Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom That the draft Order laid before the
House on 13 October 2022 be approved. Relevant document: 15th
Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of
Epsom) (Con) My Lords, this order was laid in draft before
Parliament on 13 October 2022. It will bring into effect a revised
code of practice issued under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal
Evidence...Request free trial
Moved by
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 October 2022 be
approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid in draft before Parliament on 13
October 2022. It will bring into effect a revised code of
practice issued under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call “PACE” from now on. This is
PACE Code A, which governs the exercise by police officers of
powers to stop and search a person without first arresting them.
For England and Wales, PACE sets out the core powers of the
police to prevent, detect and investigate crime. The exercise of
these powers is subject to codes of practice, or PACE codes,
which the Secretary of State is required to issue. The PACE codes
put in place important procedural safeguards for the public and
detainees when the police exercise their powers.
The proposed amendments to PACE Code A, which we are discussing
today, relate to police powers to stop and search individuals
subject to a serious violence reduction order, which I will refer
to henceforth as “SVROs”. Inserted into the sentencing code by
the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, SVROs are
civil orders which give the police powers to stop and search
individuals convicted of an offence where a bladed article or
offensive weapon was used or was present. Cracking down on knife
crime is a priority for the Government, and SVROs are an
important part of that crucial endeavour. By increasing the risk
of detection, these orders are designed to deter habitual knife
carriers from reoffending, as well as to help prevent
exploitation into continued criminality, including further
weapons carrying.
We must build an understanding of the impact of the new orders,
so the issuing of the orders will be piloted in West Midlands,
Merseyside, Sussex and Thames Valley police force areas. The
pilot will be independently evaluated before a decision is made
on rollout of the orders across England and Wales. We have
proposed these revisions to PACE Code A to ensure that proper
guidance and safeguards on the use of the new stop and search
power are in place for the pilot.
The proposed revisions were subject to a statutory consultation,
which ran for six weeks; they introduce a new temporary annexe,
G, which deals with searches in relation to SVROs. In particular,
the code highlights that the power does not require officers to
have prior reasonable grounds, but its use must not be based on
prejudice; it highlights that searches can be conducted only on
those subject to an SVRO, and that officers should seek to
confirm the identity of the individual; it outlines that the use
of the power, like all other stop and search powers, is
discretionary, and that officers will be expected to use their
judgment when choosing to conduct searches; it outlines that the
new annexe will apply for 24 months, plus an additional six-month
transitional period; and it outlines the territorial extent of
the use of the powers. While SVROs will be issued only in the
pilot police force areas, the stop and search powers will be
available across England and Wales.
On concerns around disproportionality and the impact of stop and
search on particular communities, our aim is for these orders to
enable police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in
relation to known weapons carriers. The code of practice is just
one of many safeguards in place to ensure the fair and
proportionate use of SVROs. The revised code was laid before
Parliament together with the draft order and Explanatory
Memorandum. Subject to the order being approved, the revised code
will come into force on 17 January 2023. I must highlight that
this date is not a fixed date for the commencement of the SVRO
pilot: we are ensuring that all the appropriate secondary
legislation is in place before commencing in early 2023.
Fighting crime and protecting the public are central to the
Government’s agenda. I therefore commend the draft order to the
House and I beg to move.
4.00pm
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order
does not restrict the powers of police constables to stop and
search people without suspicion to those limited geographic areas
piloting Serious Violence Reduction Orders, but instead permits
all police constables in England and Wales to make use of this
power during the time of the pilot.
(LD)
My Lords, I have tabled my amendment because the concession we
reasonably believed we had secured from the Government, to limit
new without-suspicion police stop and search powers to specific
geographic areas, is not being delivered. As the Minister
explained, the Government now want the new police powers to be
used throughout England and Wales during the pilot.
As the Minister explained, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and
Courts Act 2022 gives the police a new power to stop and search
anyone who is subject to a serious violence reduction order, or
SVRO, without any reason to suspect that they might be carrying
something they should not carry. A court can place a serious
violence reduction order on anyone convicted of any criminal
offence if they, or anyone they were with at the time of the
offence, had a knife on them, whether it was used in the
commission of the offence or not. This goes far wider than making
it easier for the police to stop and search those convicted of
knife crime.
The key to violence reduction is not stop and search, but police
and communities working together and turning offenders’ lives
around. The former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said
that the police could not arrest their way out of knife crime.
The success of such schemes as Operation Trident in London were
the result of the police and the black community working
together, for example. Having visited projects there, I know that
the success of knife crime reduction in Scotland has been based
on turning offenders’ lives around, particularly at teachable
moments when offenders have themselves been seriously
injured.
You are 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the
police if you are black than if you are white, using existing
without-suspicion stop and search powers, with about one in every
100 searches resulting in a knife being found. Having such a
large number of people being stopped and searched who are not
committing any offence, and who the police have no cause to
suspect are committing any offence, can lead to a breakdown in
relations between the police and communities—one of the keys to
successful violent crime reduction. Allowing the police to stop
and search an unlimited number of times, without suspicion,
someone who has already served their sentence and could well be
trying to turn their life around, as these new powers allow, is
likely to damage any attempts at rehabilitation. Those in danger
of reoffending may see no point in trying to be good citizens
when they are being treated by the police as criminals even when
they are doing nothing wrong.
When these measures were debated, we believed the new powers
could be counterproductive and we told the Government that we
were prepared to vote against them, with the support of the noble
Baroness, Lady Meacher, who led on amendments to this part of the
Bill. As a result, the Government agreed to a pilot scheme,
geographically limited to a few specific police areas—not court
areas, police areas. The pilot scheme would be independently
evaluated to establish whether the new powers reduced violent
crime in those specific police areas. On that basis, we agreed
not to vote against the measures. Following discussion with the
police, the Home Office has now agreed to allow the new police
without-suspicion stop and search powers to be used throughout
England and Wales during the pilot, with the only geographic
restriction being to limit the courts that are able to issue
SVROs, limited to the specific police areas that were originally
agreed.
We made it clear to the Government that it was the new police
powers that we objected to, and it was on the basis that they
would be limited to certain geographic police areas that we
accepted the government concession. It was never discussed, let
alone agreed, that the powers of the courts to issues SVROs would
be treated separately from the powers of the police to enforce
them. As a result, not only have our concerns about the use of
these new police powers damaging police/community relations and
offender rehabilitation been ignored, but it is difficult to see
how the pilot can be effectively evaluated if part of it is
limited geographically and the other part is limitless.
There are also practical problems with serious violence reduction
orders, such as how police officers are supposed to know that
someone is subject to an SVRO, particularly if the power can be
exercised over such a wide geographic area, where those subject
to them are not likely to be personally known by the officers.
Someone innocently walking down the street who is not subject to
an SVRO is under no obligation to provide their name and date of
birth to the police—the minimum requirement for a check to be
made on the police national computer to establish whether they
are subject to an SVRO. In that case, can the Minister explain
how these orders will work in practice?
The Police Federation, which represents the overwhelming majority
of officers likely to use these new powers, was asked to comment
on the debate in the other place on this statutory instrument.
Among other things, its representative said:
“I imagine we would be deeply concerned about moving away from a
form of stop and search that isn’t rooted in ‘Reasonable
Grounds’. We could easily make a case that this leaves officers
vulnerable to complaint, ‘post stop’, in an area which is already
supercharged as an issue in many communities. Reasonable Grounds
has a firm legal basis, is tried and tested, and therefore
affords reassurance to our colleagues engaged in these stops. The
SVRO removes that need … and inadvertently that reassurance. It
also strikes me that they are predicated wholly on the stopping
officers having prior knowledge of the person being searched, so
what happens when this power is used to stop somebody and their
identify cannot be confirmed—you then have no reasonable grounds
to fall back on, and are potentially left wide open to the ‘you
only stopped me because I am black’ allegation. On the face of
it, the officers’ only rational [response] if such an allegation
came their way would be ‘I believed you were subject to a SVRO’,
confirming the allegation [‘that you only stopped me because I am
black’] and not ending well when identity has been mistaken.”
That is the view of the representative of rank-and-file police
officers: that these powers are likely to place them in jeopardy,
particularly if they use them outside the pilot areas where those
subject to SVROs are unlikely to be known to the officers
carrying out the stop and search. What consultation was there
with the Police Federation on these powers?
The Government need to rethink their plans for a pilot scheme.
For these reasons, I beg to move the amendment in my name on the
Order Paper.
(GP)
My Lords, I spend my life being furious at the Government, as I
am sure some noble Lords will recognise. However, I want to spare
a moment of sympathy for the Minister, who has had to bring this
to your Lordships’ House. Clearly, this is going back on a
promise; the Government are cheating. They are choosing not to
honour a promise. That is really rather disgusting, as it shows a
complete lack of respect for your Lordships’ House. I really hope
that the noble Lord, , who has made a brilliant
opening speech, will take this to a vote, because clearly we
would have voted on these issues before if we had had the chance.
We trusted the Government, but this shows that we cannot. That is
very depressing because, if you cannot trust your Government, the
whole of democracy falls apart.
I am also worried about the fact that the Government are putting
the police at a disadvantage. Trust in the police is at an
all-time low, and I think these measures will make it much worse.
We worry all the time about the police being distrusted. They
cannot do their job if they do not have the support of
communities. Of course, with this sort of measure, there will be
social and racial barriers to implementing it, and there will be
disparities about who the police target. The Government are
actually making life much harder for the police. There should not
be a power to search without reasonable suspicion.
While I am talking about not trusting the Government, I should
say that they are also treating peaceful protest like gang and
knife crime. I just do not understand why the Government cannot
see the difference between those things. Dissent is healthy; it
is part of our democracy. In measure after measure and
legislation after legislation, it seems to me that this
Government are saying, “We don’t like society the way it is. We
are going to radically change it”—and make it much worse for the
majority of people.
On the issue of knife crime, my Green Party colleague , who is a member of the
London Assembly, has repeatedly asked the police to stop posting
pictures of knives on social media, because it makes things
worse. The evidence says that young people feel more at risk and
that it encourages them to carry knives. There are other measures
that the police can use to reduce knife crime. We have to show
young people that it is safer for them not to carry a knife.
All in all, I have two questions for the Minister. First, do this
Government have absolutely no respect for this House and for
democracy? My second and much smaller point is: why on earth are
the Government doing this before the pilots are finished? Surely
the pilots should show us the way forward. The Government seem
very confused about what pilots are for. Why promise a pilot and
then go ahead and introduce these measures anyway? I am disgusted
with Lambeth.
(Con)
My Lords, since the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb,
spent much of last year calling the Prime Minister of the day a
liar on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, I am surprised that
she has only just now lost her trust in the Government. That was
not my principal point in rising to speak; my point was to
express a degree of support for the noble Lord, . As he at least might recall,
when we debated the insertion of serious violence reduction
orders in the Sentencing Code during the passage of the then
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill last year, I expressed
considerable concern about those orders. Indeed, I recall that in
Committee I added my name to the amendment in the name of the
noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which raised these issues,
principally on the grounds that I am extremely concerned by the
increasing use of preventive justice, so to speak, by the Home
Office and by police forces empowered by the Home Office, rather
than taking coercive action on the basis of proven criminality or
wrongdoing.
I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, , but since we lost that point
and the serious violence reduction orders were inserted in the
Bill, it is right that the Government should carry out trials
before they are extended throughout the whole country. I
understand his point, but what is striking to me is that my noble
friend the Minister has so far given no indication of what the
tests are by which these trials are going to be assessed once
they have been completed. What is success going to look like?
What would persuade the Government to make amendments or changes
or to drop the whole approach if we saw those results emerging
from the trials? I hope my noble friend will be able to say
something about that when he rises to respond to this short
debate.
While I am on my feet, I say that Sections 60 and 61 of the same
measure—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of last
year—empowered the Home Secretary to issue statutory guidance to
police forces on the enforcement of what are referred to as
“non-crime hate incidents”. This has so far not appeared, despite
the fact that my noble friend the Minister very kindly wrote to
me last October saying that the Government hoped to table the new
statutory guidance before Christmas, or at least before the end
of 2022.
When the Minister responds, would he be able to give us a date by
which he expects the Home Secretary to put the draft statutory
instrument before Parliament, so that we can debate it and get
some parliamentary grip on this contentious but very important
area of criminal justice?
4.15pm
(CB)
My Lords, I support broadly targeting those convicted of carrying
knives, because it seems to follow the evidence we have. Repeat
offenders, repeat locations and repeat victims often
disproportionately contribute to the amount of crime,
particularly with people who carry knives. Not everybody who is
violent carries knives, but those who do repeatedly carry them,
so it is not a bad idea to target them. In fact, the obverse of
what is being said about without-cause stop/search is that this
gives a reason to stop/search—namely, that the person has been
convicted in a court of carrying a knife or being associated with
somebody carrying a knife.
As the noble Lord, , mentioned, the Police
Federation of England and Wales objected to this proposal, or at
least made some arguments counter to it. I am quite surprised by
that, because the arguments it makes are also against Section 60
stop/searches. Section 60 orders are put in place in a certain
area to target repeat locations and allow stop/searches to be
carried out without cause. A similar dilemma is that nobody knows
where these areas are until a police officer stops you and says
you are in one, which has always for me been a reason why we
should have better ways of communicating those areas to people
who may be stopped in them. However, the principle of
without-cause stop/search has been there for a long time.
I agree with the noble Lord, , that this is not the answer,
but I think it is part of an answer. It seems reasonable to
target those who repeatedly carry knives or are likely to carry
knives, having been warned by a court that they should not. They
have been given an order and told not to, so it is reasonable to
check whether they are keeping to that order.
I am not in a position to comment on the comments from the noble
Lord, , or the noble Baroness, Lady
Jones, on whether a promise was made about how this power would
be extended, but I imagine that one of the challenges will be
with those areas adjacent to the four pilot areas—where the line
is drawn on a map according to 1974 local government boundaries
and often county boundaries. People who wander between villages
across a county line cannot be policed on the other side of it if
they have an order in place elsewhere, such as in the place where
they live—let us say they are in a village just on the other side
of a court boundary. It would be an odd conclusion that the
adjacent forces to Sussex, West Midlands, Thames Valley and
Merseyside would not be able to police these orders and that, in
principle, people could wander over the border, carry a knife and
not suffer the same consequences.
I agree that identification is important. Officers should be able
to identify the people who have these orders. If they stop them
and say, “Who are you?”, they indicate that they do not know the
person has an order, but there are ways around that. Markers for
ground vehicles can be put on the police national computer.
Specific intelligence can be shared if people are wandering
between, say, various nightclubs or areas, so that local officers
know who they are. That can be managed.
My final point is that I was a little surprised by the selection
of the pilot areas and that London was excluded. My experience,
having policed in South Yorkshire, Merseyside and London, is that
where stop/search has been a problem—and it has been—that has
often been in London. Frankly, in the rest of the country, the
volume is low and the problem is not of the same nature. If you
talk to anybody in Merseyside or South Yorkshire, you just do not
hear that this is a particular problem. I am not saying that it
is not a problem, but it is not of the order that we see in
London.
London has seen the sus laws of the 1960s and Section 44 of the
Terrorism Act in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and now Section 60
carries its own problems. When I took over in 2011, we discovered
that Section 60 orders had, I am afraid, been scattered like
confetti around London and something needed to be done. London’s
experience of stop/search has been of stop/search without cause,
but it is completely different from the rest of the country, so I
wonder how much we can take from the experiments in Merseyside,
West Midlands, Thames Valley and Sussex that could carry over
easily to the London environment. People may not be persuaded by
that. That is something the Government might want to consider as
the pilots progress; if London is excluded, the evidence may not
be as powerful in future.
(Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, , who made some important and
interesting points. I agree with many of them and I look forward
to the Minister’s response.
The Chamber will wish to know that we did not oppose the Motion
for this pilot in the other place, but there are also important
points that I wish to pose to the Minister to add to those made
by the noble Lords, , and , and the noble Baroness,
Lady Jones. I also thank the noble Lord, , in another sense, in that
this also gives us in this Chamber the opportunity to discuss
knife crime, which is clearly an important matter.
We are all horrified by knife crime and the horrific murders,
sometimes of young people by other young people, in the most
shocking of circumstances—in full public view. Can the Minister
start by telling us what the latest figures actually tell us with
respect to knife crime? I looked for them before this debate, and
some are impacted by the pandemic or use different years as a
baseline. What are the actual official figures for knife crime
and knife-related murder, and not just in London but across the
country? Clearly, whatever the figures are, they are too high,
and the fundamental question for this debate is how serious
violence reduction orders are expected to help. The noble Lord,
, made the point that knife
crime prevention orders were backed as the answer to tackle knife
crime back in 2019. They have not even started yet. Why is that,
and when will they start?
On the issue of disproportionality, the pilot is for two years.
However, supposing that problems emerge around disproportionality
before the two years—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Jones,
made—is there a mechanism for an earlier review within that
two-year period to look at data as it emerges? The Minister in
the other place says he is open to this. What does that mean: an
interim review after, say, six months, or a year? What does the
Government being “open to looking at this” mean?
Can the Minister explain the transition period of six months and
how that will work in practice? In particular, how will it impact
on an individual given such an order as regards its length? Are
all orders for only a six-month duration or just those issued on
the last day of the two-year pilot, hence the six-month
transition period? It is not clear to me at all, because if you
are given an SVRO on the last day of the two years, it can last
only for a maximum of six months. If you are given it on the
first day of the two-year period, can you be given it for two
years, or two years and six months, or can you be given it for
six months, then another six months and another six months? Some
clarity about who can and cannot be given SVROs is needed.
On the issue of territorial extent, the SVROs will be able to be
used only in the four areas—the noble Lord, , made a good point about
how the areas were chosen, why certain other areas were not and
why the number four was alighted on, and I think the Chamber
could do with some explanation of that from the Government. These
four areas are the areas where the orders can be given but, as
the noble Lord, , mentioned, the concern is
that the police power will be applied across England and Wales.
How will the data be shared by these four areas with forces
across the country? What about Scotland? If somebody who is
subject to such an order went to Scotland, what happens with
respect to that? How will a police officer be able to know that
the individual is subject to an order? Again, the noble Lord,
Lord Hogan- Howe, made that point, although I understand that his
point was that you would expect it to be on the police database
and shared in that way. However, it would be interesting to see
how that will work and what the Government’s response would
be.
In other debates, we have talked about stop and search, including
whether only a uniformed officer can use this power; again, the
noble Lord, , has made this point
forcefully before. With respect to this order, can only a
uniformed officer use this stop and search power—particularly
given that, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is stop and search
that can be done without suspicion? How many officers have now
received the College of Policing training on stop and search, and
will they be updated with respect to this order?
On the question of pilots, can the Minister look at ensuring
that, if, for whatever reason, a future pilot contains one part
that is focused on a small number of areas and another part that
is to be applied nationally, this is clearly
explained—particularly in this case where, as the noble Baroness,
Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, , have pointed out, this pilot
came about as a result of a concession made by the Government
because of the concerns about serious violence reduction orders
raised by many noble Lords?
Can the Minister say something to inform us how this pilot will
be evaluated by Ecorys? How is it going to do that? What criteria
is it going to use to determine whether this pilot has been
successful? Will it be fully independent of government? Also, are
the Government open to the fact that these pilots may fail and
not work? In those circumstances, would the Government be
prepared to say that they will not carry on with them? The
evaluation is particularly important given the concerns around
disproportionality with respect to gender and ethnicity. If the
evaluation shows that there are problems, the Government should
consider other measures.
We all want to tackle knife crime, whatever its level; there is
no difference between us on that. There are real issues for us as
a society to deal with, as the Minister in the other place said.
I want to point out one statistic that the Minister in the other
place used so that noble Lords can see how difficult this is,
whatever the level of knife crime. He said that
“young black people are 24 times more likely to be murdered using
a knife than those from other communities.”—[Official Report,
Commons, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/12/22; col.
8.]
We all want something to be done about that. We all accept that
that figure is too high. The issue for the Government is how on
earth knife crime prevention orders are going to tackle that and
other issues related to knife crime across the country. Can the
Minister say what else the Government are doing to tackle this
problem?
We have this new order alongside other orders designed to tackle
knife crime and serious violence. We all hope that they work.
However, as the noble Lord, , and others pointed out,
targeting hot spots, having police on the streets in
neighbourhoods, prevention, community engagement and support are
also crucial. Many lives, often very young ones, are still being
lost. Many families are still affected. Many communities are
still affected. Orders such as this one may help, but they must
be part of a wider ongoing effort by the police and communities
if they are to have the impact that we all want.
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have made valuable
contributions to this debate.
First, I will address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord,
, in relation to the
territorial extent of the SVRO pilot. I want to clarify that, as
I said earlier, SVROs are being introduced on the basis of a
pilot in Merseyside, West Midlands, Sussex and Thames Valley
police forces. They will be issued only in these four pilot
police force areas. However, as the revised PACE Code A sets out,
the stop and search powers are enforceable by all constables
across England and Wales; the “all constables” point answers the
question of whether they will be in uniform, I think, but
obviously they would have to identify themselves as such. This is
aimed at supporting an operational response across police force
areas, allowing constables from non-pilot forces to stop and
search individuals subject to SVROs if they travel outside of the
pilot area.
The noble Lords, and , asked why we are piloting in
those force areas and not with larger forces, where the
prevalence of serious violence—
(Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt; I apologise to the Minister for being
rude. I am not clear what he means about whether or not an
officer using this stop and search power must be in uniform. This
is an extremely important point. I am sorry if it is just me and
I did not understand, but I wonder whether the Minister can
clarify that point.
4.30pm
(Con)
That is no problem at all. I will do my best to clarify that by
the end of this speech, but as I understand it, it is all
constables, which I assume includes those who do not necessarily
wear a uniform.
Regarding the territorial extent of the pilot and why we are
piloting in these force areas and not larger ones, where the
prevalence of serious violence is higher, all four forces that
will pilot SVROs are in the 20 areas most affected by serious
violence across England and Wales. They accounted for 80% of all
hospital admissions for injury with a sharp object, with each
individually accounting for 2% or more of admissions, rounded to
the nearest percentage point. The West Midlands has the
third-highest rate of knife crime in England and Wales, and
Merseyside the sixth-highest. The pilot will allow us to build an
understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the new orders
before deciding whether they should be rolled out nationally to
other force areas. I hope that answers the question.
I have heard what the noble Lord, , had to say on this topic;
however, stop and search powers are not enforceable across
England and Wales. As the noble Lord, , noted, individuals subject
to SVROs could simply operate outside the pilot areas. The
Government held a statutory consultation on the revised code.
This issue was discussed at length with key stakeholders, who
strongly supported allowing the use of stop and search powers by
police constables both within and outside the police force areas.
In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, , about the Police Federation,
it is a member of the PACE board and as such was invited to
provide a response. Whether it did, I do not know. Like the
proposed approach to SVROs, knife crime prevention orders, which
have been referred to, are being piloted in the Metropolitan
Police area and can only be issued in that force area. However,
the orders are also enforceable across England and Wales.
I stress that this is only a pilot, but we are revising the PACE
codes because they outline the fundamental principles of fair and
responsible stop and search. We want to ensure that officers have
clear guidance on the use of the new powers in the SVRO pilot,
including through PACE codes of practice. The search power can
only be used against persons who are subject to an SVRO. An
individual can be issued with an SVRO only if they are over 18
and have been convicted of an offence involving a bladed article
or an offensive weapon, and if the court considers it necessary
to make the SVRO to protect the public from the risk of harm
involving an offensive weapon or bladed article, or to prevent
the offender from further offending involving an offensive weapon
or bladed article. Therefore, while the police do not require
reasonable grounds for suspicion, it is not an unrestricted stop
and search power. The code of practice is clear that the use of
the power must not be based on prejudice. The use of the power is
discretionary, and officers will be expected to use their
judgment when choosing to conduct searches.
The noble Lord, , asked how, if individuals are
not legally required to give their identity when stopped by the
police, officers will identify those subject to an SVRO. The
police will have obtained the offender’s details at the
notification stage of an SVRO—there is the requirement for an
individual subject of an SVRO to notify the police of their name
and address—and they should ensure that any stop and search under
the power is targeted at offenders that have a SVRO only. In most
cases, it is expected that offenders subject to an SVRO will be
known to the police and officers will be able to identify the
offender before conducting a search. Where an officer is unsure
of an offender’s identity, they should seek to confirm that
offender’s identity and whether they have an SVRO before using
the stop and search power. It is an offence for an offender to
tell a police constable that they are not subject to an SVRO if
they are.
The Government fully support the police in the fair use of stop
and search to crack down on violent crime and protect
communities. The code of practice is one of many safeguards in
place to ensure the fair and proportionate use of SVROs. Others
include statutory guidance for the police on the use of the
power, which we have laid in draft before Parliament, body-worn
video, and extensive data collection. Stop and searches carried
out using the SVRO power will be subject to the usual internal
and external scrutiny panels to ensure that forces are
continually reviewing and learning from officer stop and
searches.
The noble Lord, , and my noble friend asked about the evaluation of
the pilot. We of course recognise the need for transparency in
how the orders are used, and clear and robust monitoring to
reassure communities that the orders are being used appropriately
and effectively. The Government are piloting SVROs to build an
understanding of their impact before deciding whether they should
be rolled out nationally. By definition, that implies that if
they do not work and we do not get sufficient data, they will not
be continued with.
We have appointed an independent evaluator, Ecorys, to carefully
gather the data necessary to assess the impact of these orders.
We will lay a report on the outcome of the pilot in Parliament.
It is expected in late 2025 and will include an initial
assessment of the impact of SVROs on the reoffending rates of
offenders in respect of whom such orders have been made; include
information about the exercise by constables of the powers;
provide an assessment of the impact on offenders of being subject
to an SVRO; and assess the impact of SVROs on people with
protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act
2010. We are also working with the SVRO working group and the
National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that all forces are
aware of the draft statutory guidance on SVROs and the revised
PACE Code A.
The noble Lord, , asked me about training. I do
not think it is for me to discuss operational matters
particularly, but the training is being worked on by the College
of Policing. It will be interactive e-learning training and will
ensure that officers in pilot areas understand the new civil
orders, their responsibilities and the stop and search powers
being provided. This learning platform will test officer
knowledge, including when it would or would not be appropriate to
use the powers.
To sum up, we do not accept that the availability of the stop and
search powers across England and Wales for individuals subject to
an SVRO warrants the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, . The rationale behind the
approach we are taking is clear and sensible, and there are
strong safeguards in place. Ultimately, we have a responsibility
to tackle crime and keep people safe, and that is and will
continue to be a key priority for the Government.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, , mentioned victims; I will go
into some detail on the statistics. The latest police-recorded
crime figures published by the ONS for the year ending June 2022
show that knife-enabled crime remained 9% lower—that is, 49,991
offences—than pre-coronavirus pandemic levels; in the year ending
March 2020, the figure was 55,076. Police-recorded offences of
possession of an article with a blade or point were 9% higher in
the year ending June 2022, at 25,287 offences, than the year
ending March 2020, when there were 23,242 offences. That is a 13%
increase. The police recorded 679 homicide offences in the year
ending June 2022, which is a 5% decrease compared with the year
ending March 2020. Levels have increased by 13% since the year
ending June 2021, during which social restrictions were still in
place.
I understand the concerns around disproportionality and the
impact of stop and search, particularly on black individuals.
But, as the noble Lord, , has just mentioned, we should
not forget that, according to the most recent studies, young
black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide
than young white people. That is a tragedy. Young people are
dying, their families are suffering and their communities are
being disproportionately impacted. I totally agree with the noble
Lord, : we absolutely have to do
better. I go back to the point I made earlier: to be absolutely
clear, an individual must have been convicted of an offence where
a bladed article or offensive weapon was used or was present to
receive an SVRO, and the stop and search power applies only where
an individual has an SVRO.
I will read out a supportive quote from Patrick Green, CEO of the
Ben Kinsella Trust. As a reminder, Ben was knifed to death at the
age of 16 in 2008; he would now have been entering his 31st year.
Patrick said:
“We are pleased that the Government is setting out to do more to
take knives and those who choose to persistently carry them off
our streets. Reoffending rates have been one of the scourges of
knife crime. SVROs give us a chance to look again at stop and
search and what more can be done in the courts to reduce
offending.”
That very powerful statement speaks for itself.
The policy detail of SVROs was discussed at length during passage
of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. As
mentioned, they will be piloted and we will conduct a full
evaluation before any further rollout.
My noble friend went slightly off topic when
he asked me about non-crime hate incidents. I will endeavour to
answer. The Home Secretary has asked officials to consider the
issue of NCHI recording to ensure that the police are using their
time most effectively. This work is currently under way and
includes consideration of whether the Home Secretary will publish
a code of practice on non-crime hate incident recording, as
provided for in Sections 60 and 61 of the Police, Crime,
Sentencing and Courts Act.
In closing, I offer again my thanks to all noble Lords who
contributed to this short debate. I hope that I have covered the
points raised during it. There is one that I have not: I will
write to the noble Lord, , on the subject of uniforms; I
cannot clarify that at this precise moment. I hope the House will
feel sufficiently reassured that the changes we are making to
PACE Code A are a necessary safeguard to have in place before
commencement of the pilot scheme for SVROs. I have made it clear
that public safety is our foremost concern. I therefore commend
the order to the House.
(GP)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I did not hear an answer
to my two questions. I do not expect one as to whether the
Government respect democracy because I know the answer to that,
but my other question was about the pilot scheme. Why promise a
pilot and then do the whole rollout?
(Con)
I am not entirely sure that I understand the noble Baroness’s
question. If you are going to have a pilot you have to roll it
out, surely.
(GP)
Why not wait for the pilot to finish before you decide to roll
out the whole thing more widely?
(Con)
We have not actually started the pilot and we are not rolling it
out. It is stuck to four pilot areas. We are talking about the
territorial extent of the stop and search powers.
(LD)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to
the debate, particularly those who supported my amendment.
The Minister has completely glossed over the whole point of the
regret amendment, which is that a concession was made by a
government Minister at the Dispatch Box to limit SVROs to
specific police areas. There was no mention of restricting only
the issuing of SVROs, rather than their enforcement, at that
time. It was never even considered, let alone agreed to. What has
happened is this. The Home Office has consulted the police—what
the Government called “key stakeholders”; I think the Minister
means the police, as that is who they consulted—and the police
said, “Hang on a minute, we need the power across all of England
and Wales because these criminals travel”. That may or may not be
a valid argument, but it was not what the Minister promised from
the Dispatch Box. That is the point and that is why there is a
regret amendment, but I do not intend to delay the House further
because there is a big debate to come. I therefore wish to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.
|
