Policing and Crime Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 32—Police volunteers: inspection.

Amendment 11, in clause 35, page 57, line 39, leave out subsection (1A).

This amendment removes the ability for volunteers to be given the powers of a Constable or Police and Community Support Officer.

Amendment 12, page 58, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) The chief officer of any police force may not place a volunteer in any role which requires the use of force or restraint.’.

This amendment would prevent volunteers being placed in roles which may require the use of force or restraint which should only be performed by officers and members of police staff.

Amendment 13, page 59, line 1, leave out subsection (9B).

This amendment removes the provision for volunteer PCSOs to be issued with CS spray and PAVA spray.

Amendment 10,  page 59, line 31, at end insert—

‘(12) This section cannot come into force until the House of Commons approves a report under subsection 46(6) of the Police Act 1996 which guarantees no annual reduction in funding in real terms to local policing bodies in each financial year until 2020.’.

This amendment would guarantee that police funding would be protected in a police grant settlement approved by Parliament before proposals to grant additional police powers to volunteers can be brought forward.

New clause 1—Sale of knives and certain articles with blade or point to persons under eighteen: due diligence checks—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 141A, after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Due diligence serving to confirm the material facts in relation to a sale over the internet of with respect to the age of a purchaser must include, but is not limited to—

(a) age verification on delivery,

(b) online age verification, and

(c) offline follow up checks.

(4B) The Secretary of State must publish guidance, which the Secretary of State may revise from time to time, on how due diligence verification and checks under section (4A) are to be carried out.’.

This new clause provides a triple lock to ensure that knives are not illegally sold over the Internet to under-18s.

New clause 7—Amendments to the Firearms Act 1968—

‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit section 5(1A)(f).

(3) Omit sections 5A(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8).

(4) Omit section 7(1) and insert—

“(1) A person who has obtained from the chief officer of police for the area in which he resides a permit for the purpose in the prescribed form may, without holding a certificate or authority under this Act, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition in accordance with the terms of the permit.”

(5) At the end of section 28A add—

“(8) Where an individual has applied for the renewal of a certificate before its expiry but the chief constable has not, as at the date of its expiry, determined whether or not to grant the renewal, the certificate is to continue to have effect until the application is determined.”’.

The new clause seeks to make a number of technical changes to the 1968 Firearms Act covering expanding ammunition, section 7 temporary permits and the renewal of firearms certificates in order to clarify the law and reduce the administrative burden on the police and shooting community.

New clause 8—Amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988—

‘(1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 15(1) (Approved rifle clubs and muzzle-loading pistol clubs) omit the first “rifle” and for the second “rifle” substitute “firearm”.

(3) Omit section 15(2) and insert—

“(2) Any club may apply for approval, whether or not it is intended that any club members will, by virtue of subsection (1) above, have firearms subject to section 1 or ammunition in their possession without holding firearm certificates.”

(4) Omit section 15(4) and insert—

“(4) The application of subsection (1) above to members of an approved club may—

(a) be excluded in relation to the club, or

(b) be restricted to target shooting with specified types of firearm, by limitations contained in the approval.”

(5) In section 15(7) omit “rifle”.

(6) In section 15(10) omit the first “rifle”.

(7) Omit sections 15(11) and (12).’.

The new clause allows a club to be approved for any type of Section 1 firearm so that if a person using a shotgun or long-barrelled pistol is taken ill, or the firearm malfunctions, another authorised person can legally ‘possess’ (handle) that firearm to assist and/or make it safe.

New clause 9—Authorised persons permitted to lend firearms—

‘(1) In the Firearms Act 1968, omit section 11(5) and insert—

“(5) A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, borrow a shot gun from the owner or occupier of private premises or a person authorised by the owner or occupier and use it on those premises in the presence of the owner, occupier or authorised person.”

(2) In the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, omit section 16(1) and insert—

(a) the owner, occupier or authorised person in whose presence it is used holds a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle; and

(b) the borrower’s possession and use of it complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate; and

(c) where the borrower is of the age of 17, the owner, occupier or authorised person in whose presence the rifle is used is of or over the age of 18.”’.

The new clause would clarify the law as regards who can lend a shotgun or rifle to another person. This addresses the uncertainty currently caused by the term ‘occupier’ in relation to the borrowing of a shotgun or a rifle by a person without a certificate.

New clause 19—Events, festivals and gatherings: control of flares and fireworks etc.—

‘(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has an article or substance to which this section applies in his possession—

(a) at any time during the period of a qualifying event, festival or gathering when he is within the venue or in any area from which the event, festival or gathering may be directly viewed or physically accessed, or

(b) while entering or trying to enter a venue or area defined in paragraph (1)(a) at any time during the period of the qualifying event, festival or gathering, or

(c) while travelling by any means towards a qualifying event, festival or gathering with the intent to enter a venue or area as defined under paragraph (1)(a).

(2) It is a defence for the accused to prove that possession is with lawful authority.

(3) This section applies to any article or substance whose main purpose is the emission of a flare whether for entertaining, illuminating or signalling (as opposed to igniting or heating) or the emission of smoke or a visible gas or a noise intended to simulate an explosion; and in particular it applies to fireworks, distress flares, fog signals, and pellets and capsules intended to be used as fumigators or for testing pipes, but not to matches, cigarette lighters or heaters.

(4) The Secretary of State may be regulations define or amend—

(a) a “qualifying event, festival or gathering”,

(b) a “period of an event, festival or gathering”,

(c) a “venue or area from which the event, festival or gathering may be directly viewed or physically accessed”, and

(d) articles and substances falling under subsection (3).

(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument but such an instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection 1(a) or (b) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection 1(c) to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(7) Nothing in this section shall apply to persons, articles or substances that are lawfully present at, entering, travelling to, or being transported towards, a qualifying event, festival or gathering by virtue of being a planned part of the event, festival or gathering under the responsibility, regulation and control of the organisers.’.

New clause 21—Firearms: Full recovery of the licence costs—

‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 53 insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must set the sum payable at the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”’.

This new clause would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 7, in clause 106, page 115, line 22, leave out “the amount of any fee that may be charged” and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”

This amendment would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 8,  page 115, line 41, leave out

“the amount of any fee that may be charged”

and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.

This amendment would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 9,  page 116, line 19, leave out

“the amount of any fee that may be charged”

and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.

This amendment would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 1, in clause 107, page 117, line 14, at end insert

“and

(c) other relevant stakeholders.”.

This amendment would require other relevant stakeholders to be consulted in drawing up statutory guidance to the police. The current non-statutory guidance involves consultation between the Home Office, police, shooting organisations and others and all existing parties, not just the police, should be accommodated within the new statutory framework.

Government amendment 62.

New clause 17—Alcohol abstinence and monitoring: cost recovery—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 212A, insert at the end of subsection 7(b)—

“(c) arrangements for recovering the cost of testing from the offender by the police.”’.

This would allow the Secretary of State to include to make provision for the police to charge an offender subject to an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement for the costs of testing their compliance with such a requirement.

[Karen Bradley]

At this stage I will speak to the Government new clauses and amendment, and I will respond later to the points that are made about other amendments.

Chapter 1 of part 3 will enable chief officers to designate police staff with a wider range of police powers. They will also be able to confer police powers, other than the core powers reserved for warranted officers, on volunteers. The intention is that the powers that can be conferred on employed staff and designated volunteers are the same. This includes the power to carry and use defensive sprays, such as CS gas and PAVA spray, where the chief officer considers that there is an operational case for this. It is already the case that chief officers can equip police community support officers with defensive sprays, and to that extent the Bill codifies the existing position.

New clause 31 makes necessary consequential amendments to the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that police volunteers are civilian officers for the purposes of that Act. The effect is that they do not then need a certificate or authorisation under section 1 or 5 of the 1968 Act in order to carry a defensive spray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I call Kit Malthouse.

[Kit Malthouse]

What an honour it is to be called before all these august Members!

In respect of amendments 11, 12, 13 and 10, I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on manfully—or indeed womanfully—arguing what seems to be a lost cause; Conservative Members eloquently made the case that the proposals are nonsense.

Fundamentally, the hon. Gentleman is saying through his amendments that he does not trust a chief police officer to get right the architecture around volunteers used in their organisation. He is saying that a chief constable cannot be trusted to organise and train volunteers correctly—but if they cannot be trusted to do that relatively simple task, how can they be trusted to handle some of the risks that they face on a daily basis, even with their warranted force? As he considers these matters over the next couple of hours, I urge him to think about withdrawing his amendments and simply to vote against the Government’s amendments if he believes that to be right. His would be Heath Robinson legislation, as I said, and the House has a duty to keep things simple.

I am extremely supportive of new clause 1. As the hon. Gentleman said, the proliferation of knives, particularly these unpleasant zombie knives, has caused a huge problem, particularly in urban areas and especially in London. We have seen some tragic cases over the last two or three years. A while ago, as people will remember, there was some alarm about air rifles and air-powered weapons; as a result, the legislation on purchasing air rifles was changed so that they could not be bought other than face to face. Now, when someone buys an air rifle online, it has to be delivered by the firearms dealer, who has to verify, face to face on the doorstep, that the person is who they say they are and of the correct age, and that the weapon can be sold to them lawfully. Alternatively, there is a mutual network of firearms dealers operating in such a way that someone can buy from one and pick up from another, who will verify that person’s identity and age.

I am 6 feet 2 inches—nearly—and quite a big chap. I am much more frightened of zombie knives than of air rifles, so I urge the Government to look carefully at new clause 1. It would be a valuable addition to our armoury as we try to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. Having said that, I do not think it would be a silver bullet—not much we do in the House is; many of these knives are bought on the dark web, where things are a little more amorphous, identities more difficult to find and things are often posted illegally. Many firearms are bought on the dark web and sent to the UK through the normal post, but the police are becoming quite sophisticated at picking them up, and the same could be true of knives. I therefore urge the Government to adopt the new clause.

I am similarly supportive of new clause 19, on flares at public events. They are not allowed at football matches any more, but elsewhere they often cause injury and terror—people, particularly children, are frightened of them—so it would be sensible to outlaw their use in those circumstances.

Finally, I will speak briefly—we are pressed for time—to new clause 17, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment, as they say, and I have no intention, at this stage, of putting it to a vote, but I will give Members the back story because it might well appear in the other place.

Members might remember that three or four years ago City Hall ran a big campaign to get a disposal on to the books called “compulsory sobriety”, which manifested itself as alcohol abstinence monitoring orders made against people who have committed a crime where alcohol was a contributory factor. Essentially, an offender, rather than going to prison, which would mean losing their job and contact with their family, is sentenced to wear an alcohol-testing tag or bracelet that, for three, four or six months, tests their skin every 30 seconds to make sure they are not drinking. If they drink and the tag detects it, a signal is sent, the police apprehend them and they go back into the criminal justice system and might well get a custodial sentence. Effectively, the offender is in charge of their own custody.

These orders have been hugely successful in the United States. In South Dakota, where they started, there has been massive compliance and a drop in the number of people arrested for drink-driving and dying on the roads. I learned this morning that there has also been an increase in life span because there is less drinking. South Dakota is a big, flat state; there is not much to do except drink a lot and beat each other up, as in parts of this country. That was happening an awful lot, until these orders were introduced by the now famous prosecutor, Larry Long. They have changed the alcohol environment there entirely.

We managed to get the orders on the statute book here, and a pilot in Croydon over the last couple of years has resulted in a 93% compliance rate among offenders fitted with a tag and an extremely good reoffending rate—once someone has had three to six months off the booze, they do not tend to go back but instead learn the error of their ways. However, there is one aspect of the scheme in the states that we did not adopt but which they think is critical to its success: the ability to charge offenders for their own testing.

In the United States, when somebody is put on this disposal and they go to be tested, more often than not they appear twice a day at the police station, blow into a breathalyser and pay a buck, or a dollar, a test. Effectively, that is money that they would otherwise have spent on booze. From the point of view of the criminal justice system, that makes the scheme self-financing.

Policing and Crime Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 134. Having heard the hard-hitting accounts of my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in their report on stalking, no one can be left in any doubt that the Government amendment should be carried.

Turning to Lords amendment 137, having represented the police and the prosecutorial authorities as a barrister, and having represented victims both as a barrister and as a Member of Parliament, I hope I can see the situation from both angles. I am entirely supportive of the victims code. Victims have generally been empowered since the code came into force as a result of steps taken by the previous Labour Government, and the beefing up carried out by the coalition Government and the Government of today.

My concern about Lords amendment 137 is that it would make the police and prosecutorial authorities responsible, and in some cases financially liable, for breaches of the victims code, even if they are not directly responsible. Under new subsection (3)(a), for instance, the police or the CPS could become responsible to a victim for delays caused not by them but by a third party, such as the defendant. Under new subsection (3)(b), the CPS could be held responsible if a defendant, or indeed another party over whom it has no control, treats a victim with a lack of “dignity and respect”. That often happens in the courtroom when a defendant gives evidence, or even through how a defendant instructs their lawyer to present their case, but that is a matter for the judge, not the prosecutor, to control.

New subsection (10) is even more concerning because it would require the Home Secretary to

“take steps to ensure that victims of crime…have access to financial compensation from public funds for any detriment arising from the criminal case concerned”.

That is not necessarily a detriment caused by the prosecuting authority, and there is no requirement of bad faith, recklessness or negligence on behalf of that authority. That is a big step both in principle and in practice. It is a big step in principle because it appears to impose a liability on one body for the actions of a third party over whom it may have no control, and it is a big step in practice because it exposes the police and prosecuting authorities to a significant financial burden at a time when we regularly have debates in this House on the need for greater funding for the police and the CPS. Paragraph 128 of the explanatory notes on the amendments explains that “potentially significant” financial burdens are attached.

Although I am an enthusiastic supporter of the victims code and the need to give victims the very best support, imposing a broadly defined liability—indeed, a financial liability—on the police and the CPS is not the right way to proceed without more thought about furthering the aims of the code. More thought is needed, and I am pleased that the Government will be introducing their own proposals to give effect to our manifesto commitment for a victims’ bill of rights. I am sure that that work will take account of the excellent work of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and his commission. I pay tribute to his work and to all the people involved, including a number of my constituents.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 24.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I must remind the House that the motion relates exclusively to England and Wales. A double majority is therefore required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 23, 25 to 95, 97 to 133, 135, 143 to 158, 160 to 301, 303, 304 and 306.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am conscious that this group covers approaching 300 Lords amendments, even if many are of a technical nature, and I appreciate that hon. Members would no doubt like me to go through all 300, but time is short, so, tempting as it might be, I will confine my remarks to the most significant amendments, so that other hon. Members may have an opportunity to speak.

On Report, way back in April and June of last year, a number of my hon. Friends tabled amendments worthy of further consideration. The Lords amendments follow up on that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) argued that when a police and crime commissioner took over the governance of a fire and rescue authority, the title of their office should be amended to reflect their new and expanded responsibilities. Lords amendment 215 provides that in such circumstances the legal title of the PCC will become police, fire and crime commissioner. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) proposed a number of sensible further improvements to our firearms licensing regime, and I am pleased to say that Lords amendments 111 to 113 give effect to three of his helpful suggestions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) highlighted the dangers to music festival goers as a result of the irresponsible discharging of fireworks, flares and smoke bombs in the often confined space of a festival venue. Lords amendment 114 would tackle such reckless behaviour by making it an offence to possess a pyrotechnic article at a qualifying musical event. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport indicated in April, we will ensure that this new offence is in force for this year’s festival season. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) sought to strengthen police powers to require the removal of disguises where there was a threat to public order. Lords amendment 94 will enable the required authorisation by a senior officer for the exercise of such powers to be given orally where it is impractical to confer the authorisation in writing.

Other Lords amendments respond to points raised by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) expressed concerns about PCCs taking on the governance of fire and rescue authorities. In response to similar concerns raised in the Lords, amendments 193 to 199, among others, strengthen the process by which a PCC brings forward a proposal for the creation of a PCC-style FRA to ensure that it is as robust and transparent as possible. She separately argued for a strengthening of the Licensing Act 2003 by putting cumulative impact assessments on a statutory footing. We agree, and Lords amendment 117 does just that.

Lords amendments 30 to 33 deliver on the commitment given by my predecessor on Report to amend the Bill to allow disciplinary action to be taken against former police officers outside the normal 12-month period following retirement or resignation in the most serious and exceptional cases. Lords amendments 36 to 42, among others, respond to representations from the Independent Police Complaints Commission and, indeed, from Opposition parties that the reformed organisation should retain the word “Independent” in its title. As a result of these amendments, the reformed IPCC will henceforth be known as the Independent Office for Police Conduct. This will help to reinforce public confidence that the reformed organisation will be fully independent of those it regulates.

On Report, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) argued that the current law requiring a coroner’s inquest in every case where a person dies under a deprivation of liberty safeguard, even where the death was from natural causes, caused unnecessary upset to bereaved families.