Crime and Security Bill

---

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Sir Nicholas Winterton, Frank Cook

Baldry, Tony (Banbury) (Con)

† Brake, Tom (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)

Brokenshire, James (Hornchurch) (Con)

† Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)

† Campbell, Mr. Alan (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Dobbin, Jim (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)

† Flello, Mr. Robert (Stoke-on-Trent, South) (Lab)

† Hanson, Mr. David (Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism)

† Hogg, Mr. Douglas (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

Iddon, Dr. Brian (Bolton, South-East) (Lab)

† McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)

† McIsaac, Shona (Cleethorpes) (Lab)

Oaten, Mr. Mark (Winchester) (LD)

† Rosindell, Andrew (Romford) (Con)

† Seabeck, Alison (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab)

† Watts, Mr. Dave (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Paul McKeever, Chairman, Police Federation of England and Wales

Jan Berry, Independent Reducing Bureaucracy Advocate

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, Lead on Gangs, Association of Chief Police Officers

Sally Ireland, Chair, Standing Committee for Youth Justice

Maureen Noble, Head, Manchester Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership

Jim Battle, Deputy Council Leader, Manchester City Council

Column number: 1

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 26 January 2010

(Morning)

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Crime and Security Bill

10.30 am

The Chairman: I welcome hon. Members to the first sitting of this Public Bill Committee, which I am sure, will be conducted in an orderly and good-humoured manner.

Before we begin, I have some domestic announcements. Ever conscious of Members’ comfort, I am happy for them to remove their jackets, should they wish to do so. Please ensure that mobile phones, pagers and other electronic gadgets are turned off or switched to silent mode during Committee meetings.

Members are reminded that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room, on the table to my left. I also remind Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given. To be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, Amendments must be tabled by rise of the House on the previous Thursday. For a Thursday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the preceding Monday. As a general rule, my co-chairman, Mr. Cook, and I will not call starred amendments.

Not everyone is familiar with the procedures for taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it might be helpful if I explain briefly how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. That debate is limited to half an hour. We will proceed to a motion to report written evidence and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence, which I hope we can take formally. Assuming that the second motion is agreed, the Committee will sit in private for a short time, after which witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and we will start to take evidence.

If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, we will hear oral evidence in this week’s sittings, which I shall chair, and revert to the more familiar clause-by-clause, line-by-line scrutiny next week, when Mr. Cook will join us.

I call the Minister to move the programme motion.

The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 26 January) meet—

(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 26 January;

(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 28 January;

(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 2 February;

(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 4 February;

(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 9 February;

(f) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table—

Column number: 2

TABLE

Date	Time	Witness
Tuesday 26 January	Until no later than 12.00 pm	Police Federation of England and Wales; Jan Berry (Independent Reducing Bureaucracy Advocate)
Tuesday 26 January	Until no later than 1.00 pm	Association of Chief Police Officers; Manchester Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership; Manchester City Council; The Standing Committee for Youth Justice
Tuesday 26 January	Until no later than 5.30 pm	Association of Chief Police Officers; Linda Bowman
Tuesday 26 January	Until no later than 7.00 pm	Liberty; GeneWatch UK
Thursday 28 January	Until no later than 10.25 am	Wiltshire Police; Refuge; Fawcett Society; Women’s Aid Federation of England; National Centre for Domestic Violence
Thursday 28 January	Until no later than 2.30 pm	The Automobile Association; British Parking Association; Local Government Association
Thursday 28 January	Until no later than 4.00 pm	Home Office

(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 39; Schedule; Clauses 40 to 46; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 8.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February.

After some discussion with both Opposition parties before and during the sitting of the Programming Sub-Committee, we agreed the order in which the witnesses will come before the Committee. At the session this afternoon until 5.30 pm, we were to have had Mrs. Linda Bowman, as well as representatives of the Association of Chief of Police Officers. However, Mrs. Bowman informed the Committee Clerk and me yesterday evening that, unfortunately, because of family commitments, she is not able to attend, so this afternoon’s first panel will consist solely of ACPO representatives. I believe that there has been agreement to this and I hope that the Committee accepts it.

I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, and that of Mr. Cook. I have served under you both before and it is fair to say that we have got on fine; I am sure that we will do so again in this Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr. Hanson.)

The Chairman: Copies of memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the room.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Mr. Hanson.)

10.37 am

The Committee deliberated in private.

Column number: 3

10.48 am

On resuming—

The Chairman: We will now take oral evidence from the Police Federation and Jan Berry. For the record, will you both introduce yourselves to the Committee?

Paul McKeever: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. My name is Paul McKeever and I am the chairman of the Police Federation. We represent the 140,000 police officers from the ranks of constable to chief inspector.

Jan Berry: Good morning, Sir Nicholas. My name is Jan Berry and I used to be the chairman of the Police Federation. It is a first today for the two us to be sitting next to each other. I am now the reducing bureaucracy in policing advocate and was appointed by the Home Secretary in October 2008.

The Chairman: Before calling the first member of the Committee to ask a question, I remind all hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has already agreed. I hope that I do not have to interrupt in mid-sentence, but I will not hesitate to do so if need be.

Q 11Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): First, I declare an interest as a practising barrister, practising in the criminal courts.

My questions are for either of our two witnesses and are about clause 1 and searches. I had the advantage, many, many years ago, of being a special constable, so I have carried out searches—not very competently, but I have done so.

First, the Bill deletes the obligation to obtain the name and address of the person questioned. That rather surprises me. I should have thought that you needed their name and address. Secondly, the ethnicity of person to be searched is to be recorded as they themselves describe it. I would have thought that that gives rise to the possibility of some rather offensive questioning. Might it not be better if Bill provided for ethnicity as perceived by the constable? That would avoid the necessity for questions on the point. May I have your comments on both those matters?

Paul McKeever: We in the police service have wrestled with that conundrum for some time, ever since the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, when stop-and-search was looked at rigorously. Yes, we think there is a real conundrum there. Somebody stopped could describe themselves as being of one type of ethnicity, when clearly, to the person who is speaking to them, they are not. We recognise that problem. How you get around it has never been resolved to my satisfaction, but we have to trust that common sense will prevail.

It is also important to recognise that you are dealing with human beings. It is not just about filling the form out; it is the human interaction you have with the individual you stop that is most important. That is something that we often forget when we talk about stop-and-search. We are so focused on the process that we forget that it is the interaction that we are having that is the most important. If that interaction goes well, there will not be a problem in terms of person a describing their ethnicity.

Column number: 4

Q 2Mr. Hogg: But if it goes badly?

Paul McKeever: If it goes badly, clearly there could be a problem. It is one that is left hanging in the air.

Q 3Mr. Hogg: So you would have no particular objection to my suggestion?

Paul McKeever: No, I do not.

Q 4Mr. Hogg: Is that true of Jan Berry as well?

Jan Berry: I think so. A lot of front-line police officers in meetings that I have held with them over the last couple of years have identified the confrontational nature of asking the question, “How do you describe your ethnicity?” It can pose a problem.

Q 5Mr. Hogg: What about name and address? We seem to be at one so far.

Jan Berry: I think it depends on the circumstances. I do not think you need to record that for every single search. It is a question of proportionality. I agree with Paul’s observation about a lot of focus being on paperwork and process as opposed to the interaction that might go on. We also confuse intelligence gathering with a stop-and-search form. If you are intelligence gathering, clearly you would need to be able to identify the individual you are speaking to.

---

Prepared 27 January 2010