Policing and Crime Bill

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by agreeing with the Minister that some good progress has been made in the course of our deliberations on the Bill. There have been improvements, which we will discuss later, on tackling child sexual exploitation and on the police bail regime—particularly as it applies to those suspected of being involved in terrorism activity. As he has just indicated, there has also been progress on police misconduct, which I will come to.

However, the Bill presents an opportunity to do much more to improve police accountability, and that is an opportunity that we in the House now need to grab. Today, I want to present a package of proposals that respond to the historic verdict of the Hillsborough inquest, which finally concluded, after 27 years, that, as the families had known from day one, the loss of their loved ones was not an accident and they had been unlawfully killed, but that that fact had been covered up for all those years.

This package seeks to rebalance this country and to make it fairer. It seeks to rebalance it away from the establishment and in favour of ordinary families. It is a package that will stand as a permanent tribute to the dignity and determination of the Hillsborough families. Knowing them as I do, they would want nothing more than that no other family in the future should go through what they have gone through.

Let me take the House briefly through this package of proposals. New clause 63 would give bereaved families equal funding for legal representation at inquests where the police are involved. It seeks to establish the crucial principle that there should be parity between the two sides. The reason that is important is that it says very clearly that the public interest lies in finding the truth. That is how public resources should be directed: they should not be directed towards creating an unbalanced contest at an inquest, with public money used to protect vested interests in the public sector.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am happy to confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support this proposal. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, had it been in place at the time of the first inquest, the truth might have emerged at that stage, and the families would not have had to go through such a dire long wait to get to the truth?

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He is absolutely right. I will come on to explain precisely how this would have helped to even the playing field and give the families the chance to get truth at the first time of asking. The original inquest catastrophically failed on that account, and that needs to be very clearly understood as we consider this amendment.

Amendment 126 seeks to close the long-standing loophole of retirement being used by police officers as a route to evade misconduct proceedings. New clause 64 seeks to hold the Government to their promise to the victims of press intrusion to hold a second-stage inquiry looking at the culture of relations between police and the press. New clause 66 seeks to legislate for a code of practice with regard to the media relations policy of each police force, and to spell out that attributable briefing by police forces, which was so damaging in the case of Hillsborough, is not permitted unless it is in the most exceptional circumstances. Amendments 127 and 128 seek to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints Commission. New clause 67, which will be considered later, seeks to strengthen the offence of misconduct in public office.

Let me start with the area where there is greatest consensus—police misconduct. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I am grateful for the movement that he indicated to the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), in Committee whereby there should not merely be an arbitrary 12-month period after retirement, because, as we know, police wrongdoing may come to light much later. We are glad that the Government have indicated that they are prepared to move on this matter in the other place and table an amendment to that effect. While I will not press my amendment to a vote, I would still like to press the Minister a little further on this point. He is saying that this should be applied only in the most exceptional circumstances, but that potentially rules out many people who might be guilty of gross misconduct but would not be caught by his “exceptional” test. He needs to reassure the House on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I would not criticise for a moment the shadow Home Secretary for speaking for 45 minutes. He had a lot to say and spoke with great passion. He knows a lot about the bereaved Hillsborough families and all the associated issues, so I do not want to criticise him. If I may, however, before coming on to talk about new clause 23, I would like to say something gently to the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not know the Silk—I have never met him—to whom he twice referred and accused of unattractive conduct. That Silk was speaking on instructions, and I assume that, in line with the traditions and professional standards of the Bar, he did not set out deliberately to attack people. He was acting for the two relevant public authorities on the two separate occasions. It was his duty to put the cases for those clients. The cases might well have been unattractive and might well have come across as deeply upsetting to the people who were cross-examined, but it was his professional duty to act in that way. Another barrister might have done it differently or another client might have given different instructions, but it is a bit mean, if I may say so, to call out a particular barrister here in the House of Commons.

[Norman Lamb]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not want to be distracted when we have so little time. I just wanted to defend the method by which members of the profession have to represent their clients. That aside, there is little on which I wish to criticise the shadow Home Secretary.

In the short time available I want to speak to new clause 23, which removes the requirement for prior authorisation in section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, so that

“Where a constable…reasonably believes that an offence has been, or is being, committed he may…require any person to remove any item”

when it is used

“wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing identity”.

The context in which I tabled the new clause—with about 22 other right hon. and hon. Members—goes back, as I said, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 60 states:

“If a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes…that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area, and that it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to prevent their occurrence, or…that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in any locality in his police area without good reason, he may give an authorisation that the powers conferred by this section are to be exercisable at any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours.”

That section gave the police a geographically limited and time-limited power to do certain things. That was extended in 2001 by the addition of section 60AA, which gave the police a power, in that geographical area and for that limited time, to require the removal of disguises. Provided that there was prior authorisation, provided that that authorisation was written, and provided that it was for 24 hours unless extended by another officer for a further 24 hours, within that limited location, the constable in uniform was enabled to

“require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity”

and to

“seize any item which the constable reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.”

So it was not until 2001 that the 1994 Act was amended to allow the police, in certain limited circumstances, to be authorised to deal with disguises.

As the House will recall, in August 2011 there were widespread riots throughout the country, following which the Government issued a consultation paper to consider whether three things needed to be looked at: the use of the word “insulting” in the 1994 Act, new powers to request the removal of face coverings, and new powers to impose curfews. The Government thought it appropriate to consult about new powers relating to such matters as disguises, saying:

“The…consultation aims to progress the commitment made by the Prime Minister following the recent disorder in respect of new powers to request the removal of face coverings. After the ransacking and arson by looters wearing masks to conceal identification, the Government announced that the police would be given extended powers to demand the removal of face coverings under any circumstances, where there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

Interestingly, the Government did not respond to the consultation other than in relation to “insulting words or behaviour”; the law was amended in that regard. In respect of the power to require the removal of face coverings, the law remains as it was in 2001. As I have said, that power is geographically limited and time-limited, and requires prior authorisation.

I have had the benefit of two meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims, who generously allowed me, and two of my hon. Friends, to try to persuade him that the law needed to be changed. On that occasion there were only eight officials in the room, but he seemed to be unpersuaded, on the basis of the advice that he had been given by officials and police officers, that a change in the law was necessary. Indeed, I think it was suggested to me that our new clause would weaken the powers of the police to remove disguises.

We need to recognise that the people who attend demonstrations wearing balaclavas or other face coverings are not doing that simply to prevent their identities from being discovered. Clearly, if a demonstration involves unlawful activity and the police are able to film it, or it is covered by local authority CCTV cameras, there is no better way for people to avoid detection, or avoid being caught, than disguising their faces. In most, although not all, criminal cases, the identity of the perpetrator is a fairly central part of the prosecution case. I am reasonably sure that in the olden days when robbers used to run into banks with shotguns and hold them up, normally wearing stockings over their faces, they were not wearing silk stockings on their heads because they liked the feeling of silk on their faces; they were wearing those silk stockings—or even tights, in which case it would be nylon on their faces—in order to prevent themselves from being discovered.

The same thing, I suspect, goes for people who are intent on pretty unattractive behaviour in the streets here in London, and in Manchester at last year’s Conservative party conference, where people in masks spat at delegates going into the conference hall, but they also do it to intimidate. There is nothing more intimidating than seeing somebody covered like that coming at you or demonstrating with a view to causing trouble. Yes, of course, there are laws already on the statute book or, no doubt, under common law which make it possible for a police officer to arrest somebody wearing a face mask if they are committing an offence. But in the event that there is a large-scale demonstration and there are not enough police officers to make it safe or practical for the police officer to go in, and therefore the police need to rely upon video evidence or film evidence of the perpetrator, it strikes me as unreal for a police officer to rely upon the existing power, which is geographically limited and time-limited, in order to deal with the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. There may be a role for police and crime commissioners to explore the need to work more closely with the health service and others to provide the capacity for appropriate places of safety such that police officers do not have to make the sorts of decisions implied by new clause 58.

The overall changes to sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act are essential and quite transformative. We have to be very clear about what we mean by the exceptional circumstances in which people are detained, perhaps moving to a system where it becomes inappropriate in all circumstances even for adults to be detained in police cells. I recognise that there may be a need to define the exceptional circumstances in which that might happen. The proposed changes are positive. The new clauses I have discussed raise important questions that the Minister should consider in summing up.

[Norman Lamb]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris). I also welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who does an awful lot of campaigning on this issue.

I have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments. The first issue I want to deal with is whether we should disallow the use of Tasers on psychiatric wards. Before I get into the detail, I, like other speakers, want to acknowledge the inspiring leadership of many police leaders who, through force of strong moral leadership, have managed to change practice in many parts of the country. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

On the issue of Tasers on psychiatric wards, the hon. Gentleman referred to Black Mental Health UK, an important campaigning organisation. As he said, it has drawn attention to the fact that

“in particular Black African Caribbean men”

are

“disproportionately over-represented in S136 detentions compared to the general population.”

That, incidentally, is a conclusion from the joint Home Office and Department of Health review of sections 135 and 136. It has also been reported that the police are more likely to use force against black African-Caribbean men.

I want to challenge the assumption that force is necessary at the level with which it is used at the moment. Black Mental Health UK refers in its briefing for this debate to the United Nations committee against torture, which has stated that Taser X26 weapons provoke extreme pain and constitute a form of torture and that in certain cases they can also cause death. Although they are termed non-lethal, almost 10 known deaths have been associated with the use of Tasers in the past 10 years.

I want to get a debate going on the subject. I am delighted that the Home Secretary herself has said:

“I have been hearing stories, for example, of Tasers having been used in mental health wards and you think, ‘Hang on a minute, what is happening here?’”

That is what we should all be doing: we should be questioning whether that is appropriate, and that is why I tabled new clause 40.

My amendment 124 would, in effect, prohibit the use of police cells as a place of safety for adults. I welcome the fact that the Government are implementing, through this Bill, the joint review’s recommendation to end the use of police cells for children and young people. However, the inspiring leadership of many police officers, working closely with mental health services, means that, in all but the most extreme cases, the use of police cells for such purposes has ended in some parts of the country. In London, for example, hardly any adults go into police cells as a result of section 136, and the same is true about the west midlands over the past two years. If those areas of the country with impressive leadership can do it, we should challenge every part of the country to do so, and the Bill should lead the way.

I welcome the fact that the Minister himself said on Second Reading:

“Unless we actually put a stop to that”—

the use of police cells—

“and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ we will not get the provision we need from other agencies.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 102-103.]

That is absolutely right. We cannot use the fact that the NHS is under pressure as an excuse not to do this. If it is wrong, it is wrong, and it needs to be challenged.

My new clause 45 would ensure that, in every case where there has been evidence of child sexual exploitation, the victims are referred for a mental health assessment. “Future in mind”, the report that I published in March 2015 following a taskforce that we set up to consider children’s mental health services, set out the need for trauma-focused care and for sexually abused and exploited children to receive

“a comprehensive specialist initial assessment, and referral to appropriate services providing evidence-based interventions according to their need.”

The new clause seeks to implement that recommendation.

In its briefing for this debate, the Local Government Association supports the intention, but again raises concern about investment. Are we really saying that the lack of availability of mental health services is a reason not to ensure that every child who has suffered sexual exploitation gets the chance to receive a proper assessment? Surely we have to set what is right in legislation and then ensure that we provide the facilities to make it happen. Anything short of that is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about detention at home, which I raised in Committee? Although it is welcome that this Bill will try to reduce the number of people going into police cells, the de facto position may be to take people home because of the lack of beds elsewhere, even though that might not be the best place for the individual concerned.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fear is that that will become the default position in some localities because of the lack of resources available. That would be a big mistake. In circumstances where section 136 is used, surely the person should be taken to a health-based place of safety. A real effort is under way around the country—it is showing signs of success—through the use of approaches such as the street triage service, to reduce substantially the use of section 136 at all and to deal with issues in a more informal way. However, where it has to be used, we must make sure that the person is taken to the right place.

[James Morris]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that perhaps we need to think about the definition of “health-based place of safety”? The definition is in the control of the national health service, but perhaps it needs to be broader so that it can mean a voluntary organisation or elsewhere. That would be one way of improving our capacity.

[Norman Lamb]

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in his speech a few moments ago and he is absolutely right. A crisis house or a place of safety provided by a particular community for one of its people may well be the best place for them to go. We should be willing to open up the definition in an appropriate way.

New clause 59 centres on the right of those detained under sections 135 and 136 to an appropriate adult. Anyone detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 has a right to an independent mental health advocate, except when the detention is under sections 135 or 136. In such circumstances, the person may be very vulnerable, so surely the Bill should embrace the idea, as Mind has argued, that they should have a right to an appropriate adult.

Finally, I want to address the issue of when the clock should start. I welcome the fact that the Bill reduces to 24 hours the maximum length of time for which someone should be held under section 136 while the assessment takes place. There is a critical question, however, about when the clock starts. If there is pressure on resources and facilities, someone could be kept in a police van and driven around a city—that does happen sometimes. That time, under the Government’s proposed definition, would not count. Some hours could pass before the person arrived at the place of safety. Mind’s argument, which is contained in amendment 125, is that the clock should start when a person is detained rather than when they arrive at a place of safety.

[Mike Penning]

One of my concerns about that is that we set a target of taking the individual who needs that help somewhere quickly, rather than taking them to the right place for their needs.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and I understand that we have to balance all these things. I am trying to ensure that legislation puts pressure on agencies to provide sufficient resource to meet a clear need. That is not the case at the moment.

I conclude by saying that the amendments and new clauses in this group are all designed to improve the rights of people with mental ill health, who are too often let down by the system at the moment.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I wish to address new clause 23 and take the Minister on a very short metaphorical journey with me, although perhaps nowhere near as far as new clause 23 seeks to go. I am sorry if I am trying the patience of the Minister and the House, because the Minister has been exceptionally courteous today, as he has been to me on previous aspects of the Bill.

Let me explain the mischief of face coverings, with which the House is well acquainted. In my intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), I mentioned two events: the Conservative party conference in Manchester, and an incident in my constituency in which, during the badger cull, two people in masks parked outside a farmhouse several evenings in a row as it was getting dark, deliberately intending to intimidate. A similar thing happened at the Blackpool conference. I was there when people, women in particular, were intimidated by people in masks. If only the police had been able to ask those people to take off the masks, I think the intimidation would have stopped almost on the spot. I suspect that in those two incidents, the mere act of the constable on duty asking those people to take off the masks would have stopped the mischief there and then.

That is the journey on which I want to take my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is perhaps not the entirety of new clause 23, but let us simply look at section 60AA of the Public Order Act 1994, which requires a constable on duty to obtain prior written consent before a mask is taken off—[Interruption.] The Minister is going to intervene. May I just explain where I am coming from on this? Very often, a constable will get on the radio and obtain verbal consent, and the written consent is given afterwards. Technically, a crime is being committed because they have not got prior written consent.

Let us do away with the whole issue of written consent. We train our constables to a very high level, and we put a great deal of trust in them. Let us trust them in individual situations. If they think that face masks are a problem, we should give them the power to demand that the face masks be removed immediately. It may even be possible to do this by secondary legislation. Section 60AA—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Minister want me to give way? If he does as I suggest, I think we will achieve what we want to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It is real privilege to sum up the debate on this group of amendments. I thank the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for giving me more time—he could easily have risen to speak to the amendments. I am pleased that I have a bit of time to talk through some of the points that have been raised, and I have already given some indication of what I will say in interventions on right hon. and hon. Members. I have been told off by the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that is understandable. It was not the first time, and it will not be the last time.

I want to say a little about the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on the new inspectorate. At the outset, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was brutally honest when he said he would have liked to have made this change, but was prevented by circumstances when he was the Minister? Perhaps the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse—my predecessor in many different capacities, including as a firefighter—was also prevented from doing so by different circumstances when he was Minister.

We must learn from our mistakes—to be brutally honest, we all make mistakes in life—so the first thing to say is that it is absolutely correct that the inspectorate will not be an old boys’ network. It will be based on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and on police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy reviews. Firefighters will not have weeks to practise their escape drills, which I remember so vividly from when I was in the job. For people of a certain age, such escapes were done on the old ladders, which were on big wheels that could get firefighters to places some of the modern ladders will not reach.

Importantly, the inspector will have the power to bring in the experts he or she thinks fit to do inspections. The inspector should not be an ex-chief fire officer from somewhere, which is similar to the arrangements in Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. I know that will ruffle a few feathers within the network, with people saying, “We’re experts, we know best”, but it is important for the inspector to come in and ask, “Why? Why do you do it that way?” and then to bring in other expertise. I think that is the way to do it.

I think the former Fire Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, will find that when we started to talk about this issue—it was raised in Committee by the shadow Fire Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—I had only been in the job for two weeks, because the role of Police and Fire Minister was very new. However, I knew what I wanted to do, as did the Home Secretary, and I freely admit that a little bit of encouragement from the shadow Minister has helped us on our way. There are areas in which we will be able to work much more along the lines of how Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary does its inspections, so that people are not prepared for the day having known about the inspection for weeks in advance, as happened in my time.

I want to speak to some of the Government amendments that I did not have the opportunity to talk about earlier, and I will turn to some of the excellent contributions made during this debate. One of the most important areas of agreement that I have reached, with the Home Secretary’s permission, is in relation to the 12-month rule for officers who have retired or left the force. Since long before I held my current position, it has always struck me as strange that, criminal proceedings apart, an officer of no matter what rank could step down and start their pension almost the day before they became subject to investigations within the police force. In some cases that does not happen. I have the duty of signing documents that revoke police officers’ pensions when they have broken the rules so badly that they lose their pension. I do that quite regularly. It is difficult to sign something that will dramatically change someone’s future, and I do not in any way do so lightly. I often quiz my officials about whether it is the right way to go, not least because a good proportion of the contributions to the pension were that person’s own contributions, not the state’s contributions. However, the rules are quite specific in those cases.

Although we did not want to leave things completely open—I know the shadow Home Secretary will understand that—we thought there was a real opportunity to leave a great legacy on behalf of the Hillsborough victims. The change to the 12-month rule will be for exceptional circumstances. It is difficult to put them into primary legislation, so we will do it by regulations. I hope that the shadow Front-Bench team will work with us on those regulations, along with other parties in the House. They will be one of the biggest legacies of what we are doing.

I am sorry that we do not quite agree with Her Majesty’s Opposition on two issues. On Leveson 2, the Home Secretary has set her position out in front of the Home Affairs Committee, and I have set it out too. I am categorically not saying that it is not going to happen, but no decision will be made until after the criminal investigations. That is the position that the Home Secretary has set out—it is way above my pay grade—and that is how it will stay.

[Norman Lamb]

I do not want to compete with the SNP in offering to be honest broker, but could the Minister not say that when the cases have concluded the Government will reaffirm the commitment to Leveson 2? It would be straightforward to say that now, and it would be widely welcomed.

[Mike Penning]

The point has been made on numerous occasions. The Home Secretary has said, and I have said, that we will wait for the inquiries and proceedings to finish and then announce our position on Leveson 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I was trying to get to exactly that point. That is a role for police and crime commissioners. If we devolve the powers in question, it will give more powers to PCCs, and rightly so. If we believe in and are aiming for localism, PCCs should know what is going on in their part of the world, and that information should be made available to the public and not left opaque. That will take work—I am delegating more work to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, and to others across the Government, because this is not just a Home Office matter. Someone said earlier that this measure should not be in the Bill, but it is there because it needs to be.

[Norman Lamb]

In monitoring the use of Tasers, will the Minister ensure that we consider the ethnic dimension of who they are used on, and that that information is made publicly available and there is transparency?

[Mike Penning]

That is vital. When I was the Minister responsible for disabilities, one issue under discussion was the disproportionate number of black men who are tasered in mental health facilities. Indeed, there is a disproportionately high proportion of black men in mental health facilities, as we know there is in prisons and throughout the criminal justice system. We cannot just say, “Let’s get on with it”; we must do something about that, including by raising people’s educational standards, aspirations and so on.

The other important issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised concerns people who have been abused, whether it is sexual abuse or other types of abuse. We must ensure that they get the right care early on, and we must not assume that that abuse will show up in someone’s first medical analysis. I know that from friends who suffer from post-traumatic stress—I have friends who served in the Falklands who are only now showing the signs.

[Norman Lamb]

I accept that problems might show up only later on, but if the Minister does not accept that my new clause would provide for an automatic referral, will he accept that the Government should make clear that it should be standard process that a child is referred for an assessment of their mental health needs, as the Children’s Society suggests?

[Mike Penning]

This is probably way beyond my portfolio, but as a father I would ask, if someone is assessing a child who has been abused, how can they not assess them for mental health damage that may have occurred? That is the natural thing to do—I will probably get shot for saying that, but at the end of the day that is probably the moral position. How that is done is for the right hon. Gentleman’s former Department and social services to address.

I turn to facial coverings and new clause 23, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and other colleagues. I think we have reached a consensus. I arranged for Assistant Chief Constable Paul Netherton to lead on the issue for the whole country within the police. Very unusually for a senior police officer, or indeed for any police officer, he said, “Don’t give me any more powers. I am happy with the powers we have,” In our meetings, however—I am happy to share this with the House—it was conceded that the way the current legislation is being interpreted through guidance is an issue. There is also some confusion about the powers under section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which concerns the need for a written authority. In reality, the police get on their radios and say, “This is the situation. I want to remove it. I think that an offence is going to take place.” The request is instantly given, and it is signed later on. That is not breaking any law; that is how the procedure works on a daily basis.

The Home Secretary and I both understand that there are real concerns about whether the measure is being implemented in a way that ensures public confidence as well as that of the police. Rather than change the law against the advice that I am getting from the police, we have proposed a review into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code A. That does not happen often, but this autumn a review will take place into stop and search. The powers in the Bill are similar to those stop-and-search powers, and we will ask for them to be included in that code. That significant change will alleviate some of the concerns, but we must ensure that we provide those powers.