Fighting Crime (Public Engagement)

I am delighted to take on the role of nice cop this afternoon, as it is a Thursday and the political mantle of Bodie and Doyle has been taken by my colleagues on the Front Bench; I have had to opt for being Dixon of Dock Green instead, just for this afternoon. In that mode, I thank the Government for highlighting special constables week. I do not know whether I need to declare an interest as a special constable, because I do not claim any expenses for that work, but I make it clear that I am one and have served for 16 hours a month for the past two years. The letter that came from the Home Office asking us to support specials this week was timely and apt, so I offer my support. In keeping with the general tone that we have adopted this Thursday afternoon, I shall say the words that will probably strike fear into the Minister's heart: I have a wonderful idea. Those words always strike fear into my heart when someone comes to my surgery and says them. In fact, I have three wonderful ideas for the Minister. They should not cost a lot, and I offer them in the spirit of general bipartisanship. The first relates to the special constabulary, which is a great story; it is a win for all concerned, because the special constables provide cost-effective policing—it is not policing on the cheap. That is a good thing for Ministers and for the public. When a special constable gets their warrant card, he or she is a police officer for 24 hours a day, rather than just for the eight hours a fortnight to which they sign up. Every special constable, like every police officer, will be able to relate anecdotes of when they have put that card to good use as they were out and about as members of the public. The arrangement is also very good for the reservists themselves. We do not make enough of the skills that people develop, which are very useful for whatever they do in their careers. One such skill is dealing with very angry people. All of us encounter such people in our surgeries, and sometimes even in the Whips Office—that does not apply to me, because the person in charge of whipping me is sitting close by and I have never, as yet, had to use my policing skills to defuse an angry situation with him. There is a great deal to be gained from the special constabulary for all concerned. My concern is that we do not do enough to promote special constables or to encourage people to join and then to stay. That brings me to the slightly thorny issue of pay, which has been discussed. Even among the police forces and special constables there are mixed feelings about it. I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister, because I do not think there is any point paying special constables until they have gained independent patrol status. As the Minister will know, the usual process is that one undertakes about eight weekends of training—16 days—and is then given a warrant card, but one is not then allowed to patrol on one's own; instead, one goes out with an experienced officer, usually a regular police officer or a trainer. The process of gaining independence usually takes about one to two years. I have gone through that process, and I did not feel that I was that much use to the police until I had gained independent patrol status. Obviously, there were occasions when I was useful, but at all times the police force had to ensure that there was a regular constable with me when I was a probationer. To a certain extent, therefore, I question how useful I was. When special constables gain independent patrol status, which took me about a year, they have various experiences and realise that there is some excitement to the job—special constables do some front-line policing—but that there is also a lot of paperwork, boredom and so on. As the Minister knows, one problem is that many people leave after about two years—just as they become useful. At that point, therefore, we ought to consider payment. Special constables welcome the flexibility of being a special constable. If there is a one-line Whip, I can, and very often do, go and police my area for four to six hours. However, how much value do I add when I decide, on the spur of the moment, to go and patrol a couple of areas? Sometimes it can be a great deal, but other times not—it depends on what happens. Any system of payment should be based around whether an inspector or senior officer needs extra officers on a particular day. For example, if an inspector knows that a big football match, carnival or something else is coming up that requires large numbers of police officers, they should send e-mails to those concerned and have the flexibility to pay anyone who has gained independent status. That would work for both special constables and the police force. The Minister might be aware of something called employment support and policing, which is a brilliant idea being pioneered in the Metropolitan police by two unsung heroes, Neil Barrett and Adam Hunter. They looked at what happens in the Territorial Army, where often major employers support their employees in signing up as TA soldiers and pay them while they do their soldiering. Neil Barrett and Adam Hunter decided to pioneer something similar in the Metropolitan police. However, they have taken it further: for example, major shopping chains can allow their employees to do their two days a month to earn their warrant card, after which they tend to police shopping centres. Bus companies are doing the same with bus drivers: while people are being paid as bus drivers, they can work two shifts a month as police officers. In effect, therefore, they get paid for doing something different from their normal job. They have their warrant card with them 24 hours a day—even when doing their normal job—and can use it if they wish, although obviously that it is up to them. They can use it to intervene directly in a situation or to make a telephone call, and act as an expert witness later. I am sure that Ministers are aware of that very good idea. Will they consider rolling it out more widely? My next point is about police community support officers. I felt about them how I felt about the Welsh Assembly—at first, I was not a great fan and could not see the point of them, but now I accept that they are there to stay, so we should make the best of them. I pay tribute to the PCSOs in Monmouthshire, one of whom, Darran Grady, might receive a reward next week at the police review dinner. I understand that a Minister will be present at that dinner and, if possible, I would like to introduce them to Darran Grady. He has done some outstanding work in my constituency, and is one of many very hardworking and active PCSOs. PCSOs could be much more effective, however, if we gave them warrant cards. Arguments have been made for and against that idea, so I shall rehearse the situation as I see it. Within the police family are, first, the police officers—the front-line constables—whose job it is to arrest people if they see offences being committed, and their presence also reassures the public. However, they also investigate offences before carrying out those arrests, which is a side that we do not often see or think about. The job of special constables is to go out with front-line police officers, reassuring the public and carrying out arrests, if they see offences taking place. The job of PCSOs is to gain intelligence and talk to the public to get information about where crimes might occur and who might be responsible for them. They also support police officers when they make arrests. One problem for PCSOs is that some people wrongly call them ““plastic police officers””, and that is because they do not have the power of arrest. That ought to be changed, as a PCSO who is out on the streets is likely to have undergone two or there months more training than a special constable who has gained independent status. For the life of me, I cannot see why it should not be possible to give PCSOs warrant cards and allow them to make an arrest if they see an offence being committed. However, I am becoming a convert and believe that PCSOs are carrying out their present role reasonably well. I do not think that they should be taken away from that role, but sometimes people see the uniform worn by a police officer or a PCSO and start to misbehave. I think PCSOs would have much more authority if, instead of detaining a person for 30 minutes and calling for back-up, they were able to produce a warrant card and make an arrest immediately. I appreciate that their job is to be out and about on the streets reassuring the public, but people would be even more reassured if they knew that a PCSO was able to arrest a person committing an offence, bring them before a custody sergeant and ensure that they were properly charged. I do not think that there is any reason why the PCSOs whom I know would not be capable of doing that, and of doing it extremely well. My third suggestion to the Minister would not cost a penny—I am being very responsible about such things—as all it involves is a change to the section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deals with searches. One of the biggest frustrations for me in my limited experience of the past two years has occurred when I have stopped people for committing minor offences. I am talking about such things as begging in tube stations, or ticket evasion: they would not normally lead to an arrest, because it would clog up the system if everyone who committed a minor offence was taken before a custody sergeant. However, one of the first things that officers do when faced with a minor offence is to run a check on the police national computer. In that way, they can find out who the person is, and what potential danger they might pose to the police or members of the public. More often than not, people stopped for minor offences will be known to the police for more serious ones. That happens very often, and I could give specific examples of people who have been stopped for minor offences turning out to have recent convictions for carrying knives or even guns, or for dealing drugs. If a person is found to have a recent conviction, I think that it is reasonable for an officer to want to carry out some sort of search—not an invasive, full-body search, but an airport-style pat down. However, section 1 of PACE does not allow a search to be carried out unless there is evidence that the person involved is carrying a weapon or drugs at that particular moment. Very often, there is no such evidence. Some police officers try and get around the rules in one way or another, and they often get away with doing so. I wish them the very best of luck, but officers should not have to be inventive in their use of PACE. When a person with a conviction in, for example, the last six or 12 months or two years is stopped while committing an offence—and I am not talking about when they are just pulled up in the street—the police officer involved ought to be able undertake a quick search. A very quick change to PACE would enable that to happen. I had not intended to mention it, but I should like to add that I think that it would be very useful if the rules governing the citizen's arrest could be clarified. I am not clear what the present rules are, but I believe that many more people would be willing to intervene if they knew what the definition of the word ““reasonable”” actually was. I have spoken on many occasions in the past about the inadequacy of prison and community sentences. I have described how police officers spend so much time chasing after the same small number of criminals, all of whom are known to them. I do not intend to go any further into that today, save to make a final observation about sentencing. It often happens that I read in the newspaper that a lawyer with a client about to be sentenced has said, ““Please, m'lud, he's had a terrible upbringing. It's not his fault, please be lenient on him.”” My response is that the judge should not hand down a community sentence but should send the offender to prison. That is when I will know that community sentences are working, and I look forward to that.