![]() |
Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats Covering the constituencies of Twickenham and Richmond Park |
| <enquiries@twickenhamlibdems.co.uk> | 30th August 2008 |
Huhne quizzes Smith re Flanagan10.53.00am GMT Fri 8th Feb 2008 [Feb 7] Christopher Huhne (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat): We welcome Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report, which is very much in line with many of proposals made by the Liberal Democrats over the years. Civilianisation, neighbourhood policing, increased use of technology and, indeed, a single case file system for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police should all be priorities. It seems to us, however, that as there has been substantial consensus on so many of these matters for such a long time, the real need is for action rather than recommendations. This is, to my certain knowledge, at least the fifth and perhaps the seventh review of modernisation in as many years. Sir Ronnie has suggested that the work force should be modernised over a 10-year period. Will the Home Secretary make a commitment to try to introduce some of the key changes rather more rapidly, particularly given the opportunities afforded by the retirement bulge? It is important to reduce bureaucracy without impairing the safeguards against abuse. The proposal to cut the bureaucracy involved in stop and account is sensible, as no coercive powers are used by the police when it occurs. However, in the case of stop and search, the Home Secretary has announced an extension of police powers to tackle gang-related gun and knife crime, which is not recommended in Sir Ronnie's report and which would enable officers to stop and search in designated areas when an act of serious violence had taken place. Will she give concrete examples of circumstances in which the extensive powers for stop and search under part I of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, or section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are failing-or is this another instance of the Government's addiction to reaching for legislative powers when what is needed is implementation? Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary): I thought that the hon. Gentleman was responding very seriously until the end of his remarks. Let me respond to some of his serious points. I agree that there is much scope for both better efficiency and a better service to the public in work force reform. The hon. Gentleman suggested that that was not already under way. In fact, owing to the investment that the Government have been willing to make in increasing police personnel more generally, more and more time is being freed for police to spend on the front line. We see growing numbers of specialist staff, for example, working in roles such as the licensing of firearms and explosives, carrying out criminal records checks, front-office duties, and control room and CCTV activities; and increasingly in some of the work force modernisation pilots we see them working in areas including custody, training and some courts duties. Those and other efficiencies have enabled us to increase the time officers spend on front-line duties in each year since 2003-04 to the equivalent of having more than 5,000 more police officers on the front line. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for our action on stop and account, which will be introduced quickly following the three-month trials Sir Ronnie recommends. On stop and search, we have evidence-such as in tackling gangs-that the section 60 search provisions the hon. Gentleman referred to are being used effectively alongside other action to protect people from guns and gang-related crime. We proposed their extension during the passage of the Serious Crime Act 2007 so that they can be used both before and after an attack takes place. That is a reasonable and proportionate use of the stop-and-search powers, and that is what will be introduced from this spring. [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/]
Bookmark this story at:
Published and promoted by Chris Squire on behalf of the Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats, 2a Lion Road, Twickenham, TW1 4JQ The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider. |