Public Order Bill Consideration of Lords message Clause 11 Powers
to stop and search without suspicion 6.05pm The Minister for Crime,
Policing and Fire (Chris Philp) I beg to move, That this House
disagrees with Lords amendments 6H and 6J. The Public Order Bill is
about giving the police the tools they need to tackle the highly
disruptive protest tactics we have seen in recent months, and
indeed today, which have blocked ambulances, delayed...Request free trial
Public Order
Bill
Consideration of Lords message
Clause 11
Powers to stop and search without suspicion
6.05pm
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire ()
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 6H and 6J.
The Public Order Bill is about giving the police the tools they
need to tackle the highly disruptive protest tactics we have seen
in recent months, and indeed today, which have blocked
ambulances, delayed passengers making important journeys,
prevented children from getting to school and patients from
getting to hospital, and at times held the capital city to
ransom. I do not wish to detain the House for any longer than
necessary, because we have debated this Bill numerous times in
recent months and it has undoubtedly been given the scrutiny the
British people want and expect. It is time for that delay to end
and for this Bill to become law.
The other place has once more voted to amend clause 11, the power
to stop and search without suspicion—although it is worth saying
that that power can only be used if a police officer reasonably
believes that certain protest-related offences will happen in the
very near future, so it is not a power that can be used wholly
arbitrarily. It is most disappointing to see that vote after this
elected Chamber disagreed with their Lordships in their last
amendments.
As my noble colleague explained in the other place, it is our
view that the changes are unnecessary. First, a legal framework
already exists for all stop-and-search powers. Under section 3.8
of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A, the code of
practice for powers to stop and search, police officers have to
give their name or identification number, the police station to
which they are attached and grounds for every single stop and
search, essentially replicating the proposal in their Lordships’
motion 6H. Those criteria are covered in the GOWISELY mnemonic
drilled into every police officer.
Secondly, it is our view that the requirement for police forces
to establish a charter on the use of powers would cause
unnecessary burdens on police forces and officers, something the
Opposition have been concerned about throughout this Bill’s
passage. Plenty of long-established safeguards already exist for
stop-and-search powers. Additionally, we have supported the
National Police Chiefs’ Council in its publication of national
guidance on the use of body-worn video, which includes
encouraging forces to share footage with external scrutiny groups
to support transparency and reflective practice and learning.
On reporting on the use of stop-and-search powers, I would like
to reassure the House that the Home Office already publishes an
annual statistical bulletin, which outlines in detail the
information gathered during each stop-and-search incident. That
reporting will be conducted for the use of the new
stop-and-search powers, both suspicion-led and suspicionless.
Finally, on publishing a statement giving reasons for the use of
powers, as the Government reiterated in the other place, we
recognise that communication on the use of these powers is a
fundamental element of building trust and confidence between a
force and the community it serves. The majority of forces,
including the Metropolitan Police Service, already communicate
their section 60 authorisations, and I know that communities
appreciate knowing the details of the geographical area, time
limits and justification for the authorisation. Those forces will
continue that practice for these new powers.
Nevertheless, as the noble committed to in the
other place, the Government will amend PACE code A to require
that, where it is operationally practical to do so, forces must
communicate the extent of the area authorised for the
suspicionless stop and search, the duration of an order and the
reasons for that order. This Government commit to the spirit of
what their Lordships are asking for, in their proposed new
subsection (9D) of clause 11, through amendments to PACE code A.
We will also amend PACE code A to place data collection within
the legislative framework. It will include a breakdown of both
suspicion-led and suspicionless searches cross referenced with
protected characteristics such as age, sex and ethnicity.
I hope that those clear commitments—made in this House and in the
other place, and reiterated here today—will satisfy hon. Members.
Making changes to PACE code A is the right way to address those
issues. The amendments to PACE code A will ensure consistency
across all stop-and-search powers and allow for a full and robust
consultation with external stakeholders, providing the right
balance between tackling disruptive protesters and protecting the
rights of each citizen where the powers are used. For those
reasons, I hope that the House will agree with the Home Secretary
in respectfully disagreeing with their Lordships’ amendments 6H
and 6J.
(Croydon Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Government’s motion to disagree with
Lords amendments 6H and 6J, which we support.
The amendments seek to do two things: first, to instruct officers
to give their name, badge number and reason for stopping anyone
they search under the new suspicionless stop-and-search powers,
and secondly, to compel all police forces to set up a
charter—which they would have to consult on, publish and
independently evaluate—on the use of their suspicionless
stop-and-search powers. To be clear, the amendments have nothing
to do with patients not getting to hospital; nothing to do with
blocking roads; nothing to do with whether stop and search
without suspicion actually takes place. They are to do with the
manner in which suspicionless stop and search is conducted.
The amendments are direct recommendations from Louise Casey’s
report—although she would go further and apply them to all stop
and searches. Baroness Casey’s review of the standards of
behaviour and internal culture of the Metropolitan Police Service
is a 300-page tour de force. The Home secretary welcomed the
review and said:
“Accepting Baroness Casey’s findings is not incompatible with
supporting the institution of policing and the vast majority of
brave men and women who uphold the highest professional
standards.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2023; Vol. 730, c.
165.]
The Prime Minister said:
“There needs to be a change in culture and leadership, and I know
that the new Metropolitan commissioner will no doubt reflect on
the findings of Louise’s report, but is already making changes
and that's right, because what was happening before is simply
shocking and unacceptable.”
He is right. Officers right across the Met are desperate to see
those improvements put in place and action taken to rebuild the
confidence of Londoners.
Labour tabled Lords amendments 6H and 6J to clause 11 to help put
into legislation some of the improvements recommended by Baroness
Casey, and it is very disappointing and surprising that the
Government have tabled a motion to disagree. Clause 11 brings
wide-ranging powers for the police to stop and search anyone in
the vicinity of a protest, including anyone who happens to be
walking through the area. The Government’s proposals risk further
damaging the delicate relationship between the police and the
public by significantly expanding stop-and-search powers to a
protest context.
We agree that stop and search is a really important tool. The
Minister has said on many occasions that stop and search is
important for looking for weapons, and of course, we absolutely
support that. We support suspicionless stop and searches—or
section 60s—when serious violence, or terrorism, has occurred.
But it is important to reflect that we are talking about using
the suspicionless stop-and-search power not for terrorism or
serious violence, but for protests—it is about searching for
glue, a padlock, a microphone or a speaker. That will not have
been agreed by the chief superintendent but by an inspector,
because the Government rejected our amendment to make that
change. Really, clause 11 should have been removed from the Bill,
but we are not here to debate whether we should have
suspicionless stop and search because that debate has concluded.
Today, we are debating sensible, important changes to the
Government’s clause to insert some safeguards into a wide-ranging
power and mitigate some of its potential adverse impacts.
Why do the Opposition object to implementing some of the key
elements of the Lords amendments in PACE code A, where most
regulations relating to this issue already sit? They can be
updated relatively easily if necessary, so is not PACE code A the
right place to do this? In relation to Louise Casey’s
recommendation, she did not specify that these changes should
happen in primary legislation. We are doing these things, just in
PACE code A.
6.15pm
My understanding is that the agreement to include some aspects of
the amendments in PACE code A does not go the whole way towards
what we are suggesting in this legislation. The attitude from the
Government—that plenty of long-established safeguards already
exist, as the Minister said at the start of his contribution—is
wrong. We have lots of regulations in PACE code A and other
places that are clearly not always adhered to. has identified this as a
problem, she has made a suggestion and we suggest putting it in
the Bill, which I think is a reasonable response.
We know that stop and searches can go wrong when there is a
communication failure from the officers carrying out the search.
We welcome the changes announced in the Lords, although we do not
know exactly what the changes to PACE code A will be, or how or
when they will happen. Our colleagues in the other place tried to
add points about communication into the Bill and suggested
increasing the seniority of the officer allowing a suspicionless
stop and search, but both amendments were rejected. Baroness
Casey suggests as a minimum that Met officers should be required
to give their name, their shoulder number, the grounds for the
stop and a receipt confirming the details of the stop. Lords
motion A1 built on Louise Casey’s recommendations and attempted
to add them to the legislation.
It is worth remembering that a recent report by Crest Advisory
examining the experience of black communities nationally of stop
and search found that 77% of black adults support the use of stop
and search in relation to suspicion of carrying a weapon, but
that less than half of those who have been stopped and searched
felt that the police had communicated well with them or explained
what would happen.
It would be helpful to understand whether the Minister agrees
with Baroness Casey’s recommendations in full and, if he does
not, whether he thinks she is wrong or believes that something
else should be done instead. The Casey report was devastating,
and Ministers have so far been unable to offer any solutions to
make the reforms we need in policing. Here is an opportunity for
the Minister to signal the Government’s intent to make those
reforms. We have heard the warnings from former police officers
that some of the powers in the Bill risk diminishing trust in
public institutions. The Peel principles on policing by consent
said that
“the police are the public and the public are the police”.
The Home Secretary said in her statement to the House on the
Casey review:
“When it comes to changing the law or introducing any frameworks
that are necessary, we in the Home Office will do
that”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 167.]
Here is a chance for the Home Secretary to keep her word. It will
not change anything in terms of who can be stopped; it will just
make the process more transparent and better for everyone. On the
30th anniversary of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, wouldn’t that
be a good thing to do? I urge Members across the House to back
the Lords amendments and reject the Government’s motion
tonight.
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
I find myself, I am afraid, in agreement with the Opposition
spokesperson. I also support the Casey recommendations, based as
they were on a horrifying report about the behaviour of the Met
over the years. Let us be clear: no Government of any persuasion
have managed to get the Met to behave—and not just the Met; other
police forces, too—in a manner that is acceptable to the public,
bearing in mind that there have been Governments of both
orientations since Stephen Lawrence.
The second point I would make very quickly is that when the Home
Secretary in 2010—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead
(Mrs May), for those who do not remember—limited stop and search,
she did not do so out of an excess of liberal sympathy. She did
so because, at that point in time, stop and search was being used
in such a way that it caused serious race relations problems in
several parts of the country. That was because stop and search
was largely targeted at stopping violence, and at that point—it
may well still be true today—the perpetrators of knife crime and
the victims of knife crime mostly came from minority communities.
Although minority communities themselves were not happy about the
operation of the system, they understood why it was there. That
was a different order of magnitude from using suspicionless stop
and search to control demonstrations.
Don’t get me wrong: I think that we should have some fairly
fierce legislation—which we do have now—for dealing with people
who deliberately destroy the lives of the public, or uproot and
disrupt the lives of the public. I am a great believer in the
right of demonstration, but I do not think it should go beyond a
certain level. That is why I support the Lords amendment to put
this provision on the face of the Bill.
To respond to the Minister’s question to the Opposition
spokeswoman, we should turn the question on its head: why should
it not be on the face of the Bill? After all, that would
broadcast in clear terms what we want to happen. We want the
police to behave in a respectful and careful manner when they use
this power. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that the Lords
amendments did not also include making sure that video footage
from the body cameras was available, including to the lawyers of
the people who were stopped and searched after the event, if need
be.
I think this is a worthwhile amendment. As has been said, I think
it is very much in line with the Casey report, and we as a
Government have to set our minds to ensuring that every
recommendation of the Casey report is put in place and to
returning the Metropolitan police and other police forces to the
level of public respect that we wish they had now.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesman.
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, rise to speak in support of the Lords amendments. These
are amendments about suspicionless stop and search, and we need
to draw a breath and remind ourselves that suspicionless stop and
search really is a significant power. It is a hugely invasive,
intrusive and arbitrary police tactic that causes incredible
inconvenience for those who are impacted, and that is something
that has not seemed to register at all with the Government
throughout the entire process of discussing clause 11.
From the Casey report, we also know of the hugely significant
impact that these powers can have on black and minority ethnic
communities in particular, so it is plain wrong to be pressing on
when trust has been undermined by a series of horrendous stories,
particularly regarding the Metropolitan police, but far from
exclusively. Nobody in this Chamber is saying that suspicionless
stop and search powers are never, ever appropriate, but there
must be serious justifications for them. Of course, there are
serious justifications when it comes to terrorism or serious
violence, but the powers in the Bill apply in circumstances that
do not come remotely close to justifying their use. In some
circumstances, we are talking about an inspector having a
suspicion that somebody somewhere might commit a public nuisance.
That is absolutely no basis for setting up a suspicionless stop
and search regime, so this is an appallingly inappropriate
expansion of such powers at a time when Casey has called for a
reset of practice with regard to them.
As such, we support these Lords amendments. The arguments in
favour of them have been set out comprehensively in the last two
speeches that we have heard. If anything, the amendments are very
limited and do not go anywhere near far enough, but they are just
about better than nothing, and they may provide some reassurance
for those who are going to be at the sharp end of such searches.
We therefore support them and disagree with the Government
motion.
(North East Fife)
(LD)
I return to trust, which is the basis of policing by consent. We
need trust in the police, not just so that when people pick up
the phone they get assistance, but from an intelligence
perspective as well. One concern that I have had consistently
throughout the debate on the Bill is that, in eroding that trust,
we will fail to get the intelligence that we need in order to
prevent some of the offences that the Government are attempting
to stop via the Bill.
The Minister has pointed out the additions to the PACE code, but
I wonder whether, if those in the other place had not persisted
in their course in relation to suspicionless stop and search, we
would have got that climbdown from the Government. I agree with
the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that
we need this provision on the face of the Bill. The reality is
that when we look separately at section 60 searches—again, this
is from the Casey report—it does not appear that a sudden surge
in use had any effect on the underlying trend.
I have deep concerns that if the Government are successful in
disagreeing with the Lords amendments today, which I suspect they
might be, we will miss the opportunity of the Casey report and,
several years from now, we will be standing in this place
debating the fact that—we told the House so—stop and search does
not work.
I do not want to rehearse at great length points I have made
previously, but I reiterate in response to the shadow Minister,
the hon. Member for Croydon Central (), that the Government believe
that these powers, which are to be used in limited circumstances,
are necessary pre-emptively to prevent people who are going
equipped to disrupt the day-to-day lives of fellow citizens,
whether it is with equipment to allow them to lock on to pieces
of critical national infrastructure, to glue themselves to roads
or to climb up gantries and attach themselves to equipment over
the M25. They go equipped—it is an intentional, planned
activity—and there are occasions when it will be necessary for
the police to conduct stop and searches where they reasonably
believe that a crime may be committed, even when no suspicion
attaches to a particular individual.
I reiterate my point that the substance or key points of the
amendments either are covered or will be covered by PACE code A.
In relation to Lords amendment 6H, as I said, the officer giving
their name and their badge number, the details of the stop they
consider relevant and the grounds for the search are already
covered by paragraph 3.8 of PACE code A. It is in there already,
and officers do it already. In relation to issuing a statement
giving the reasons for these particular powers, we will make sure
that PACE code A sets that out even more clearly. The amendments
have either been implemented already, or we are committed to
implementing their substance and spirit using PACE code A.
Why are we using PACE code A, rather than putting the amendments
in the Bill? First, it is for consistency. These sorts of
conditions are set already in PACE code A, and we want to be
consistent with how things operate already. Furthermore, when
setting out guidelines, it is generally better to use instruments
such as PACE code A or regulations, because where changes or
updates are needed, it is much easier to do that by amending
secondary legislation, guidelines or codes of practice, rather
than by going back and amending primary legislation, which can
happen only infrequently.
Those are the reasons we have taken the approach we are taking.
There is a good rationale for that, and I therefore urge the
House to join the Home Secretary in respectfully disagreeing with
their lordships on Lords amendments 6H and 6J.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 6H
and 6J.
[Division 216
The House divided:
Ayes
270
Noes
200
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 24 April 2023 at
6.27pm](/Commons/2023-04-24/division/426E4203-68B0-4829-88E8-97C021D4477E/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendments 6H and 6J disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be
assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 6H and
6J;
That , , , , , and be members of the
Committee;
That be the Chair of the
Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords.
|
