|
Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response, but he failed to answer the point about the hours that children can be kept in the designated premises. I understand that that point will be covered in guidance, but that means that we are being asked to agree to something in principle when much will depend on how it is implemented.
I want to flag up another issue. Designated premises will be run by LEAs, and the Minister responded quite effectively about police resources. However, if an LEA is to maintain a designated centre on or off school premises we are pleased that it will not be a secure centre, but modelled on a school it will have to be intensively resourced. Many LEAs do not have the resources to provide pupil referral units or similar centres because they require high staff-to-pupil rations. However, designated centres will require significant investment. If they are done on the cheap, children will walk out of them and we will be back to square one.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asked about the hours that children will spend in the designated centre. It is not envisaged that young people will be detained as such. They will be in the designated centre much in the same way as they are at school. If they seek to leave, they will be dealt with in the same way.
How long children stay in the centre is a matter for the LEA. I envisage that it will wish to get them to their own schools as quickly as possible. If problems arise with a particularly difficult child, the LEA will be able to use the Children Act 1989, social services and various other paraphernalia. I do not think that we need worry about this issue unduly, because the LEA will treat the children in centres in the same way as they treat them at school. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the guidance will be important in determining how the provision works in practice.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about LEA budgets, the LEA will not have to make constant provision for a designated place. I hope that the power will not be used too often, but only for particular periods. We do not envisage LEAs making a long-term commitment. However, I take this good opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have put an extra £1.1 billion into spending on education. That will go into school budgets to raise standards. An extra£1.3 billion will be committed to tackling repairs' backlogs and to modernise schools for the 21st century. In phasing out the assisted-places scheme
Sir Robert Smith: rose
Mr. O'Brien: I was just going through my list of the commitments that the new Government have made. However, I think that I have made my point.
The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister accepts the intervention, I caution him about the route that he is beginning to take.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister clarify whether his figures are adjusted for the new GDP deflator or are they just cash figures that to not take into account inflation?
Mr. O'Brien: The new figures enabled the headmaster of the largest secondary school in my constituency to open with the services of the local Member of Parliament a new technology centre with an investment of £148,000 from the new Labour Government, and to say in thanks to me
The Chairman: Order. I feel forced to repeat my counsel to the Minister.
Mr. O'Brien: I was trying to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. However, I accept your caution , Mr. O'Hara, and I shall not repeat that the headmaster insisted on thanking the Labour Government for extra resources.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Powers to require removal of masks etc.
`. (1) After subsection (4) of section 60 (powers to stop and search in anticipation of violence) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act" ) there shall be inserted the following subsection
"(4A) This section also confers on any constable in uniform power
(a) 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;
(b) to seize any item which the constable reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose."
(2) In subsection (5) of that section, for the words "those powers" there shall be substituted the words "the powers conferred by subsection (4) above" .
(3) In subsection (8) of that section, for the words "to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs
"(a) to stop, or to stop a vehicle; or
(b) to remove an item worn by him," .'. [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
The Chairman: With this, we may discuss the following: Government new clause 22 Retention and disposal of things seized.
Government new clause 23 Power of arrest for failure to comply with requirement.
New clause 10 Power for constable to require removal of clothing, etc. preventing identification
`. (1) Where
(a) a constable reasonably suspects that a person has committed, or is about to commit, any of the following offences within sections 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, namely
(i) riot,
(ii) violent disorder,
(iii) affray,
(iv) using towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(v) distributing or displaying to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
or an offence of aggravated trespass within section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and
(b) the person whom the constable reasonably suspects of having committed, or being about to commit, one or more of those offences is wearing an article of clothing or carrying any other object in such a way as to prevent or hinder his identification.
the constable may require that person to remove the article of clothing or object mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above to the extent necessary to enable the constable to identify him.
(2) A person who refuses to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b) above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.
Government amendment No. 423.
Mr. O'Brien: I shall speak in favour of new clauses 21 to 23 and amendment No. 423, and resist new clause 10.
New clauses 21 to 23 are aimed at making the police more effective in dealing with people who wear masks to avoid being identified when they carry out violent offences. The proposals have their origin in an amendment tabled earlier by Lord Carnarvon. He kindly withdrew it to give the Government more time to consider the fine detail.
The police can already take firm action when they have reasonable suspicion that people are committing, or are about to commit, offences. They currently lack a power to demand the removal of face coverings before trouble starts, and before they have a reasonable suspicion against any individual.
A power to demand the removal of face coverings without reasonable suspicion is potentially wide. People can wear face coverings for all sorts of legitimate reasons. The police need a discretionary power, which is tempered with reasonable safeguards. We propose to use the safeguards that already exist in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section, as amended by section 8 of the Knives Act 1997, grants a power to search for knives and offensive weapons without reasonable suspicion. The power can be used only when authorised by an officer of the rank of inspector or above, and before he gives such an authorisation he must reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area, and that it is expedient to give the authorisation to prevent their occurrence, or that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in any locality in his police area without good reason. The authorisation lasts for up to 24 hours. That can be extended by a superintendent for 24 hours if necessary.
The circumstances in which the police would wish to exercise a power to demand the removal of, or to seize, face coverings are similar to those envisaged by section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 60 gives the police the ability to go beyond their normal powers because violence is developing. The Government agree with Lord Carnarvon and the Association of Chief Police Officers that section 60 provides the right framework for a face coverings power.
We believe that an authorisation under section 60 should extend to a power to demand the removal of face coverings. It would be going too far to have a power to stop and search for face coverings they are not in the same category as knives and offensive weapons. However, it is reasonable for police officers to be able to seize face coverings that they come across while they are searching for other things, or because such coverings are being carried openly. New clause 21 would provide such a power.
We have given much thought to how to define face coverings. A wide range of objects can be used to cover the face, and people may wish to cover their faces for perfectly legitimate reasons I am thinking particularly of Muslim women who cover their faces for religious reasons, which we fully respect. We do not wish to interfere with that, or cause distress in any way. We have therefore arrived at the view that where the power is authorised, the officer exercising it must also reasonably believe that the person concerned is wearing a face covering wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity. That may sometimes be a difficult judgment.
We have concluded that what is proposed in new clause 21 presents the fewest problems. It is necessary to have the power. In most cases we do not envisage that it would cause any difficulties but it is possible to imagine circumstances in which it might. We therefore want to be open about the way that we see it developing but we anticipate that officers will see that it is for them to exercise the best possible judgment.
| 
