My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for Amendments 31 and 33. They are clearly intended to address one of the problems which arises from the clauses on dispersal orders. They address the issue of whether this power could be used in respect of people conducting a demonstration of some sort—at least, I assume that that is what they do. Perhaps when the Minister responds, he could tell us the strength of the words,
“have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression”,
in relation to a demonstration which may be a bit rowdy, a bit difficult or a bit challenging, as opposed to a straightforward, entirely sedate slow march or, indeed, to someone standing still waving a placard.
For example, could the power be used under circumstances in which, having given regard to the rights of freedom of expression, the inspector concerned decides that he has thought about it but, none the less, he wishes to use the power? If the Minister can reassure us about that, clearly the issue has been adequately addressed by Amendments 31 and 33.
I address my remarks to the wider issues raised by Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend, which would remove Clause 32. I suspect that that is a rather blunderbuss approach to a matter on which we have been trying throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House to get clarity on: in what circumstances the power might be used and how that might happen. We asked many questions in Committee about how this might happen, to which we have had very little in terms of answers. I certainly recall raising the issue of the rank of the police officer who would authorise the use of the power in a specified locality. I accept that the Minister described inspectors as comparatively senior police officers—and indeed they are comparatively senior police officers compared with a constable or a police sergeant—but they are not comparatively senior compared with an assistant chief constable or a superintendent. These are relative terms.
9.30 pm
Will these officers have sufficient sensitivity to the local environment, local circumstances and local community issues that might be raised by the use of dispersal powers? The reason why this is so sensitive is that it is a very broad power. I am sure that many of your Lordships remember the debates that took place in the 1970s about the use of the sus power. That was a power to stop, really, on the basis of a police officer deciding they did not like the look of somebody. What we now have with this power is a facility for the police to say, “In this area, we are deciding that this group of people will not be here”. If those people are removed and they refuse to go, this has created a power where they could ultimately be going to jail. There are community implications of doing that. As an example of where these powers might be used, I cited a group of boisterous youths in a fairground site or in an area where other activities are taking place, who are or might be regarded as alarming or distressing members of the public in the locality, or likely to alarm or distress members of the public in the locality. Those are exactly the sort of circumstances which could provoke major disturbances, certainly in some of our inner cities and, I suspect, in many other areas, if the powers were used insensitively, inappropriately or in a disproportionate fashion. How will these authorisations be given? Will there be a proper account of the likely local community consequences?
This is why the absence of any reference to consulting the local authority is so silly. This is not about a democratic deficit. The Minister is quite right to say that under current legislation the police service is held to account by the police and crime commissioner. This is not about holding to account. This is about involving
democratic representatives prior to a decision being taken. This is not about ceding direction and control. It is about listening to the voice of the people who know the area best, usually the locally elected representatives, on the likely consequence of saying, “In this particular area, we are excluding these particular people because it is alleged that they may be liable to cause a particular problem even if they have not done so already”. That is why it matters. The danger is that the inappropriate use of this power creates circumstances where there are going to be all sorts of problems and disturbances in the future. I would personally have confidence in the sensitivity of inspectors in making such decisions, but there may well be circumstances in which that would not be the case and a more senior officer would be appropriate.
I cited the example of a county force which might decide, “We have this complicated new legislation—the annual Home Office piece of legislation. We need to make sure we get it right. We will designate an inspector for the whole force area who will be in charge of authorisations to use powers under Section 33 of this new Act”. That would be a sensible decision for a police force to make—it might even be one that the police and crime commissioner would endorse—but it would mean that the inspector making that decision would not necessarily have any knowledge of the locality concerned. If it was the community inspector for that area, if you could define one and such a thing existed, or if it was the local commander or an officer of sufficient seniority that they would have thought through all the community implications, that would make sense. However, the way that it is expressed at the moment, which is simply as,
“A police officer of … the rank of inspector”,
does not provide enough safeguards.
The Minister seems to imply that it is making it more difficult for the police to act if there is a requirement to consult. However, there are various forms of consultation. I do not think that any of us talking about this are envisaging a circumstance—at least I am not—in which there would be a three-week consultation with a formal exchange and so on. We are simply talking about the courtesy call. What is the likely community impact in this area of doing that? That could be a simple phone call; it could even be a text message or by word of mouth. It could be done in a variety of ways. However, surely the least that should be expected is that there will be communication with the local authority with which the police are supposed to be in partnership as part of their crime and disorder reduction arrangements. Yet that is omitted. Indeed, the Minister said that it would be far too cumbersome to allow that to happen. Well, there might be a small degree of inconvenience and slowing down of the speed of action but that opportunity to take advice might be what averts a major disturbance or even a riot. That is why these issues are important and why we need some clarity.
We are told that the authorisation, once given,
“must be in writing … must be signed by the officer giving it, and … must specify the grounds on which it is given”.
That is fine—it is not a complicated requirement—but presumably there is then an expectation that members of the public will know about this, so presumably this has to be copied and made available to the officers on the ground so that they can explain to an individual, “These are the legal powers under which I am asking you to disperse”. Again, we have not had clarity from the Minister. Or if we have had it I have lost it in the piles of letters that he has had to send out following Committee because of the difficulties with the drafting of some parts of the Bill. We have not had clarity about how this power is to operate, the circumstances in which it is envisaged to operate or whether there is to be sufficient guidance to make sure that the nightmare that I can see round the corner does not occur. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this point. We have waited quite a long time for this reassurance; we have still not had it.