Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies]

I know that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be as quick as I can.

I declare an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police, which is why I wanted to speak. My speech can be short, because I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. I particularly support new clause 26 on public-facing workers. I have little need to add anything. He was absolutely right in everything he said. In fact, only yesterday, I dealt with a lady, a retail worker, who had been spat at at close range. Obviously, I meet many rail staff who—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—are the victims of daily verbal and physical abuse. We have already heard about nurses, too. I absolutely agree with the new clause and told my Whips that I would support it and vote for it, if it came to a vote.

I am saddened that I am unable to do so, however, because of new clause 34, about which the hon. Member for Stockport will speak in a minute. I ask her to think very carefully about that, because the clause would reverse some of the good work that would be done by new clause 26. It would take away some of the rights that police constables, who are, after all, public sector, public-facing workers, should have. They should have the same rights as nurses, rail staff, bus drivers and the rest. That is important because police officers are often called to domestic dwelling houses late at night, in cases where drugs and drink can be involved, and they will suffer horrendous verbal abuse and, sometimes, threats of physical abuse. I do not think that police officers should have to put up with that any more than social workers or anyone else who goes into a private dwelling house.

New clause 34 might also have unintended consequences. I am not trying to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong, but sometimes neighbours might ring to allege that domestic violence is taking place and, when the police officer arrives, they might find one angry male—I am sorry if that is a stereotype, but it is often the case—under the influence of drink and shouting, swearing and so on. If neither of the people in that house is able to make an accusation, the fact that one person is drunk and shouting might be enough to allow a police officer to remove them from the premises by arresting them under the Public Order Act 1986. That is not something that police officers do lightly because they know that any arrest needs to be proportionate and that they will have to take somebody in front of a custody officer, who will not take kindly to arrests made without due cause. I ask the hon. Lady to think very carefully about her new clause.

If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington wishes to propose his new clause on some other occasion or to table an early-day motion, I will fully support him. I offer him my public support and I will vote for such protection for public sector workers. I would not do so, however, at the expense of police officers, who are also public sector workers like all the others.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I want to say a few words on new clause 34. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for giving me his views on it, but I think there might have been a misunderstanding.

The new clause would change the law to make the use of racist or other abusive language in a dwelling house an offence when it was directed at a policeman. I was recently contacted by a serving police officer from my constituency who was present when a colleague from the Greater Manchester police was called a “nigger” in a private house. Under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, no offence is committed if the “harassment, alarm or distress” takes place inside a dwelling house—that is, somebody’s house or flat. I was surprised by that because, like many people, I was under the impression that racist abuse was an offence wherever it was committed. However, this is not the case. I was shocked to hear that somebody could not be charged with the offence because it took place in a dwelling against a police officer pursuing his duty.

My amendment would make it an offence to use racist or other abusive language against a police constable who was present in a dwelling in the execution of his duty. The police officer from my constituency described attending a property where two men were aggressively arguing. One was very drunk and called one of the police officers a nigger. The officer described seeing her colleague abused and she told me, “I was quite horrified he had to endure this kind of abuse. I felt very frustrated and helpless that we could not charge the offender with any offence.” I am sure that this is by no means an isolated case and I suspect that other professionals such as social workers and health visitors have also been subject to racist abuse when visiting a person at their home address. It does not seem right to me or, I suspect, to the public that if the police officer had been called a nigger in the street, an offence would have been committed, but none was committed because it happened inside a house. I hope the Minister will feel able to consider the amendment that I propose.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be very brief as we are short of time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I draw the attention of the House and those watching our proceedings to amendments 178 to 181 and 183. I do that not just in my own name, but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which examined the issue as part of its consideration of the Bill. The Joint Committee is disappointed that the Government have not yet published in full their responses to their consultation on schedule 7. These are controversial issues. Of course, we need anti-terrorist legislation and there is always a balance to be worked out between the civil liberty of the subject and the powers of the authorities.

We believe, however, that it is very important that legislation distinguishes between the conventional powers to stop, to search, and to question, which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, and more intrusive powers, such as those of detaining and taking biometric samples, for which the Committee believes the Government have not yet made a persuasive case. The Joint Committee recommends introducing a reasonable suspicion requirement for the more intrusive powers under schedule 7. I know that some argue that schedule 7 should go altogether. That is not the position of the Joint Committee nor, coincidentally, is it the position of my party, which debated this at our conference in Glasgow a few weeks ago and took a view that there should be amendment broadly along the lines set out by the Joint Committee.

The issue came to prominence, as the House will remember, in August, when Mr David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow when coming into this country on his way back home to Brazil and was detained for nine hours under the anti-terror laws. There were protests by the Brazilian Government and widespread concern about whether the powers were used extensively. We hope we can persuade the Government to take the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we will not seek to divide the House this afternoon, hoping there might be a chance not just for my hon. Friend, but even for the Minister to respond to our concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Coffey]

I shall speak to new clause 18, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Rightly, there is a lot of concern about serious injury and death caused by aggressive dogs, and I support the measures proposed by my hon. Friends to tighten the current criminal law and introduce stricter penalties.

New clause 18 deals with a different situation—it is a simple preventive measure to stop injuries to many people who, every year, post millions of bits of paper through letterboxes. It is not unknown for dogs to regard fingers put through letterboxes as curiosities and fair game for fastening their teeth on. Some dogs are aggressive, but others might simply believe they are being playful. The thought of a dog hurtling itself at a letterbox might conjure up visions of an hilarious scene from a sitcom, but for the real-life recipient, it can be traumatic and painful. People can sustain injuries ranging from bite marks and minor bruising to fingers or nerves being severed, causing long-term injury. Some years ago, I had to take my constituency assistant to accident and emergency for a serious injury to her hand sustained while leafleting.

The amendment requires householders who keep a dog in their house to put up a wire mesh guard around their letterbox where there is a reasonable probability that, either through aggression or playfulness, it could go for somebody’s hand. I am not saying that every dog owner must rush out and buy a wire guard—if they have a good dog there is no need to worry. However, if there is a chance that their dog might jump up and, for whatever reason, bite someone through the letterbox, it would be up to them to take responsibility to prevent accidents and put in a simple wire guard.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying. While delivering leaflets during the previous general election campaign, I was bitten by a dog. It took an hour out of my life to have a tetanus injection at the hospital.

[Ann Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure his experience is shared by a lot of hon. Members.

If dog owners fail to comply with the requirement and there is an incident, the person bitten would be entitled to take a civil court action against them. By this simple measure, I believe that many injuries could be averted every year, and it has the added advantage of protecting householders from the hostility generated if their dog bites someone, particularly if that happens to be a child.

I understand that there may not be much public sympathy for politicians who get bitten by dogs, but this is not simply a problem for politicians. Many people push leaflets and letters through doors, including: postmen and women; newspaper boys and girls; people starting up new businesses or advertising pizza and other fast food services; neighbours posting Christmas and birthday cards; and people posting leaflets advertising community events.

I support the other amendments that have been tabled that aim to change criminal law, to make owners manage their dogs better and to put stricter penalties in place. However, my amendment is designed with safety, not the criminal law, in mind and I hope the Government will feel able to accept it. If they do not, I hope they will include the proposal in any future consultation.

[Richard Fuller]

I rise to speak to amendments 140 and 141 in my name, which would increase the maximum sentence to 14 years for owners of an out-of-control dog that kills or injures a person or assistance dog. I am happy that the Government responded to the requests of the Committee and conducted a consultation over the summer. However, I am disappointed that the results are not available.

People have the right to see their representatives debate fully and vote on what sentences they feel are appropriate to be imposed on the owners of out-of-control dogs. Those people include the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been an outstanding campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of out-of-control dogs across the country. They include the families who have lost loved ones over the years, as hon. Members have mentioned in their speeches, and the 13-year-old boy who was attacked in Bradford a couple of months ago. As reported by the Daily Mail, he suffered a 10-minute attack which ended with the young boy saying, “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.” These people have the right to see us debate how we intend to increase sentences.

The Communication Workers Union has a lot on its plate these days, but like any good union it is thinking first and foremost about the safety and well-being of its members. Five thousand postal workers are attacked each year by dogs. They have the right to have the House debate the right sentence. It is important for the Minister to understand that the CWU supports a 14-year sentence for the killing of a person by an out-of-control dog. The police also have a right to see us debate and vote on this issue today. In their evidence to the Committee, they raised the total and utter inadequacy of the current legislation in dealing with the important and increasing problem of attacks by out-of-control dogs. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s comments. I do not want to hear any flim-flam from him about how he is not sure where this is going and how we should just trust the Government to get it right.