Police and Justice Bill

Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab):

6.10 pm

Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. It contains numerous measures across a wide range of areas that will improve our police forces and the quality of life in all our constituencies in many ways. I am pleased that that is recognised on both sides of the House and that the Opposition have said that they will not divide the House on Second Reading.

I welcome the strengthening of the powers and role of community support officers in part 1. The Bill standardises CSO powers so that CSOs can contribute fully to neighbourhood policing and deal with more issues on the spot. I also welcome giving police CSOs the power to deal with truants. They are well placed to deal with them because they are on duty in the community and can obviously spot truants, especially the regular ones. That starts to give one the image of a Britain of yesteryear, when the local bobby would be on the beat and spot little Johnny or Betty and know them by name and where they live, and would then escort them home to surprised and often cross parents. That was a time when communities worked together for all their inhabitants and when the police and all other public servants were accorded much respect—I am sure that the House would agree that they deserved it, as they do today.

I also welcome the strengthening of powers to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour and especially the extension of the number of agencies that can enter into parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders. That brings me on to part 2, “Powers of police”. With regard to the new extension of powers for the police to stop and search people at airports, I want to draw the House’s attention to the practical difficulties of enforcing football banning orders. The other point that I want to raise relates more specifically to persons entering or leaving the country, who are under no obligation to account for their identity to the police if requested to do so. I am keen to move quickly on the issue because of the 2006 World cup, which is being hosted by Germany, and the likelihood of officers being required to perform port operations to screen football fans without the legislative backing to do so.

While researching the matter, I have spoken to numerous representatives from the police, including Michael Downes, who is a national representative on the Police Federation. He has conducted numerous pieces of research and has spoken to experts in policing football disorder and members of the police who conduct port operations during international fixtures.

I will give the House some background to the operation of football banning orders. Letters are sent to persons subject to the orders prior to or at the commencement of the control period, which is usually five days before the event or fixture. The letters direct those persons to comply with the order, which could involve surrendering a passport or signing in at a police station. There is no national policy or approach to ensure that the orders are complied with. Research suggests that it is unlikely that they are, or that breaches are detected. That is often because the matter is simply not a priority in all forces and little or no training is given to front-counter staff in this area of legislation.

In addition, there is no requirement to inform the authorities of a change of residence, and although the Violent Crime Reduction Bill tries to deal with that, it does not appear to cater for persons working away from home. That is a major problem for police officers, who are often not told that X or Y is working away for a week or so, thus making it impossible to police the order.

Persons are also entitled to apply for duplicate passports if they claim that the original has been lost or stolen. They can also be issued with a duplicate passport if they claim that they are waiting for a visa application to be processed. In addition, if travelling in the EU, there is no requirement to possess a passport. A driving licence can be accepted as sufficient identification to travel. That is not a major problem at present because most airline operators have a company policy that requires a passport to be produced on departure. It should be noted, however, that car ferry companies often record only the lead name plus the number of passengers. It is likely that a large number of the fans who attend the 2006 World cup in Germany will travel by car and ferry. Approximately 48 ferries leave Dover a day, each with a capacity of 2,000 passengers. Dover is, of course, only one major shipping port. Others such as Hull will also play a major role during the event.

Entries are made on the police national computer showing details of football banning orders. However, because of technical difficulties, people are shown as “wanted/missing”. That is also the case for sex offenders and persons subject to antisocial behaviour orders. That causes two major problems. First, people are being detained unlawfully because they are shown as “wanted”, and, secondly, port operations are not as efficient or effective as they could be.

Police officers have no power to request the production of any form of identification from persons entering or leaving the UK. If a police officer saw a person leaving the country and wanted to establish their identity—for example, to find out whether they were wanted on a warrant or for an arrestable offence, subject to a football banning order, or recorded on the sex offenders register—they could not do so. In addition, at the moment—this matter is included in the Bill—police officers have no authority to examine rail, shipping or flight manifests. That is why I welcome the extension of powers in the Bill.

British Transport police play a key role in port operations as a result of Eurotunnel and subsequent rail links into France and onwards. Legislators often use words such as “port” or “police officer”, but they cause British Transport police officers some difficulty. All Eurotunnel journeys commence at railway stations, not ports, which is where the difficulty arises. It would also be more useful if the term “constable” was used as an alternative to “police officer”, as I note that it is in the Bill.

The points that I have mentioned cause police officers considerable difficulties in performing their duties efficiently and effectively. I hope that the majority of the issues will be addressed in Committee.

I welcome many other aspects of the Bill. I not only welcome the powers on stop and search, but ask for them to go further. Part 3, which I will not speak about in detail, covers the measures in our respect agenda to deal with antisocial behaviour and improve the parenting of young people. Those measures should be welcomed by the whole House, as they are. I look forward to following the Bill’s progress in Committee.

6.18 pm

End