New clause 24 - Powers of confiscation

Criminal Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 27 February 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

'(1) A police constable shall have specific powers to confiscate certain substances, including alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis and other controlled drugs, when in a public place, in order to help maintain public order and decency, as follows.

(2) The powers under subsection (1) include:

(a) the power to confiscate cannabis from anyone in a public place who is either smoking, selling or openly carrying it;

(b) the power to confiscate cigarettes from anyone who is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 who is either smoking or openly carrying them;

(c) the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone under the age of 18 who is either drinking it, selling it or openly carrying it; and

(d) the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone in a public place who is causing a public nuisance.'.—[Mr. Cameron.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

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

I was not sure whether we would reach this new clause today. I thought that I would be able to spend all weekend writing a long, detailed oration in support of the new clause, and give a speech that would put even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to shame, but I have not had the time to do that. However, the new clause is of such stunning simplicity and clarity that it does not need a long speech. I am sure that the Minister will jump to his feet and say that it is of such stunning simplicity and clarity that it should be immediately written into the law, and that we can all agree to it and go home.

We are dealing with the problem of antisocial behaviour. Every hon. Member is familiar with it in our towns and cities. It is often caused by drink, is sometimes caused by drugs, often involves young people and sometimes involves public drinking. If I had to boil the problem down to a soundbite, it would be, ''The bad behaviour of the few spoiling the quality of life of the many,'' which is almost new Labour-ish in its simplicity.

In my view, the police would like the powers detailed in the new clause in one place. The thinking behind the new clause came from a conversation that I had with a senior police officer in Oxford in the context of the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C. He said that he did not have a problem with that, but that he wanted clear and specific powers to deal with low-level public order and decency offences related to drink and drugs. I have set those powers out clearly.

Police officers are not lawyers. They have to uphold the law, and it helps them if it is simple and clear. The new clause gives police constables powers to confiscate substances to maintain public order and decency. It refers to cannabis in a public place, the power to confiscate cigarettes from those under 16, and the powers to confiscate alcohol from anyone under 18 and from anyone in a public place causing a public nuisance. The provisions are in plain English and are wholly worthwhile.

I appreciate that we have antisocial behaviour orders, which I support, and greater involvement of local authorities. Tomorrow, as everyone who reads the Witney and West Oxfordshire Gazette knows, I shall attend the launch of the new acceptable behaviour contracts with the chief constable for Thames Valley, which is very worthwhile. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there will be a real impact on antisocial behaviour only if we have both community policing on our streets and absolute clarity about what the police can do to keep public order and deal with antisocial behaviour.

I mentioned what I call the Ronseal test the first time that I spoke in Committee. It is important that legislation does what it says on the tin. The new clause

represents the Ronseal test writ large. I know that many of the powers are set out elsewhere, and indeed the Licensing Bill, which is being discussed in another place, will pass into law the specific power on alcohol. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) promoted a private Member's Bill to address several of issues. However, this is the first time that the powers have been set out clearly in one place.

Photo of Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Stinchcombe Labour, Wellingborough

I seek two points of clarification from the hon. Gentleman. Did he intend for the new clause to be drafted to apply to every single prescribed drug? It also seems to legitimise taking away the cigarettes of 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20-year-olds who lawfully smoke in public. That is rather illiberal.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

On the second point, the new clause absolutely does not do that. Subsection (2)(b) gives

''the power to confiscate cigarettes from anyone who is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 who is either smoking or openly carrying them''.

It is as simple as that.

Photo of Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Stinchcombe Labour, Wellingborough

What if young-looking 20-year-olds are smoking cigarettes? A person might think that they are under 16 and could take their cigarettes off them.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

I am relying on the common sense of the police constable, although sadly we do not have sufficient of them. It would be clear that the police would know from one piece of law their power to confiscate alcohol and cannabis. Police constables currently say that those powers are not clearly set out in law. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a background in the law, and it would be easy for him to help me to redraft the new clause to make it even clearer and more straightforward. However, I am sure that hon. Members would not disagree with the purpose of the new clause—clarity. The Minister has said that measures in the Bill are designed to codify the criminal justice system, and it would be worth while to simplify it at the same time.

Photo of Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Stinchcombe Labour, Wellingborough

What about prescribed drugs, which all seem to be controlled drugs?

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

It may be that subsection (2) should be subsidiary to subsection (1). Subsection (1) was an attempt to set out clearly the areas in which the powers would apply, and subsection (2) sets out specific instances. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point about cannabis in subsection (2)(a). That reflects the specific point made by the police in Oxford when they told me, ''Fine, reclassify cannabis, but make sure that we have the power to confiscate it if people smoke it openly while it is still an illegal drug.'' I am supposed to be a liberal on such matters. I supported the reclassification of cannabis, having listened carefully to the arguments that the Select Committee heard. However, it is important to listen to the worries of the police and people who see antisocial behaviour and minor public disorder despoiling our towns and cities. The new clause would address that.

Photo of James Clappison James Clappison Conservative, Hertsmere

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and we should listen to those who tell

us about problems of antisocial behaviour and do all that we can to help them, as humble Back Benchers and members of the Committee.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. That is exactly what I am trying to do. ASBOs, acceptable behaviour orders, crime and disorder partnerships and new ways in which police and local authorities work together will all help, but at the end of the day, we need police officers on the streets who have a clear knowledge of their powers to deal with minor misdemeanours.

Photo of Mr Paul Stinchcombe Mr Paul Stinchcombe Labour, Wellingborough

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify exactly how young-looking 20-year-olds smoking cigarettes in public could offend against public order and decency?

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

As I said, subsection (1) sets out the overall aim of the new clause and the specific powers are in subsection (2). The hon. Gentleman is over-enthusiastic about the minutiae of the new clause, given the time of day. Of course the Minister will sharpen up some of the drafting, but the idea is simple: the police constable should have in one place in the law a clear explanation of what he or she can do about underage drinking, underage smoking and the taking of reclassified drugs, to help keep public order. Is that really so complicated?

Photo of Ian Lucas Ian Lucas Labour, Wrexham

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that unfortunately his new clause has just failed the Ronseal test?

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

Any Back Bencher who has ever tabled an amendment or a new clause in a Committee knows that every tin of Ronseal is open to a little improvement. We should at least go with the spirit of it, which is to try to draft something clear and easy that police constables, who are not lawyers, will be able to understand and use.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I do not want to destroy the hon. Gentleman's flow, but does he anticipate the police officer having the power not only to confiscate but to destroy or dispose of the said drink or drugs? I have visions of policemen going around the streets with half-empty cans of Special Brew.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

Guidance to the police would deal with that. What matters here is the power to do the right thing in the town or city centre where there is antisocial behaviour or minor public disorder. Such behaviour affects towns and cities in all our constituencies. I am sure of that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere supports me. I commend the new clause to the Minister and to the Committee, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Photo of Dominic Grieve Dominic Grieve Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

My hon. Friend should not let nit-picking deter him.

Stephen Hesford rose—

Photo of Dominic Grieve Dominic Grieve Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

Hang on; I have hardly said anything yet. This illustrates yet again that a strange madness starts to pervade the Committee the moment that the word ''cannabis'' is mentioned. It manifests itself by hon. Members frequently jumping up and down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney makes a good point. There is a problem of low-level disorder, which is often manifested by underage drinking, underage smoking and people openly carrying cannabis around in the streets. Any open flouting of the law in that way is a symptom of disorder. I remember a chief constable telling me that he had been to the United States to study how crime reduction techniques had been applied in New York. He said that what had brought home most forcefully to him the extent of the change in New York was going into an extremely deprived area that at one time had had an appalling reputation for major crime. He saw a policeman cycling down a street and stopping two 13-year-old girls who were walking together around the back of the building, saying, ''Now, girls, you're not going behind the sheds to smoke, are you?'' which was exactly what they were going to do.

I suspect that the power to confiscate cannabis already exists, and that the Minister will make that point. However, it is true that there has been no codification to bring matters together. The criticism made about confiscating cigarettes from someone who appears to be under 16 is valid, as it would be an infringement of their civil rights. However, the ability to confiscate alcohol, tobacco or cannabis from children in the street is a good one, as is the ability to confiscate alcohol from people who are causing a public nuisance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney has made a good contribution, and I hope that the Minister will respond in the appropriate spirit. Many contributions have been made by tabling amendments and new clauses. If we had to spend our time in this Committee worrying whether our efforts would pass the immediate scrutiny of the parliamentary draftsman, we would do no work at all. That would be regrettable, so I await the Minister's response to my hon. Friend's ideas with interest.

Photo of Simon Hughes Simon Hughes Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I will show the hon. Gentleman that it is possible to believe.

Let me say to the hon. Member for Witney that I understand where he is coming from, but I side with colleagues on the Labour Back Benches. [Hon. Members: ''Not often.''] I judge things on their merits. I can see that the idea was well conceived, but the hon. Gentleman has not worked out whether what he wanted was deliverable through the new clause, which he said that he was thinking of doing.

I will list the reasons why the new clause would not work. First, the new clause states that there should be specific powers, but it does not set them out in full or give examples, so we do not know what the other powers are at all.

Secondly, the clause seeks to confiscate certain substances, some of which it is illegal to have, namely alcohol, cannabis and other controlled drugs in certain circumstances. However, cigarettes would certainly not fall within the proposed new clause. The thought

that the police would be after kids who were smoking when it may have been illegal for them or others to have purchased cigarettes but not illegal, as far as I am aware, for them to be smoking, also strikes me as going too far.

Thirdly, the clause would provide for a new test that the police should be able to maintain not only public order, which of course they must, but public decency as generally defined. The police have a duty in relation to public decency, but that relates to matters such as those that we discussed the other day, such as whether walking round in the nude is decent. I do not think that they have ever applied decency in this context or that they would wish to do so.

Fourthly, it seems that there are already significant legislative powers to deal with those matters, both in law and byelaw. To my certain knowledge, we have legislated on that issue three times in recent years. I would be very surprised if it were necessary to do that again, although we understand the concerns.

Fifthly, the subjects and object subject to confiscation are not circumscribed, so they could include all sorts of things and more could presumably be added to the list. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned what that list contains. My view is that it is right to consider how to deal with low-level and antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contacts work in certain ways, and acceptable behaviour contracts work well.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

What does the hon. Gentleman think that a police constable should do if he or she comes across someone who is obviously 11 or 12 years old, smoking on the steps of the war memorial in Witney?

Photo of Simon Hughes Simon Hughes Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

In the first instance, a police constable would probably say something, but surely the concerns at that stage should be more about health than criminality. A police constable should say something like what a copper would have said in the old days, such as ''Hang on, mate, that isn't such a good idea''. On the second occasion, a police constable might adopt a more formal approach. On the third occasion, a police constable might find out who the young person was and take him or her to their parents and so on. One must be gradualist about it.

The hon. Member for Witney is self-defined as a relatively liberal member of his party. I obviously respect that, but it sounds like the beginning of an overly mighty response to actions that are potentially behaviourally harmful or not very acceptable. Going down that road leads to taking away crisps from the overweight and so on. There is all the difference in the world between illegally drinking alcohol or smoking illegal substances and doing things that kids regularly do, and I do not think that new clause 24 is the right approach.

Photo of Hilary Benn Hilary Benn Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) (Minister for Prisons and Probation)

We have had a very interesting debate. The hon. Member for Witney acknowledges some technical deficiencies, if I can put it like that, in the new clause, but I shall advance the principal argument, which has been alluded to by a number of hon. Members, as to why it is not necessary. I do so not because I dissent from his point about the importance of tackling antisocial behaviour—that issue concerns

all of us and our constituencies—but because the powers that would be set up under the new clause already exist.

I am happy to confirm what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said: the police already have the power to confiscate cannabis under section 23(2)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I hope that the officers concerned will be reassured by being reminded of those powers, which we have had for just over 30 years. Section 7(3) and (5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 already allow uniformed police officers to seize and confiscate any tobacco-related product found in the possession of anyone apparently under the age of 16 found smoking in public. Under the 1933 Act, possession of tobacco by a young person is an offence, except in very limited circumstances. I am not sure whether that helps us resolve the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) of those who appear to be under 16 years of age. However, that is not a problem that will affect Committee members.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

Is not the fact that the power to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough so objected exists in a 1933 Act that I suspect the Minister did not know about previously, that officials had to dig around for, and that the police did not know about, an argument for codification?

Photo of Hilary Benn Hilary Benn Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) (Minister for Prisons and Probation)

I am not sure that I will plead guilty to the charge that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I am sure that the police are well aware of their powers. Those who are really interested can read the 1933 debate in Hansard to learn how our predecessors grappled with the question of those who appear to be above and below the age of 16.

Photo of Mark Francois Mark Francois Opposition Whip (Commons)

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney has been seeking to codify the powers in one place so that constables in training, for example, can easily assimilate them. I make the point because, as a Minister at the Home Office will be aware, in many forces, large numbers of constables on the street are rookies—they are probationers in their first year and do not have a great deal of experience. They have a tremendous amount to take in, and it would not hurt those who have not had long to study the law if those powers were codified in one place.

Photo of Hilary Benn Hilary Benn Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) (Minister for Prisons and Probation)

I hear the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not think that that is a road that we should go down. If we are to use legislation as a way of reminding people about existing statutory responsibilities, there will be even more Home Office legislation, and some hon. Members have already been complaining about the amount. The issue is about the training of police officers and, I respectfully suggest, not the new clause.

The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 already provides local authorities and the police with the powers to deal with the problem of alcohol. As hon. Members will know, the 2001 Act allows local authorities to designate certain public places in which to restrict the consumption of alcohol, particularly where it is known to cause nuisance or annoyance. Some 57 areas have been so designated since that provision came into being. It gives the police powers to confiscate open containers of alcohol in those areas. As has been pointed out, the Licensing Bill will deal with the little problem of sealed containers, where it is believed that the person, whether an adult or a young person, has consumed, or intends to consume, the alcohol in the designated area that the 2001 Act allows local authorities to identify.

Finally, there is the long-standing police power that relates to anyone acting in a drunk and disorderly manner, which police officers are extremely used to using, and about which they need no reminding. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Witney that the powers that he wants to introduce are already in legislation.

Photo of David Cameron David Cameron Conservative, Witney

I am very grateful for the Minister's response. It would be useful for me to return to Oxford and show a copy of his speech to the police officer to remind him where he can find all the powers that he requested should be put in one place. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 4 March at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.