---

Human Rights

Not today. The point is clear. When we talk about important provisions covering protests around Parliament, which go to the core of our democracy, it is not fair or appropriate to have no debate on the Floor of the House, or in Committee. That can be rectified on Report, and I hope that it will be. We spent a whole day in Committee arguing about ratification of treaties, which is an important matter, and the net result was that we had no time to deal with this matter, yet the debate went short the following day. It was bizarre that we could not debate it then. On police tactics and training, it is now generally accepted that public order training and guidance does not adequately take account of the human rights issues associated with policing. We were pleased to hear that ACPO guidance is being redrafted, that the Home Office is producing a code of practice and that there is to be specific training not just for officers in riot control, but—of equal, if not greater, importance—for police commanders at all levels. Command training is essential. I agree with the general plea from the police that the guidance must be a workable, easy-to-use document with clear principles, not a telephone directory or a manual prescribing precisely for every conceivable circumstance. The police need discretion, but that discretion needs clear and user-friendly guidance if it is to work. The Home Office has talked of publishing guidance for consultation in the spring; perhaps the Minister will tell us how the election will affect that timetable, and assure us that time will be found for parliamentary engagement on this important issue. On particular aspects of police practice, we yet again saw evidence during the G20 protests of some police officers not displaying their identification numbers, and refusing to identify themselves when asked. Identifying police officers is essential to ensure that they are accountable for their actions. We recommended that displaying identification numbers or providing identification on request should be a legal requirement for police officers. The Government's response was to agree with our view on the importance of police identification, but to maintain the current position—that identification is a disciplinary rather than a legal matter. We remain unpersuaded. Making identification a legal requirement would send a strong signal to officers about the importance of this issue. The Home Office suggested that failure to provide identification was a rare problem, and that may be so, but when it occurs, or is reported, it is in the most controversial and extreme circumstances, such as the fatal incident at G20 or the Countryside Alliance protest outside Parliament, going right back to the death of Blair Peach. Will the Minister provide us with some figures on the frequency of complaints and consequent disciplinary action on this issue, and update us on the long-awaited and now promised publication of the Cass report on the death of Blair Peach? I have mentioned journalists on a number of occasions. Individual officers often seem to be unaware of the special position of journalists in reporting rather than participating in protests. I hope that the new guidance will tackle that problem better than the existing ACPO police-media guidelines. The NUJ said that they were""useless because the police on the street do not know anything about them"." Journalists complain of police surveillance, denial of access to protests to report them, being pushed into demonstrations as protesters, which they are not, being refused permission to leave, being caught in the kettle and failure to recognise their press cards. They have been refused permission to photograph police officers under the erroneous interpretation of section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which I previously described. Intensive media reporting is a challenge to the police, and we commented in our second report on how the media had talked up the prospect of violence at the G20 protests. The police need better media relationships and strategies for major protests, and a good start is to recognise the legitimate role of journalists in reporting them. Finally, the containment tactic, kettling, has been the subject of much debate. We concluded, and were criticised for this, that it could be a useful tactic, but only if used proportionately, when absolutely necessary, and in accordance with human rights principles; for example, to stop violent protesters from dispersing through a city. So far, however, the tactic has been deployed without regard to the rights of contained individuals, who have included not just peaceful protesters, but bystanders, such as Ian Tomlinson, with fatal results. At G20, we heard of a diabetic who was not released when he needed insulin. The carer of his 83-year-old mother was held in the kettle and not allowed to go. Someone with a broken arm was allowed out only unaccompanied. There were many other cases. We heard of the crowd being charged and pushed back by police, but with nowhere to go back to. The root of the problem seems to be that the police see the crowd as an amorphous mass of trouble, rather than as a gathering of individuals, each with his or her own separate human rights, and for whom different considerations may apply from person to person. We share the views of the HMIC that police commanders must be trained to use containment flexibly as a crowd control tactic; there must be a strategy for releasing people who do not pose a threat of violence; and facilities such as water, toilets and medical assistance must be provided to those contained for several hours. I accept that that creates immense challenges for the police, so I would like to hear the Minister's view on how kettling can be operated while respecting individual rights.