Police and Justice Bill

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is correct. Without hesitation, I am happy to endorse the view that he has expressed to the House on the need for some settlement to enable our commanders to build up a relationship with the community—the formal representational community of local authorities as well as community leaders—and to undertake familiarisation. There is often far too frequent a turnover, or a revolving door, in appointments of key personnel. I want to move on from the question of mergers, although I should express some caution about the proposal to merge the inspectorates. I would have thought that the inspectorate of constabulary should be maintained. I see great dangers in bringing those inspectorates together, as compelling as the arguments might be, although no doubt they are driven by the need to reduce costs. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is highly regarded and I see no compelling case for it to be merged with any other inspectorate, no matter how important. Indeed, those inspectorates are important, but that is an argument for them to be stand-alone too. I want to discuss the question of the powers of the various police officers and police forces and community support officers. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I welcome the Conservative party’s change in attitude towards CSOs. They are one of the Government’s great successes and the Conservatives should be generous enough to acknowledge that. CSOs were introduced with a great deal of criticism, but now each of those officers is highly valued in our community and we need more of them. My view, however, is that CSOs should be given constable powers. That is where successive Home Secretaries have been too nervous or have been given the wrong counsel by people in the Home Office. Hon. Members have already said that we can get some good, highly-qualified people who can exercise good judgment—they are selected for that. These are not people who are just taken from the jobcentre; they are selected people of good quality. Often, such officers would hitherto—a decade or more ago—have been admitted to the police force as police officers. They should be sworn in as constables and, although their powers could be limited by statute, they should have the capacity to arrest over and above that power which every citizen has. That would strengthen their status, especially as, under the Bill, the area in which they can exercise their remit will extend nationwide if they are loaned to other police authorities. Currently, their powers are limited to the constabulary for which they work. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary and subsequently, I argued that the office of constable should be of a minimum standard laid down by statute. Many people are sworn as constables and they do a good job. I want to refer to them. There are parks police in Wandsworth and in Greenwich. Also, there are constables in some ports, but not in others. I shall return to that in a moment. We also have some big non-Home Office forces, such as the Ministry of Defence police, British Transport police and the constabulary that looks after the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s establishments. There is a variance as to their powers, which also applies to training. There should be some constancy—a minimum so that a constable, whoever he or she serves, has had basic training. That should be extended to CSOs. It would be very enhancing indeed. I have produced private Member’s Bills and have tried to interest those successive Home Secretaries in the need, in extremis, for all constables to have power to act. The Royal Parks police, which is a highly skilled force, has no more jurisdiction than you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to arrest a person outside the curtilage of the royal parks. That is bonkers. Also, a ports policeman cannot use his discretion as a constable outside the curtilage of the port. That is madness—a waste. There should be a constant standard and a policeman should have the duty to act as a policeman in extremis or in support of another police officer wherever appropriate. I would have thought this a good legislative opportunity for making such an amendment. British Transport police officers have had their powers marginally shifted in the last few years, but even officers of the MOD police, some of whom can be seen wearing policemen’s uniform and wearing the traditional policeman’s hat, have limited powers outside the curtilage or immediate vicinity of MOD establishments. That is ridiculous. This is an opportunity to extend, in extremis, the powers of all police officers and CSOs to act as constables and in support of any other police officer when necessary. Special constables, who are not paid but greatly valued, are sworn as constables, in contrast with CSOs, who are full-time but not sworn. We have some good part-timers—unpaid volunteers—but they have the status of constable, which underlines the fact that it is illogical that CSOs cannot be constables. I notice that, sensibly, special constables will now be able to carry out their functions in any part of England where they are on loan to another chief constable, but that makes it nonsensical to deprive people who are ports, parks or MOD police of that capacity. There should be a general review of the extent of the powers of all police officers. The Bill does not cover the costs of policing our airports, but extensive reference is made to the powers of the police in what are referred to as aerodromes. That needs to be looked at expeditiously by the Home Office, because the existing arrangements are ludicrous and unfair to the council tax payer. For instance, BAA has to pay for the policing of Stansted airport, basically on the demand of Essex police authority—I think that is the correct course. Broadly, the system is that the chief constable of Essex can say, with the support of his authority, that he requires certain policing at Stansted, although there is an appeals and disputes procedure—while close by in Luton there is no such payment by the airport. The council tax payer in Bedfordshire meets the full cost of policing there. There should be parity of treatment, for a number of reasons. There should be fairness to the council tax payer and fair competition; there should also be a proper standard of policing in all our airports, commensurate with the size of the airports and the number of customers using them. Surely the Bill could have made such provision, for those reasons and also in the interests of the Home Office. Clause 8 extends the power of the police to search at aerodromes. I do not understand why it does not include seaports. Since 1992, I have drawn attention to the inadequate policing at many of our seaports, large and small. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe—who led the Conservative party at the last general election—was Home Secretary, I proposed the establishment of a ports police force. He dismissed the idea. At the last election, the proposal became Conservative policy. Regrettably, because of the way in which politics works in this country, my colleagues in the Labour party opposed it because it had been proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is the kind of nonsense that happens in the United Kingdom. I think that it would be very sensible to establish ports and border police at our seaports; indeed, I consider it reckless not to make such provision. My constituency shares an extensive river frontage. We have the port of Tilbury, which does have a dedicated police force. I am very proud of that, and so, rightly, are those who work at the port. The force is small and has no critical mass, but at least it is there, and its presence greatly reduces the likelihood of organised crime such as people-smuggling. Regrettably, the force was privatised under the last Conservative Administration, but it is staffed by dedicated police officers. On other parts of the river frontage, there are no police officers. Boats arrive from the continent two or three times a day, and there is no Home Office immigration, no Customs and Excise and no police officer. Do you think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those involved in organised crime do not know that? I have told successive Home Secretaries about it. They have massaged me, as it were, by allowing me to talk to the Home Office police adviser, and a delightful man he was too, but that will not stop organised crime in and through our seaports. Successive Home Secretaries have plugged holes at Sangatte and other places, but they have not addressed the real problem. People enter the United Kingdom via a number of seaports, especially on the east coast, because there is no police force there. We need a dedicated, highly mobile force. They cannot be at every wharf or port all the time, but the mere fact that they could be there quickly and carry out operations would enable us to combat illegal immigration, people-smuggling and other crimes perpetrated by those who go in and out of our ports with containers. I have just returned from the United States. The question of the Dubai ports was a big issue, and I was amazed that it had not been a bigger issue here. I do not want to go into the details of a debate that amounts to a scrap between Republicans and Democrats, but the United States Administration are likely to extract a price from the Dubai ports for their acquisition of P&O to proceed. They will probably pay for increased screening of containers. I think that only about 3 per cent. of our containers are screened at our seaports. If the Dubai ports, or any other part of the port industry in north America, has to pay more for new screening technologies, that should be good for us in the United Kingdom and western Europe too. I think that there is a powerful case for seaport security and policing to be paid for by the user, per container. A small payment on each container would help to fund a dedicated ports police in this country. What happens in the United States is not our business, but if its ports industry is to pay more for technologies to combat crime, surely we are justified in saying that we should benefit from such resources too. Clause 9 provides for additional police powers to collect information relating to flights and voyages. I support that, because I do not dismiss the gravity of the war against terrorism. I always felt that terrorism posed a serious threat, even before 11 September, and my view has not changed. That is why I feel so strongly about our seaports, and have detained the House on the issue. Nevertheless, collecting all that information on what the Bill describes as ““flights and voyages”” will not be much use without law enforcement officers—police—at our ports, who are able to reach the various wharves that surround the United Kingdom, particularly those on the east coast. The Bill also confers additional powers on trading standards authorities. I imagine that the aim is to combat such offences as counterfeiting and breach of copyright, which is most necessary. Local authorities will have to use those powers. All too often, local authorities do not exercise their existing powers, because there are not enough trading standards officers to enforce them. I hope that the Bill will enable us to will the means, and persuade local authorities that trading standards are a high priority in the combating of crime, and organised crime in particular. Illegally copied compact discs on our market stalls frequently represent the end of a major criminal operation across the country. Clause 38 extends the police complaints machinery to those who enforce asylum and immigration policies. I consider it very necessary. I have been very distressed by raids by immigration and asylum organisations and the Home Office on families asleep in their beds at 6 am on Sundays. Families do not run. Single men who are economic migrants, are by definition transient. In many instances, it is difficult for the asylum and immigration services to arrest them. I regret to say that we are in the numbers game. When the Home Office knows that a family is involved, its personnel will move in at 6 o’clock on a Sunday morning and round up the lot. I find that extremely distasteful, and I believe that the police officers who are in attendance find it distasteful as well. It is one of the most harrowing and unjustified situations that can be created. However, when successive politicians stand at the Dispatch Box and argue about figures, rounding up a family of seven or nine on a Sunday morning looks good in terms of headline figures. The people concerned were all together. There is no necessity for such action. I believe that, regrettably, there have been grounds for considerable complaint and investigation, and I am glad that there will now be more opportunities for people to complain and to seek reviews of what has happened. Members have mentioned the extradition provision. I am amazed that, although the United Kingdom has entered into a treaty with the United States of America and we are acting on it in good faith, the United States Senate has not endorsed it. I cannot understand why we tolerate that. It is a two-way process. Our bargaining chip is saying to Uncle Sam ““You can have this facility, provided that you do right by us.”” When I was in the United States last week, I expressed bewilderment that the Senate had not passed the treaty. I was given a variety of reasons, one of which was that it feared that people who had left Northern Ireland might be affected. I would not have thought, with all the legislation that we are passing now, that that was a problem, to be candid, but I think that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary could say, ““This treaty is available. The Queen has signed it. The UK has fulfilled its side of the bargain, but the treaty cannot be triggered until your legislature delivers its side of the bargain too.”” It is absurd. I ask the Minister to explain the logic of that. I do not say that sarcastically. I simply do not understand why we are acting in that way when the United States legislature, the Senate, is failing to implement the treaty. The treaty has been in existence not for months but for years. I urge the Minister to reflect on that matter. Otherwise, there is a powerful case for the Bill to be used as a vehicle for amending the treaty or suspending it. I do not talk about individual cases. I have no brief. I want wrongdoers to be brought to justice as expeditiously as possible either side of the Atlantic, but there has to be parity of treatment. For those reasons, it is useful for Parliament to explore the Bill. It contains a variety of measures, some of which are most welcome, and some of which we should treat with caution and perhaps amend during the legislative process. Above all, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that the Bill is a wonderful opportunity to beef up the powers of community support officers and constables, whether they are in Home Office forces or the other forces to which I have referred. It is also a wonderful opportunity to think again about having a highly mobile, technical border or ports police, paid for by the ports industry, and to ensure that funding for policing our airports is appropriate, fair and balanced in terms of competition and the charge that should be forced on the council tax payer.