Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

I wish to speak to new clauses 27, 26 and 16 and, given the time available, I will do so as quickly as possible.

Today, in another place, the remarkable Doreen Lawrence will be ennobled. Twenty years ago her son was cruelly murdered. The son of Neville, a carpenter, and Doreen, a special needs teacher, Stephen was but 18 years old, excelling at school and at sport, and with a whole life ahead of him, when he was cruelly murdered by racists. To add insult to injury—I say this with regret—there was clear evidence of racism in the way in which the police inquiry was conducted. As if that were not bad enough, serious allegations have now been made that the police then spied on the Lawrence family with a view to discrediting them. That has prompted the ongoing Operation Herne.

What happened to the Lawrence family is not the only situation that gives rise to concern. I am thinking, for example, of the long-running infiltration of peaceful protesters in the environmental movement by Mark Kennedy; serious questions have been asked about the accountability of the undercover police operation that was undertaken. Let me make myself clear: undercover policing is vital in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and is a key part of the police’s ability to keep communities safe. I pay tribute to the work done by brave police officers in dangerous and often difficult circumstances. However, undercover operations are also incredibly sensitive and have a substantial impact on the lives of members of the public. As such, they require the highest ethical and operational standards. That is why we have tabled new clause 27 to ensure that all long-term undercover operations would be signed off by a relevant independent body, to ensure that this important tool is used proportionately, sensitively and only when necessary, and with clear and improved accountability arrangements. That type of sign-off for police operations has precedent. If the police or security services want to break in and bug a room or intercept a phone call, they have to have a justification in the interests of national security—

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Dromey]

Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions today. That will not be a precedent for the future.

On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.

Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the Freedom from Fear campaign.

Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.

It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.

Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.

We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.

New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel they need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.

We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.

Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of highstreet legal high sellers.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.