 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Crime and Security Bill |
Crime and Security Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 2 February 2010(Morning)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Crime and Security BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseCR 04
Automobile Association
(AA) 10.30
am James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): On a point of order,
Mr. Cook. I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee. You
will probably be aware that there is a ways and means resolution
relating to the Bill scheduled for debate on the Floor of the House on
Thursday. However, it appears that, if there were a statement on the
Floor of the House, members of the Committee would not be able to take
part in the discussion of the ways and means resolution. Have
you received any representations on the timing of that debate,
or any other aspect, in terms of the ability for members of the
Committee to participate, given that the matter is directly relevant to
the Bill? It seems strange that the debate is scheduled at potentially
the same time as the Committee is sitting, with members of the
Committee unable to participate in one or the
other.
The
Chairman: I have had no notice of that, but I will do
whatever is necessary to try to discover what the position is. I have
to say, as one who has been here for 27 years, that that is not a novel
situation—it has happened on many occasions in the past. I will
do whatever I can to discover the
circumstances.
Clause 1Records
of
searches
‘which may be made by
electronic record or by the recording of a telecommunications message
containing the relevant
details.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 51, in
clause 1, page 2, line 1, after
‘vehicle,’, insert
‘the stated name and address of the person
searched,’. Amendment
52, in
clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave
out from ‘as’ to ‘perceived’ in line
10.
James
Brokenshire: It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Cook. We have a number of matters to
debate, some of which, I am sure, Her Majesty’s Opposition will
scrutinise in a very productive and positive way. Certain provisions
later in the Bill are likely to prove much more controversial, and we
look forward to those important debates.
Clause 1 and
amendment 1 deal with powers of stop- and-search. Government
changes to the requirements on recording information from stops and
searches reflect
their understandable desire to reduce police bureaucracy in an
appropriate way. That is part of the wider issue of the police’s
ability to get on with their job, with the elements of discretion and
flexibility they need to protect our communities in an appropriate
fashion. Clearly, the police cannot get on with that job if the Home
Department is always breathing down their neck and if they are tied up
with bureaucracy, paperwork and red tape that prevent them from
actively carrying on with their duties. That is a concern in the light
of the fact that the police spend more of their time filling in forms
and doing paperwork than on the beat: just 14 per cent. of police
officers’ time is spent on patrol compared with 22 per cent. of
their time spent on paperwork.
The culture
of bureaucracy that has grown up under this Government is clearly a big
issue. It was interesting to note the evidence given to the Committee
last week by Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation, who
said: “If
you look at police bureaucracy generally, there is an awful lot of it
out there, and it would take an awful lot more than just dealing with
stop-and-search to put it
right.”——[Official Report, Crime and
Security Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2010; c. 13,
Q30.] However,
we are dealing with stop-and-search specifically in clause 1. It is
important that steps are taken to deal with some of the
bureaucracy—the form-filling requirements and the
paperwork—that sits alongside powers of stop-and-search under
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the associated regulatory
burden. The Conservatives would go further than the Government propose.
That is part of the reason for tabling the amendment. We also believe
that the bureaucratic requirements and the paperwork relating to
stop-and-account are too onerous and question whether they add a great
deal in terms of police intelligence information, or the need for
proper assessments on how the police utilise those
powers. There
is a clear need for the police to have the right to stop and search
someone for stolen or prohibited items if they have reasonable
suspicion, which is what the powers under section 1 of PACE allow.
Carrying out searches to identify whether people are carrying drugs or
weapons in our community is clearly useful. It is certainly a
significant power and is heavily utilised: in 2007-08, 1,035,438 people
were stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE and connected powers
under the Firearms Act 1968 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Thinking
about the regulatory burden and the attached paperwork, we note that
Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s interim report on policing suggested that
the total recording and administration time for a stop-and-search form
was 25 minutes. In that context, we also have to consider that about 11
per cent. of those stopped and searched are arrested as a result of the
search. It is interesting to consider the important role that
technology can play in recording information taken on
stops-and-searches.
When I have
patrolled with the police, it has been interesting to see the powers
used in connection with drugs dogs, for example: if a drugs dog
indicates that someone might be in possession of an illicit substance,
obviously a stop-and-search should be conducted because that is
reasonable suspicion. Therefore, on such operations, it is
understandable that there is significant use of stop-and-search if
grounds for reasonable suspicion
have been identified. However, there needs to be clear trust and
confidence on the part of the community in how the power is
used.
Section 1 of
PACE was, in part, a response to the Scarman report on the Brixton
riots and, therefore, the need to retain trust and confidence
in how the police use the powers, which are obviously potentially
intrusive. Knife arches and other electronic scanners may have made
them slightly less intrusive in terms of avoiding the necessity for a
pat-down search, but such searches are still utilised and still needed,
so there is a need for trust and confidence in how the police organise
searches and how they utilise their powers. That feeds into how data
are recorded and utilised. The practice of recording stop-and-account
was developed after the Macpherson report into the killing of Stephen
Lawrence, and there is a similar desire to give trust and confidence to
the community on the levels of information recorded to ensure that
those powers are used
appropriately. What
is the appropriate level of reporting on stops-and-searches to provide
that confidence and how can reporting be conducted so as not to impede
operational police requirements unnecessarily? The balance is reflected
in clause 1 and amendment 1. The concept is recognised in Sir Ronnie
Flanagan’s report on policing and Jan Berry’s review on
reducing police bureaucracy. She gave evidence to the Committee last
week and is the Government’s police bureaucracy tsar.
Information relating to stops-and-searches needs to be recorded, but
the current process is simply too
bureaucratic. Amendment
1 would ensure that the information may be recorded by means other than
written notification—the completion of a form. In other words,
it clearly and explicitly provides for the utilisation of technology. I
am aware that the British Transport police, for example, are starting
to use personal digital assistants—PDAs—to record some of
the information required for a stop-and-search. The relevant
information can be recorded and retained by, for example, an officer
radioing through the basic details of the search to create a digitally
taped or transcribed police log at the centre with no forms. That would
ensure that stops-and-searches would still be recorded but without the
burden of having to fill in a form at the scene and a further form back
at the police
station. The
Flanagan review contemplated stop-and-search information being recorded
in that way and amendment 1 provides the necessary level of flexibility
to enable that to happen. Obviously the introduction of new Airwave
technology across police forces makes that more readily achievable. We
believe that that would be a practical means of ensuring that
information is recorded. It would provide reassurance to communities
and reduce bureaucracy, thereby freeing up officers’ time to
remain in communities, to be proactive in their policing and to ensure
that evidence is gathered in an appropriate
way. My
right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham
made the case last week for modifying the information requirements as
proposed in amendments 51 and 52. We will listen closely to the points
he makes on those amendments. On the question of recording the identity
of the person searched, I heard the Minister’s statement last
week that the information does not have to be provided by the person
searched, which in part explains why it was felt that making the
requirement mandatory might not be
appropriate.
Mr.
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): My hon.
Friend will see that the word “stated” appears before
“name and address” in amendment 51. It would not be a
mandatory requirement to supply it, but if it were supplied then it
should be
recorded.
James
Brokenshire: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an
important point. It was clear from what Jan Berry told the Committee
that if information is given and if intelligence is provided to the
police that may be relevant and useful, it should be retained in some
way. Even if that amendment were not accepted by the Minister, I take
it that that information would be recorded in some other way, such as a
note in the police officer’s record. Jan Berry made a clear
point when she
said: “I
would not want them to see the lack of requirement to record details as
a reason not to collect
intelligence.”——[Official Report, Crime
and Security Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2010; c. 5,
Q9.] It
is a question of balancing the statutory requirements in the Bill and
the amendments to PACE regarding the mandated requirements for the
types of information to be recorded, against the need to ensure that
relevant intelligence is protected. If there is information that a
suspect was in a particular area at a particular time, that may be
useful intelligence that could be captured. I suppose that how the
police might seek to use that intelligence is a question of judgment
and degree. It will be interesting to hear not only what my right hon.
and learned Friend says in support of his amendments, but how the
Minister of State envisages the intelligence being retained, which may
not be specifically set down in the
statute. The
Minister of State has made a number of claims about the time that will
be saved by the proposals in the Bill. Any reduction in police
bureaucracy is certainly extremely welcome, given the way that it has
burgeoned over the past 12 years, but would the full extent of the time
savings be realised if intelligence information were being collated in
a different way? If the names that are given and perhaps other details
are to be recorded, will that fully utilise the amount of time saved to
which the right hon. Gentleman alluded last week? It would be useful to
understand how he arrived at the calculation of the time saved. Did the
calculation take account of the need to collect certain intelligence
over and above the statutory requirements that may be set out in
the Bill?
This will be
a useful debate, putting into the frame the pressures and bureaucracy
that the police have to deal with. As the Police Federation said, this
is a small step. Clearly there is much further to go in dealing with
the wider bureaucracy and paperwork that the police
face. 10.45
am
Mr.
Hogg: First, Mr. Cook, let me declare a
personal interest, in that I am a criminal barrister practising in the
criminal courts. Might I declare that now and not again? Secondly, it
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You reminded me that we
last appeared on a Committee together a long time ago, on the Firearms
(Amendment) Bill in 1987. A further bit of background information is
that I happened to be the Whip on the second Committee stage of the
Bill that became the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which this Bill
amends in a number of respects. I recall that
there were two considerations of that Bill by Committee; first David
Mellor was the Whip on duty, and thereafter I was, taking the Bill
through to enactment. I make that point by way of a preamble; it only
suggests that I have been here a very long
time. Amendment
1, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, makes a lot of
good sense but it does not need to go in the Bill. It is about
modalities, and I am in favour of not putting in the Bill a modality
that may be overtaken in time by technology. However, he is clearly
right in the substance of his suggestion: the police should, wherever
possible, try to use modem technology to reduce the bureaucratic burden
that they
face. My
second point before I come to my two amendments is that I have served
as a special constable on the beat in the metropolitan area. I was
attached to Cannon Row police station in the mid 1970s, and patrolled
around Trafalgar and Parliament squares and up to Waterloo place. Also,
the Committee will appreciate that as a criminal barrister, I have been
in many courts and seen many clients.
One has to be
ware of the police. I believe that even today there is a certain amount
of abuse, generally defined. As a special constable and as a junior
barrister, I saw and became conscious of a lot of abuse. Therefore,
when one says that one has to do away with bureaucracy, in one sense
that is right—of course one must. But one must also keep in mind
that the police are capable of abusing their power and not so relax the
restrictions and constraints that abuse of power is not
identifiable. I
always say in Committee and on the Floor of the House that when one
gives power to the agents of the state, one has to recognise that
inevitably, in time and on occasion, that power will be abused.
Consequently, one gives away as little power as one reasonably can,
and, when one gives it away, one hedges it about with restrictions and
constraints, because we owe that duty to the citizen. Therefore, beware
of bureaucracy of course, but remember too that the restrictions are
often for the protection of the citizen—including the young
citizen. When I first entered Parliament in 1979-80, there was a
tremendous continuing row about the Vagrancy Act 1824, which contained
the old stop-and-search powers. It caused immense rows on the streets
of London, especially among the ethnic minorities. We must be careful
not to so relax the restrictions that real anxiety about the use of
stop-and-search breaks out again among the ethnic
minorities. I
have two brief points about my own amendments. Amendment 51 goes to
name and address. I accept that there is no requirement, as a general
proposition, for a citizen to furnish his name and address to a police
officer who stops him in the street. There are circumstances when he
has to, but generally speaking I believe there is no requirement.
However, it is often desirable to find out the name and address, and
there is nothing to stop a police officer saying, “Excuse me
sir, do you mind giving me your name and address?” If the person
gives it, there is merit in recording it. It is not a great burden to
record it. Indeed, I noticed in the first evidence session that
Mr. McKeever said that he had no particular problem with the
suggestion.
Why does one
need the information? Perhaps for intelligence—perhaps someone
has given the wrong name and one subsequently checks it. It is quite
interesting that he has given the wrong name. Why? What if he
complains? An officer may know exactly with whom he is dealing. I see
merit, if the name is volunteered, in recording it—that is no
great shakes. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is right
about the method of recording it, down it goes through the radio
communication and that is that. I would have the measure, on the sort
of terms that I have suggested.
The other
point, about ethnicity, is quite different. I worry about that, insofar
as the Bill suggests that it is the officer stopping the person who is
required to state that person’s ethnic origins. New subsection
(6A)(a) of section 3 of PACE refers
to “the
ethnic origins of the person as described by the
person”. That
clearly indicates to me that the constable says to the chap he has
stopped, “What is your ethnic origin?” I would
be chary about that. I walked the streets as a special
constable and I do not think that that is a prudent question to ask. It
is potentially confrontational. What happens if he replies,
“Human race.”? The officer is not going to be very happy
with that. There would be that kind of answer, let me tell you,
Mr. Cook. That is certainly the sort of answer one might get
from a lad on the street. What does one do then? Take it further? If
the officer asks, “What is your origin?” the answer could
be, “What the hell has it got to do with you, officer?”
What does one say then? Or it could be, “Look—make up
your own mind, officer.” There are lots of variations. Why
introduce a confrontational note? The truth is that when an officer
stops somebody, he can make his own assessment as to ethnic origins and
record it.
When I was
standing at Trafalgar square as a special constable, there would often
be a radio message up from Parliament, but it was not very
praiseworthy. It was, “RC3—where’s the
stop?” RC3 in those days had a meaning, although I forget what
it was. I was being told by a constable down in Parliament square that
I might stop somebody coming up in a beaten old Vauxhall. An officer on
the street can well identify ethnic origins and record them for him or
herself, without there being any confrontation between that officer and
the person
stopped. Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Does the right
hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there may be an inclination on
the part of officers, if given the answer, “I am a member of the
human race,” to fill in the form in the way that he wants them
to?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 3 February 2010 |