consequences of what we are talking about: real communities, real families and real young people, whose lives have been devastated by this sort of violent crime.
If I could do one thing at the Dispatch Box that meant that no one would be shot or stabbed and that there would be no violence at all on our streets, I would do it: I would pass that measure or seek to ensure that the House passed it tomorrow. Indeed, if any hon. Member had a magic wand that could immediately bring an end to all that violence, he or she would surely wave it. In fact, the debate has demonstrated that the solution and the progress that must be made will come about through steady actions, and the Government have taken a number of them. I want to mention a few of those actions before I address some of the comments made by Members.
The Government have recognised that this is not only a matter of enforcing and strengthening the law; there are other solutions, although, of course, enforcing the law has an important part to play. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) mentioned the mandatory minimum five-year sentence, about which there are concerns, although the length of sentence for the possession of firearms has increased from 12.1 months in 2004 to 47.3 months. Again, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for the supply of guns to be prioritised, and Customs has agreed to make tackling the supply of guns a priority for the first time. Customs will therefore generate fresh intelligence on gun supply and prioritise suspected trafficking cases—another step forward that we have taken.
Prevention is also vital. Every hon. Member who spoke in the debate not only talked about the enforcement of the law and the tough measures that need to be taken, but pointed out that prevention is crucial and that the work that takes places in communities is essential. Every Member will have been to different communities and seen the work of community groups. Surely, if we have to do one thing, it is to empower community organisations and groups in the affected areas to take the required action.
We are looking at what more we can do to support organisations, such as Boyhood to Manhood, which works particularly well in Southwark to extend positive role models for young people, and Mothers Against Guns and Mothers Against Violence—run by people who have used the horror of what has happened to their own family to try to ensure that it does not happen to others. We are considering what we can do for street pastors—people who, through the power of their faith, go out on the streets to take action against some of the problems that we have seen.
Let me share just one experience when I was out with the street pastors in Brixton recently, dealing with problems on the street. I do not know what other hon. Members think, but I imagined that all the street pastors would be 6 ft 6—all built a bit like the England rugby pack. [ Interruption . ] It is good example, but an unfortunate result. In fact, when an incident arose, the person who went over and dealt with it was a 78-year-old grandmother. The young people she spoke to respected and valued her. If we could only harness such power, we could do more to prevent crime. It is not only about enforcement or tackling the supply of guns, but about prevention and working with communities. As we have heard, it is also about trying to encourage witnesses to come forward, protecting them and giving them confidence.
7.15 pm
There is no headline solution to the problem; there is only a solution that needs us all to take step-by-step action to cover all aspects of that problem. The hon. Member for Taunton said that we need to address the broad issues, not just those of stop and search. Given the points that I have made, I hope that he will feel that some progress is being made to ensure that there is not a one-club solution—it is not just either/or—but that all those issues taken together will ensure that a broad strategy is implemented that can make a real difference.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, whom I have known for a number of years, for pointing out that, whatever decisions we make about stop-and-search powers, we need to recognise both that we can make progress only with caution and that very real problems exist—the disproportionality to which he referred. It is worth repeating, as he did, that black people are six times more likely to be stopped. If we are to be effective and proportionate, we must take account of such statistics and ensure that we do more to inspire confidence among those people that the powers that we may give to our police will not be used disproportionately.
Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) has told us what happened when he was stopped. He is clearly not black. Obviously, the police were not after his doughnuts. They stopped him because he seemed to be obeying the law. So as part of the deal to vote for more police powers, will my hon. Friend and his colleague, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, ensure that the police understand that, in giving them more powers, we want them to act sensitively, whether towards black people or people who are not black?
Mr. Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We will, of course, ensure—I give him this commitment—that in extending these powers, as we hope to do under new clause 9, we speak to the police and reinforce the need for proportionality in everything that we do. Indeed, as he will know, one of the reasons we set up the stop-and-search action team was to try to address both disproportionality and to assist forces in making arrangements to record stops and to ensure that stop-and-search powers are properly implemented by the police.
The gist of the debate is that we all agree that stop-and-search powers need to be revisited at times. We need to ensure that our laws work effectively. However, I tell the hon. Member for Hornchurch that my key objection, which is supported by the hon. Member for Taunton and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, is our concern about lowering the rank of officer who can authorise stop and searches. We are not persuaded that that would be the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), in most areas that I visit across the country, both urban and rural, the local area commander—the person responsible for the delivery of neighbourhood policing—is the local inspector. In the first instance, the local inspector is the most appropriate person to determine the initial authorisation.
The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, who made a good speech, agreed with the action that the Government are taking and believed that it would clarify the law on extending stop-and-search powers to something that happens after a violent incident has taken place, so that we can detect crime, thus enhancing the existing powers that are intended to prevent crime. He asked us to keep the various stop-and- search measures under review at all times, and to keep under consideration the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I said in my
introductory remarks that we will always keep the various powers that are available under review to ensure that the law is good, and that improvements are made where necessary.
The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon asked me whether there is any need for proximity in time. There is no such requirement in the new clause, but the new powers should be used as close to the time of the incident as is possible.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne talked about the need to ensure balance in the law. He made an important point. In everything that we do with respect to stop and search, we recognise that we are talking about an extension of the power and an erosion of civil liberties. In the main, that is done to try to ensure that we prevent crime and protect our communities—something that we all wish to do. The Government new clause offers a further way of protecting the public, but it does so in a proportionate and considered way. I urge the House to support it.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘In section 25(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) (interpretation of Chapter II), for paragraph (g) substitute:—
“(g) an ambulance service or fire authority;
(h) the Health and Safety Executive;
(i) the Serious Fraud Office;
(j) any such other public authority not falling within paragraphs (a) to (i) carrying out duties of a similar type or nature to those public authorities identified in those paragraphs as may be specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.”.’.— [Mr. Grieve.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 42 to 46.
Amendment No. 83, in title, line 11, leave out from ‘amendments’ to ‘in’ in line 12.
Mr. Grieve: I present to the House new clause 5, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends; amendment No. 83 is consequential on it. Through its long title, the Bill offers us the opportunity of looking at the working of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to which the Government have proposed minor amendments. RIPA, as it is known, is an extremely controversial statute. It was introduced to provide an overarching framework under which material could be obtained by Government agencies for a number of purposes set out in the legislation.
The argument was that by setting out an overarching structure, we would simplify existing rules, which provide law enforcement agencies with a variety of powers to obtain data communications material. I should make it clear that historically there has been
absolutely no doubt that such material is required by law enforcement agencies. RIPA followed on—this is rather an important aspect of the matter—from the anti-terrorism measures of 2000, in which the Government came to a voluntary agreement with service providers that the Government would retain data for counter-terrorism purposes. However, when RIPA came on to the statute book, it became apparent that far from being confined to the purposes of anti-terrorism, the material—which, under that voluntary agreement, was retained for 12 months—would be made available for a much wider range of uses. Those uses included not only the ones that one might normally expect for preventing crime, but use in connection with
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”,
“the purpose of protecting public health”,
as well as public safety, emergencies, collecting taxes and, most significantly of all,
“for any purpose...which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State”,
even if that purpose was not included in the main body of RIPA’s text.
RIPA specified a number of public authorities whose inclusion most Members would regard as absolutely straightforward—police forces, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and intelligence services—but in addition it provided a catch-all phrase, which allowed the inclusion of
“any such public authority not falling within”
“as may be specified...by the Secretary of State.”
Since then, if my research is correct, three statutory instruments have been made by the Government, producing an extremely long list of public authorities that may gain access to such material for a variety of purposes.
Again, it might be said in this House that some of the inclusions are understandable; for example, the emergency services are included, for the purposes of investigating crime—in that case, I think that the crime is likely to be hoax calls. However, the list goes on to include the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, Home Office immigration services, county and district councils, the Charity Commission, the Environment Agency, the Gaming Board, the Information Commissioner, universal service providers—that is essentially the Post Office—and the Postal Services Commission. And the list goes on.
The vast majority of the bodies listed are included for the purposes of detecting or preventing crime, but that prompts the question whether it is a proportionate use of RIPA’s draconian powers to apply them to such purposes. The criminality that a large number of the organisations mentioned are likely to investigate is not of the most serious kind. Let us take as an example the Health and Safety Executive, which our new clause would preserve in the list. I have prosecuted quite
frequently for the HSE, and I accept that there may be times when, in the course of bringing a prosecution, getting hold of data relating to telephone calls that a person might have made could be useful, but the irony is that that power has always existed for use in the course of criminal proceedings. If someone thinks that they will need such material, they can always apply to the judge during the proceedings, and that applies to every single one of the organisations with which we are concerned.
What the Government have done is provide a general power, not for the purposes of prosecuting a case, but for background investigation of the activities of individuals, where that might be necessary for the prevention of crime. It is also noteworthy that at least one of the powers in RIPA—that in clause 28(3)(c), which relates to
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”—
has, as far as I am aware, never been used. Its use would be a rather controversial subject, particularly if it was not linked to criminality.
When the original RIPA rules were presented in Committee upstairs, there was a storm of protest, particularly because the Government introduced the rules, and had the debate, before the publication of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which highlighted the fact that it thought that many of the powers being granted might well not pass the proportionality test, if they were challenged. Of course, one of the problems that we have is that challenging the powers is difficult, because most people will never know that they have been investigated, and that the powers have been used. Of course, the Information Commissioner can look into those matters, but individuals may well have their privacy invaded without ever being able to protest, because they will never have known about it.
In view of that, we thought it right to try to encourage the Government to revisit the issue during the passage of the Bill. New clause 5 is designed to allow just that. It preserves the inclusion of the public authorities that were originally provided for in RIPA—police forces, intelligence services and the like—but would merely add:
“(g) an ambulance service or fire authority;
(h) the Health and Safety Executive”—
because we recognise that public safety cases may require such investigation—
“(i) the Serious Fraud Office”
“(j) any such other public authority not falling within”
“carrying out duties of a similar type”.
The purpose is to restrict the further list of public authorities essentially to the normal law enforcement agencies, and not, as is the case under the Bill, progressively to widen the scope, with the distinct possibility—and this is the most worrying prospect—that it could be further widened in future simply by statutory instrument.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |