I beg to move amendment No. 71, in

clause 1, page 1, line

7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) In section 1(7) of the 1984 Act (prohibited articles) at the end of sub-paragraph (b)(ii) there is inserted ''; and

(iii) an article used in the commission of an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (destroying or damaging property).''.'.

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 27, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

'but only insofar as the article was intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.'.

No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end add—

'(f) an offence under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 (going equipped for stealing etc.)

(g) an offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (robbery).'.

I am sure that the Minister did not intend any discourtesy in not replying to several points that I made and I therefore voted in favour of the programme motion. I am sure that he will take the chance to put on record the answers to some of my points.

I am very much in favour of the clause. The inference that my constituents and others can draw is that the Government are serious about helping those who suffer criminal damage to themselves or their property. Criminal damage is often used to prevent people from giving evidence in the courts, supporting their neighbours and assisting their communities. We suffer from that all too much in my constituency.

This is yet another example of cross-referencing, although one needs only two hands to figure out what the clause means. Reference is made to other Acts. Difficult as it is for us to come to terms with that, it will be hard for people outside to interpret the sensible and sound meaning that the Government are trying to bring into the law here. Again, rather than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I hope that the Government will look again at trying to make this process and its wording more accurate and clearer so that those we are trying to help can understand that we are trying to help them and how we are doing it.

The clause extends the powers to stop and search. It is important that the Government explain why. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will do that. This is a probing amendment to ensure that we are clear about why stop and search is extended from an actual offence of criminal damage to a prospective offence. My constituents think of spray cans and other items that are used to vandalise properties and to deter witnesses from attending court, so we are pleased that the police will have the ability to take action against some of those offenders and help law-abiding citizens in my constituency.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue. I fully understand why the Government have attempted to tackle that issue by amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As I understand it, the intention behind the Government's proposals is to include objects that might be used to destroy or damage property as a legitimate ground for search and seizure. The amendment would widen the scope of prohibited articles. The problem is that PACE splits the articles that may be seized into two categories.

Section 1(6) states:

''If in the course of such a search a constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a stolen or prohibited article or an article to which subsection (8A) below applies, he may seize it.''

Subsection (7) continues:

''An article is prohibited . . . if it is-

(a) an offensive weapon; or

(b) an article-

(i) made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence to which this sub-paragraph applies, or

(ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''

The offences to which paragraph (b)(i) applies are burglary, theft, motor vehicle taking or obtaining property by deception.

I should like to remind myself for a moment of past practice in the Crown court, when I appeared there prosecuting or defending. My understanding of the drafting of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, although it is not always easy to follow, is that, first, it categorised certain items as offence weapons, and I do not think that anyone has a problem with that because the categories are well defined. Secondly, it includes articles made or adapted for use in the course of particular offences, such as jemmies for burglary and various articles that we know from experience are likely to be used, in the course of theft, for taking vehicles, such as car keys and other devices that can be used to unlock disabling mechanisms.

The problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that almost any item can be used to do criminal damage, including, I suppose, this volume of ''Archbold''. If someone with a greenhouse wants me to demonstrate how it could be used for such a purpose, I would not have too much difficulty. We must be careful about what we are trying to achieve.

Grievous bodily harm.

Indeed, I am confident that it could be used for that purpose, too. In fact, together with its annexe and volume on appeal cases, it would constitute a lethal weapon.

Have we got this right or have we gone too far? Spray cans were mentioned during the debate, and everyone knows about the propensity to use spray cans for writing graffiti, but the clause is drafted in such a way that it could cover virtually any item. I should be interested to hear how a definition could be worded so as to prevent someone from being harassed by the police and from having virtually any item on them removed because it could be used to commit criminal damage. Although I applaud the ingenuity and diligence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the amendment would make the matter even more serious, because it would not only introduce a category of weapon but would prohibit people from carrying such an item at all. That seems to verge on unreason.

Will the hon. Gentleman help me? Let me talk about witness intimidation. Many people who roll up at the Old Bailey think of witness intimidation in terms of east end gangland. Intimidation is rife, but it is no longer connected with big armed robberies. It is carried out by kids who break antisocial behaviour orders and gangs who intimidate people on street corners. Such people go equipped, not necessarily to

break someone's kneecaps, but continually to spray their house with ''scum'' or ''grass''—or other words that I would be brought to order for using—in a persistent attempt to break down and stress out those people who act as witnesses and who are trying to keep their communities law-abiding.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me. I understand and respect the point that he is making, but does he understand the viewpoint of the victims in such situations? Will he help the Committee to formulate amendments that will offer a hand to those people? Members of the legal profession do not seem inclined to discuss the issue in their own terms and have completely lost touch with all the individuals who depend on the criminal justice system.

I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. There is always a danger that the legal profession will make arguments so abstruse that they no longer meet the common-sense requirements of the public. I am aware of that and do not intend it to happen. I make it clear that the amendments that I tabled are essentially probing amendments.

I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we shall end up with a number of problems if we frame the legislation in a way that is unworkable in practice. There might be challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998. People might ask, ''Why am I being prevented from carrying a perfectly lawful item that I need?'' There will be issues related to proof, and to what juries or magistrates will be prepared to decide on the facts. The hon. Gentleman will not secure his objective.

The key question is not whether we want to stop people who want to spray-paint people's houses going around with spray cans, or those with half-bricks or any other item in their pockets that they want to throw through people's windows. The hon. Gentleman may agree with me that virtually any item can be used for the purpose of criminal damage—chewing gum can be used to bung up a keyhole if one does it well enough. The definition is very broad. The question is therefore whether the definition will in practice be confined to certain items. If it will, should we focus on those items, rather than on the generic term of any item that could be used to destroy or damage property?

The question arises of whether there should at least be evidence of intent by a person to use an item for the purpose of committing criminal damage. I seek to address that question with amendments Nos. 27 and 1. The objection to that, which I can understand, is that far too difficult a test would be put in the way. Having to prove intent will fetter every policeman's ability to stop people and remove such items. Against that, I venture that if a policeman stops someone with a spray can in a bag, that person may be someone who intends to respray his car, which has suffered slight damage in a motor accident, or he may be a 15-year-old who intends to spray graffiti. I would think that on the whole it should be possible to infer the defendant's intention from the surrounding circumstances—and possibly from their previous track record.

Although I will listen carefully to the Minister, I can foresee the danger that the provisions as currently

framed constitute a catch-all to almost any item that people may have in their possession. The items that in my experience feature in the list of offences that are currently under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 enjoy a much narrower definition.

Is not the hon. Gentleman conflating two situations? There is the substantive offence of going equipped, for which an intention is needed. However, the provisions simply deal with stop-and-search—a precursor—not with convicting anyone of an offence. The added burden of intention is therefore unnecessary.

The hon. Gentleman is right. However, heaven knows, the issue of stopping and searching people has been the subject of perennial debate in the House. Back in the 1980s, when I was the candidate for a seat that included Brixton, a community there that felt that the police oppressed it in the exercise of their powers said that the policy of stop-and-search in the streets and the way in which it was implemented was a precipitant of rioting. That view appeared to be reinforced by a number of enquiries that followed. There was a time—it is interesting to see how times change—when members of the hon. Gentleman's party loudly denounced the abuse of stop-and-search powers. My recollection, however, is that the official Opposition took a rather more robust view, and the Liberal Democrats may even have shared the Government's views. The issue certainly raises difficult questions about a subject's liberty, and I fully acknowledged that it must be addressed carefully.

All I am saying is that we are extending powers from the readily identifiable objects that most police officers look for when they stop and search someone, to potentially any item that someone may have in their pockets. That is a problem, and the Committee should at least think about it, rather than simply saying, ''Oh, this is wonderful. Let's move on to the next clause.''

I get the impression from the hon. Gentleman that the police are going to go on a stop-and-search rampage to take from people everything that they are carrying. In my constituency, however, the police know the troublemakers—the kids on the street who harass old people. They also know what they carry with them and what they do. I hope that the police will operate on the basis of reasonable suspicions and reasonable grounds; otherwise, they will be challenged. However, the clause is not a major problem, because the police will not go on a rampage against people's civil rights. They will, however, have an extra power to prevent the harassment of old and young people in my constituency, and they know who is responsible.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but let me take him back to the wording of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is not easy to follow so, at the risk of repetition, I shall read from it again. Section 1(7) prohibits offensive weapons per se, so we need not worry about that. However, it also prohibits

''an article . . . made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence . . . or . . . intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''

That is the very phrase that I lifted for the purposes of amendment No. 27, so the hon. Gentleman will understand where I am coming from. I have not dreamt that category up out of nowhere; it already features in the Act. The Government have decided—as I said, I shall listen carefully to the Minister—that they do not wish to use that category. As I understand it, they want to use a category of objects that are made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence. This volume of ''Archbold'' could, however, be adapted for the purposes of criminal damage. So, too, could a spray can, even though it is perfectly legitimate for someone to have one if they are repainting a vehicle. We could go through an endless list of items that could be made or adapted.

We are widening the category significantly and moving a long way from the sort of items that one would recognise as being used in burglary, theft, and vehicle taking. The obvious items that one would need to obtain property by deception are false credit cards, and a conman's apparatus would include bits of paper and the other items. If the police picked him up, they would find those items in his pocket and realise that he needed them to copy people's credit cards. They would, therefore, confiscate them.

We are introducing measures that go very wide, and I simply ask the Minister—I do not want to labour the point on amendment No. 27—whether we should include the notion of intention. It would not prevent police officers from stopping and searching the known graffiti sprayer or the local hoodlum who puts bricks through people's windows. Nor would it prevent them from confiscating certain items. They would have little difficulty in court demonstrating intent or that they had justifiable grounds for seizing an item. However, the wording of the Bill is wide open to interpretation.

If my greenhouse windows had been broken by law books time and again, and the hon. Gentleman were loitering on the corner of my street with a sackful of law books, would it not be reasonable for the police to suspect that he might be using them in an illegal manner? That would be covered, because it would be reasonable to suspect that.

I agree entirely.

Six months.

That might be regarded as rather too kind to me. I would fall squarely foul of the clause as amended by amendment No. 27. Let us suppose that I walk down Fleet street to my barristers chambers and am stopped by a police officer who finds a copy of ''Archbold''. The police officer has moved force in the hope of greater money in the Metropolitan police, remembers that there was at least one occasion when a copy of ''Archbold'' was thrown through someone's greenhouse in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), and decides to confiscate mine. That is an important point, but I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response.

This is not an ''Archbold'' point but a graffiti can point. I want to establish that that case

would be unfair. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that someone nicked with a can of spray paint would not be carrying, under the logical interpretation of the present law, something made or adapted for a criminal offence? It could be used for a criminal offence, but it would not have been made or adapted for it. Unless one is to extend the law hugely, which would be completely illogical, the only way in which one could regard that as something that could be used in a criminal offence is to add intent. Otherwise, there can be no way to distinguish between lawful use and non-lawful use.

I agree. That is why we tabled amendment No. 27. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for distilling the argument so succinctly. The way in which the Government have drafted the clause seems to allow any item to be seized in circumstances that could go to the absurd. That is what concerns me, but the Minister may be able to provide reassurance.

The last thing that I want to do is to get involved in legalisms, especially with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who has made a living out of them, but I am interested in the reference to items made for the commission of an offence. We could argue about a kitchen knife, for example.

We must be careful on this spray paint issue. The vision of young people spray-painting butterflies on the underground is a million miles from what such items can do to people. Repeated spraying is intended to break people and to prevent people from giving evidence against, say, someone else's big brother. Bricks go through greenhouse windows over and again, every time the panes are repaired, until the owner decides not to go to court.

Far be it from me to give advice to the Conservative party, but the clause is about the extension of powers to stop and search. What does that mean to ordinary people? What do they want from the law in those circumstances? Perhaps the ordinary people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield are different from those in mine and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Our people want reassurance that we are addressing their concerns about the low-level, sustained and stressful intimidation that can take place with commonplace household objects. I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues will start to address some of the concerns of those people as we consider the Bill, otherwise his party may appear irrelevant to the concerns of the electorate.

At the risk of repeating myself, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I resent the innuendo that I or my constituents do not share his concern about antisocial behaviour and crime. It is a calumny; it is absurd; and it is untrue. I, too, am concerned that the criminal justice system should work effectively. As I explained to him earlier, if we pass and implement legislation that is unworkable, he will not get the benefits that he wants from the Bill—and indeed that the Government want.

My concern, when floating my amendments, and in considering the hon. Gentleman's proposals—I hope that the Minister will respond carefully to what he said—was to try to ensure, when extending the category of items that can be seized in stop and search to include those that could be used, made or adapted for use in criminal damage, as they are all likely to be capable of being adapted, that we should provide some guidelines or criteria about what we want police officers to take from people.

Otherwise, the risk—it always happens, however well-intentioned the police may be—is that people will say that they have been treated unjustly and can prove it. When that happens, the legislation starts to be brought into disrepute. It then ceases to achieve the desired object. Heaven knows, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey lives in an area, which I know, and represents an area that is not exactly free from the consequences of criminal damage and antisocial behaviour. I applaud the fact that he appears to be on the same wavelength on this issue, and I urge other hon. Members to understand it. I might add that my constituency has areas of serious social deprivation and areas where criminal damage is rife. That causes me great concern and, so far as possible, I wish to see it stamped out. We shall not achieve that by passing bad legislation.

The clause as drafted simply adds an additional category of offence. Those offences could be committed only if there was an intention or sufficient mens rea—in which case, does the hon. Gentleman believe that amendment No. 27 is necessary?

Well, is that right? I think we should wait for the Minister to tell us about that. It may be a misreading on my part; I do not claim any sort of guru status in my understanding of the inner workings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I looked at it before drafting the amendment, and the hon. Gentleman is probably looking at it now. Section 1(7) provides for three categories of prohibited articles. They are: ''an offensive weapon''; an article

''made or adapted for use in course of or in connection with an offence'',

or an article

''intended by the person having it with him for such use by him''.

As I understand it, the Bill will amend the 1984 Act to put this item on criminal damage in subsection (8), which is that to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies. That means that an article must merely be shown to be

''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence''.

I infer from that that intent does not have to be shown. That is why I tabled the amendment. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will tell me and put me out of my misery. However, I do not think that I am wrong, or he would have interrupted me sooner so that we could move on to something else.

Intent is something that the police officer could take into account when deciding whether he has reasonable suspicion, which is a precursor to the operation of all stop and search powers. He has the power to take it into account when deciding whether

to stop and search. I would have said in response to the debate that I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point but that the amendment is not necessary.

I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. The word between subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) is the little word ''or'', not the little word ''and''. It seems that a police officer would be entitled to stop and search simply on the basis that an item was made or adapted for use in, ''or'' in connection with, an offence. Could a spray-can be adapted for use in an offence? It is certainly usable in the course of an offence. I hope that the Minister can clear that matter up.

The amendments are in some ways an attempt to widen the scope of the provision, because I am broadly in support of what the Government want to do. Amendment No. 1 gives the Committee the opportunity to consider whether we should add to the provision items connected with going equipped for stealing or with robbery. I simply invite the Committee to consider that: why stop at criminal damage?

The categories in subsection (8) are confined at present to burglary, theft, the taking of motor vehicles and obtaining property by deception. If we are interested in broadening the categories, and are to add criminal damage, why should we not, for instance, in view of the problems of street robbery experienced in most constituencies, include that too? I see that the Minister wants to contradict me.

I rise only to assist the hon. Gentleman. It may be helpful if I tell him that, in relation to theft, the current definition includes items that might be made, adapted or intended for use in committing either robbery or going equipped for stealing. In other words, the current definition covers his sensible point.

I am grateful to the Minister; that solves that problem, and on that basis, I have spoken enough. I want only to say in finishing that I could not understand amendment No. 67, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, but as it has not been selected I shall perhaps cast a delicate veil over it and ignore it. I shall, however, ask the Committee to consider carefully how we go about constructing the provision on criminal damage, so that it is not drawn so widely as to become unworkable. If the Minister can reassure me on that I can assure him that our amendments were intended only to initiate debate to ensure that we get the measure right.

To clarify amendment No. 67, which was to incorporate offences in relation to hunting, it has been superseded by events in the House—

Order. Amendment No. 67 has not been selected and is not in order for debate.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I am happy to be on the Committee. I was just reflecting that the Solicitor-General and I are the only members of the Committee who were in the House when the

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was passed—I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who I now recall was also here. I was not responsible for our response to that Bill, but it was very important, and as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it followed events including the Brixton riots and inquiries.

Stop and search is an important and sensitive issue—particularly sensitive in communities of mixed race and ethnic backgrounds. When we consider what we should do, we need principles and an understanding of the background. My first point is simple: we should never have any law unless it is really justified. As a liberal, I believe that the fewer powers the state has, the better; the fewer laws we have, the better; and the fewer things that are illegal, the better. Of course we must keep up with changing practices, but I am against the presumption that it is necessary to make knives illegal because they could be used for wrong purposes—knives have perfectly proper purposes—or to make it illegal to carry garden items in the street. I start from the presumption that it is important to maximise the liberty of the individual and to minimise the power of the state.

I also take the view that it is right to maximise the liberty of the individual and minimise the powers of the police. They are not agents of the state. They are independent, but they need only the power sufficient to do their job, and not more. I shall always be sceptical about proposals for more police powers. I should have to hear an overwhelming case for that before I could be persuaded to sign up to it.

We need to understand not only the relevant words but the intention behind and motivation for the provision. My understanding is that the proposal concerns criminal damage only, being designed to give the police more powers to pre-empt antisocial behaviour and stop it escalating into lower-level criminal damage because of items that people carry around.

I share other hon. Members' understanding of the motive for the proposal and I do not dissent from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I do not dissent from including criminal damage in general terms, as in the two examples given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The Minister reassured us that such examples will be included; going equipped to rob is part of a panoply of items, as is whether the police should have powers to stop and search.

We would all like to agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about fewer laws, but does he accept that there was a time when people could control troublemakers within their communities, because they were smaller and more local and people knew each other better, but we now live in different times and community controls, especially in urban areas, have largely broken down? We need more laws to deal with the changed situation.

We could have a long debate about that, as I am not sure that it is true. I do not know that we now live in more lawless days than those of 19th-century London recorded in the novels of Dickens. I

think that those days were probably more lawless, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. Although to some extent family life has broken down, and in some places the sense of belonging to a community, in other places it is still very strong. I accept that people move more and therefore their allegiance to a community may be weaker—and because they move more, they are not as easily identified.

Of course, in our society people often take less responsibility for their community. They do not intervene, but stand back and say, ''It's nothing to do with me.'' I am not one of those people; I get stuck in, regardless of the fact that I am an MP. If I think someone is doing something wrong, I will tackle them in the street to stop the person beating up a woman, for example, and I have done so, because I think it is my job to do that, but other people tend to walk away, and I understand why, as it can be dangerous. We should adopt the non-legislative, community solution if there is one. I argue for more police, community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, because that, rather than giving the police more powers, is what prevents and deters crime and brings down criminality.

The Minister may have more accurate or up-to-date figures, but the most recent Home Office figures available to me show that fewer than one in six stops and searches led to an arrest. Five out of six people are likely to go away from that experience, possibly feeling aggrieved—

They might be happy.

The hon. Gentleman may believe that people are happy to be stopped and searched, but I do not. When I was 20-something, I used to be stopped and searched regularly by the police when I was walking home after a day as a lawyer in chambers. I got off the bus in the Old Kent road and walked down the road I lived in, late at night, with a bag over my shoulder. I did not like being stopped and searched, and I became more aggrieved the more often it happened. Eventually, I stopped co-operating, because it was becoming oppressive. I would not give my name and address, because I did not think that the police had any cause to stop me.

If I felt like that, how much more does it affect young people in our communities once they get on the police radar? That is when the issue becomes very sensitive; it is sensitive anyway in all communities, but it is especially so in minority communities. Of all the seats represented by my party, my constituency has the largest number of people from minority communities—about one in four—and the Solicitor-General, who represents the neighbouring constituency, has an even larger number. We must be very careful to have laws that command the confidence of the whole community, and police who practise in a way that commands such confidence.

The issue is relevant, because according to Home Offices figures published recently, black people are eight times more likely to be stopped than white people, and 19 per cent. of stops happen to black and Asian people, although they comprise only 7 per cent. of the population. It does not make the existence of the

power wrong or right, but we need to understand its implications and to be sensitive about them. I am keen in this, as in other matters, that we should introduce only powers that are justifiable. They should relate to situations in which it is clear that what is being carried is associated with criminality, or that there is an intention to use it in a criminal way. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, offensive weapons are self-defining, and the courts are well used to that. People generally know when they have them, although there are borderline cases: a rolling pin carried at night under a raincoat could be held to be an offensive weapon, although it was not—

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. Would it be in order for you to stop and search the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for something relevant to the clause or the amendments?

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is completely in order, and if he strays out of order, I shall remind him.

I am surprised at that offensive interruption. I will always stay in order, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my word on that for the rest of our proceedings.

Items made or adapted for criminal purposes are self-defining. The difficulty is the spray can. That is not made for a criminal purpose. It is not usually adapted for a criminal purpose. All the kids who spray near where I live and, I guess, in Beaconsfield, do not go to a special place and buy a special can; they buy a normal one. They do not adapt a can; they use a normal one for their graffiti. It is therefore relevant to debate this small amendment, the principle of which I accept.

It is important to draw the line in the right place. If somebody sets out to commit criminal damage and carries something that can be shown to be intended for that purpose, the police are justified in intervening, but they cannot do so on the basis of a hunch that is not backed up by evidence. They must have more than a view that because a group of kids that was hanging around on that street corner last week had spray cans, another group of kids—none of them the same—hanging around there this week must have spray cans. One has to be able to demonstrate a basis for stopping and searching people, because it is an intrusion on their civil liberties and should not be the norm. One has a right to go around without people interfering in one's activities. I do not want to live in a state, a country or a community in which the police have the power to take such action unless they have reasonable suspicion that I have something that I intend—or might intend—to use to commit a crime.

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, in any profession, people gain experience on the basis of which they sometimes cut corners and use intuition? We use the term ''usual suspects'' as though there is something wrong with it. They are the usual suspects because they are the usual culprits: they have done things wrong before and have been apprehended. Does he accept that local police officers with local knowledge of local troublemakers might be able to use their intuition and hunches in a proper manner?

Of course, and if the hon. Gentleman and I walked to my local police station, went behind the counter and into the back room, we would see a set of photographs of 10 or 20 usual suspects—the people most often picked up. Their appearance there, however, does not justify their ever being nicked unless the police have a specific belief that they are committing an offence at a particular time. Merely because the usual suspects have a criminal record, have been in trouble in the past or come from a family well known to the police, they should not be stopped unless they are doing—or appear to be about to do—something illegal at a particular moment on a particular street. That is my strong belief.

The hon. Gentleman has articulately provided a full account of the clause. I am glad that it is in order, and I should like to join in. If I can say it without being derogatory, he has expressed a white, lawyerly, middle-class, London-oriented view of the criminal justice system. It is the dominant view in the legal profession and the criminal justice system. Does he accept, though, that millions of traditionally law-abiding people no longer have any faith in it? I am thinking of the sort of ordinary working-class people on council estates in my constituency whose belief in his system has been eroded over time. We have lost such people, and he should reflect on how to recapture them and restore their faith.

I refer not just to the civil liberty of individuals in particular circumstances, which we should all defend, but to reconnecting people to the entire system so that they feel that it works for, and belongs to, them. For many, the system is now in crisis. I hope that the Liberal Democrats and the other Opposition party will join the Government to improve the Bill and recapture the faith of the people.

I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to increase confidence in the criminal justice system. I accept that it is at a lower level, but confidence in it should apply equally to the victim of crime or the defendant in a court case. Many of my constituents are victims one year and defendants the next, or vice versa. The poorer the community, the lower the income, the more likely are people to be both guilty of crimes and victims of them.

I was not born and brought up in London. My parents were married here, but I was born in the north. We then moved to Wales. Before I was a lawyer, I was a student and a youth worker. I do not have an exclusively southern, London-oriented viewpoint. I happen to represent more council home occupiers than any MP in England, so more of my constituents than the hon. Gentleman's live on estates. I understand the score: I have done the job for more than 20 years.

It is a balancing exercise, about ensuring that everyone feels confident in the system. Making people feel resentful of the authorities because the system has treated them oppressively and unfairly will not assist the cause of criminal justice. We must secure the right balance. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will know exactly what I am talking about: it is a crucial issue for all the communities in Northern

Ireland.

I am not arguing in favour of the rights of the few against the many for the sake of it—the Prime Minister does not understand these issues—but because anyone could find himself in the few. The person living on the estate behind me might be burgled one day but the next day he might be knocking at my door because his kid has been unfairly nicked. I want to ensure that people have confidence that when they are burgled the police will respond and catch the burglar, but when their kid is wrongly stopped by the police he will be treated fairly by the system. That is the balance. I see no inconsistency. Defending the liberty of the defendant and the right to walk along the street without being stopped by the police unjustifiably is just as important to my constituent who is burgled as ensuring that the burglar is caught.

I do not have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's 20 years in the House, but he is making a lot of assertions. I am still recovering from the fact that he was stopped and searched so often in his short pre-parliamentary lifetime. I worked in his constituency for eight years, and I was never stopped and searched once. [Hon. Members: ''Shame.''] The 20 photos were perhaps different.

The point that I wish to make is that 95 per cent. of acquisitive crimes committed in my constituency are committed by drug addicts who maintain that their lifestyle requires intervention at every level. Much of that acquisitive crime is shoplifting. It takes place six or seven times a day, every day, other than Sunday when the shops are not open and burglary goes up. How does that fit in with the hon. Gentleman's concept of the victim and the non-victim? Secondly, those young people who are stopped repeatedly are also hassled by those same drug addicts for money. How does that equate with his concept of liberty and police intervention?

I guess that we will come back to that elsewhere. Here we are dealing with the powers given to the police, which is a different issue. I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. We are dealing with the powers that are given to people whose job is to protect people. That is what the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is about. The clause is about that issue. He raises a linked issue, which is about people's liberty to go about their business without being harassed by other people. I am sympathetic to that.

People being harassed and intimidated by other citizens is equally unacceptable. It is a crime in many cases, and it needs to be dealt with. We need to ensure that our law and order agencies are more effective in dealing with that, but those are different issues. This is about what powers we give the police to stop people who are either committing an offence or going to commit an offence. I was keen that we do it on the basis of their reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed or is about to be committed.

This is quite an important point. I tried to get it over to the Conservative spokesman and I will try again to get it over to the Liberal Democrat

spokesman. The ''Gorblimey, Bill Sykes is a bit of a lad but he's one of us'' attitude is finished, certainly where I come from. We are not talking about someone who is in a bit of trouble here and there. We are talking about persistent, continuous offending that destroys people's lives. The hon. Gentleman talks about balance, but he does not talk about the other side of the equation. He talks about a person who might be an offender one week but a victim another. I do not recognise that picture. The picture I recognise is one in which more 90 per cent. of people are law-abiding and need the support of the criminal law. I admit that 10 per cent. may often perpetrate crimes on one another, but I do not mean it as a criticism when I implore him to help us find a way forward for the remaining 90 per cent. The rights of the 10 per cent. must also be safeguarded—I hope that what I said earlier shows that to be my belief—but we must start to consider what law-abiding people need from the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Minister must provide clarity and cross-referencing, otherwise the Bill will simply be another irrelevance to those law-abiding people who will feel that all the parties in Parliament have let them down once again.

We touched on these broad-ranging matters on Second Reading and before. They relate not only to legislation but to the use of existing powers, what the police do, whether they are efficient, what support they need and so on. Of course the law-abiding citizen needs to have the maximum protection against those who break the law. The hon. Gentleman and every other member of the Committee, including me, will have had surgery visits and correspondence from people who are concerned about the subject. I, too, have been stopped in the street by people expressing similar concerns.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield rightly made the point that not a single constituency, whatever its average income or ethnic make-up, is unaffected by the issue. I am no different from any of my colleagues, and claim no greater understanding of it. However, the real issues are what powers should be given to the police, and the basis of those powers. I understand the reasons for tabling amendment No. 1, but if they are answered by the traditional definition of theft, that is sufficient. I must say, however, that this is one case where it might be better to be explicit.

Amendment No. 27, too, would amend a complicated piece of legislation, so unfortunately, in some ways, we have started with something that is technical as well as substantive. That is no one's fault—it is simply the first issue to have been raised in the Committee. However, I am keen that the police officer carrying out a stop and search does not arrest people for possessing articles unless there is a reasonable suspicion, rather than a hunch, that those articles are obviously intended or adapted for use in a crime. That is important, and we are seeking to find a way of ensuring that the element of intention is included in the Bill. The drafting is not clear, but if the Minister can reassure us that the point about intention is covered, we will take the view that the law need not be amended.

I hope that members of the Committee realise that the point about liberty is important for the good of community relations, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) is as concerned as the rest of us. If we get the balance wrong, we risk the possibility of community relations becoming worse. That is why these difficult issues need sensitive consideration. I want a community in which my constituents, whatever their age or colour, believe that the police will take powers only when they need them and that they will treat all people equally. When that happens, we will have made huge progress.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has done the Committee a great service in opening the debate.

Some people believe that criminal damage caused by graffiti is a low-level crime. I take the contrary view that it is a very serious crime. It breeds an atmosphere of criminality in estates and fear in communities. It also creates a fertile ground for other, more serious crimes to thrive. It blights many communities, and changes them from areas where one would want to live into areas not only where one would not want to live but where one would be frightened to live. It is an important issue, and a good starting point for our discussion of the Bill.

The Metropolitan police service is one of several organisations that welcome the extension in the clause and strongly support the inclusion of the power to search for items that could cause criminal damage. It believes that that has been an obvious omission from the search powers for many years, and that its inclusion will assist in the prevention of criminal damage and associated antisocial behaviour that blights so many communities. I say, ''Hear, hear'' to that.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 1 are probing amendments. I share the view expressed today by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that it has been the devil's own job to match up the sections and subsections of the Acts to which one needs to refer. More than once, I have felt myself to be entirely ignorant when I looked up a section of an Act referred to in the Bill and could not find a section with that number. Presumably, I needed to refer to other documents, but I have not had time to do that, and have had to do my best with what I have to hand.

I understand the basic point to be that a constable may search a person for anything that is a prohibited article. In section 1(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an article is prohibited if it is an offensive weapon, but also if it is an article

''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence . . . or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.''

My first difficulty is that subsection (8) refers to the offences to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies, but does not refer to subsection (7)(b)(ii). Will the Minister clarify that?

An article is prohibited if it is an article

''made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence''

such as burglary or theft under section 12 of the Theft Act. Subsection (7)(b)(ii), however, refers to an article being

''intended by the person having it with him for such use.''

There is no link between that intention and the offences mentioned in subsection (8), and I wonder whether there should be such a link. That is the reason for the probing amendment No. 27. The question of what the articles might be that could be made or adapted for the purposes of criminal damage should also be examined carefully.

When the Minister spoke about amendment No. 1, he said that the offence of going equipped to steal was included under theft. Will he be more specific about that? Subsection (8) discusses the offences to which subsection (7)(b)(i) applies but to which subsection (7)(b)(ii) does not. The first offence that it refers to is burglary. The second one is theft. Theft is defined under the Theft Act 1968 as appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of depriving the other of it permanently and behaving dishonestly. When one is charged with theft in the Crown court, the indictment sets out the section and charges one with theft, and theft alone. Paragraph (c) deals with offences under section 12 of the Theft Act, which covers taking a motor vehicle without consent, commonly called TWOC, for the purposes not of stealing it but of joyriding.

Paragraph (d) refers to offences under section 15, which deals with obtaining property by deception. In reality, the offence of going equipped to steal is an offence under section 25 of the 1968 Act. That is a different offence. Where a person is not at his place of abode and has with him any article for use in the course of, or in connection with any burglary, theft or cheat, that person is subject to a charge under section 25 of the Theft Act. I hope that the Minister will say something about the issues surrounding going equipped to steal. Typically, someone goes equipped to steal from a car or from a motorbike, not from a property, because that would be burglary. A person who goes equipped to do that would, typically, have about their person, more keys than they should have, or a piece of wire. Hon. Members have no idea how many people appear in court for going equipped to steal with a piece of stiff wire or a coathanger. Those who know what they are doing can open 90 per cent. of cars with a wire coathanger in seconds. The Committee should ponder the relevance of those items in people's possession. I find it easier to say that someone who has 36 keys in his pocket, no vehicle and no front door may be about to commit the crime of going equipped to steal, although people also carry coathangers from dry cleaners.

We need to be clear about this. If someone is walking down the street with an aerosol can and a policeman thinks that he is about to commit an offence with it, can the policeman simply stop and search that person? Where is the requirement, if there is one, for some intention on the part of the person with the aerosol can to use it in connection with criminal damage? Ditto the person carrying the other

items that I mentioned. We must bear it in mind that the charge of going equipped to steal is entirely separate from theft, so it is hard to see how it can be included under the generic definition of theft. If it could be, the rest of the clause would not refer to other offences under the Theft Act.

I move on to robbery. I do not want to move into a fanciful world, but people can have all sorts of items with them for use in connection with robbery, which is not defined here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said so tellingly, all sorts of items can be carried about with the intention of committing all sorts of offences. The subject is slightly difficult.

All that I have tried to do is to point out to the Minister the question marks in my mind. I think that the Committee would appreciate a little clarification on the issue of intent. However, I would do less than my duty if I did not say how right the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was to recognise that the use of graffiti is becoming a terrible scourge. Any powers that we can sensibly give to the police to stop it would be well worth taking.

This has been a useful debate. We have covered all the ground on the clause in debating the amendment.

The clause originates in the review of PACE that was undertaken and published earlier this year, as hon. Members will be aware. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that there was a strong police request that stop-and-search powers be extended in such a way. The reason for the clause has been acknowledged in several contributions, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right when he said that in the end we were discussing a balance. In a sense, all police powers are an infringement on the liberty of the individual, but we decide to give the police certain powers in the interests of protecting the rights of others or of society as a whole. Therefore, one has to balance the impact that stop-and-search can have with the sheer misery caused by crime. The police are conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

We should not question the interests of any member of the Committee as regards their constituents, whether they live in leafy suburbs or deprived inner-city communities. Many of my constituents do not have a lot of money and live in areas of great deprivation. They tend to experience more crime than those in the leafy suburbs, but it can occur in any part of the country. I would not want any member of the Committee to question the bona fides of any other. By all means, let us say that we do not think that the argument has been put correctly; by all means, let us say that we do not think that hon. Members have balanced correctly in their contributions the need to protect the rights of the individual against the need to protect people that we all represent from utter misery. The clause is about giving the police more power to protect those people. That is why we are trying to get the balance right.

In asking the Committee to resist the amendments, I want to explain why the points that have been

legitimately raised are covered by what the clause proposed, or would have other adverse consequences that probably were not intended by those who tabled them. I can tell the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking, in relation to the point about ''going equipped'' and robbery, that there is no need to add the offences suggested in amendment No. 1, as they are covered by the general reference to ''theft'' in section 1(8)(b) of PACE.

As for ''going equipped'', we are talking about items that will be made, adapted or intended for use for stealing—for theft. For that reason, the wording of section 1(7) of PACE makes the Government's view clear. We do not disagree with the intention that going equipped should be covered by stop-and-search powers, which is why we are firmly of the view that it is already covered by legislation. Similarly, those considerations apply in relation to robbery, which is defined as stealing with force or threat of force.

I remind the Committee that in exercising stop-and-search powers, police officers must have a reasonable suspicion. The PACE code of practice A describes the types of circumstances that can be taken into account. I refer hon. Members who wish to consider the matter in more detail to that document.

Amendment No. 27 is unnecessary, because the current stop-and-search framework set out in section 1 of PACE makes it clear that a constable can stop and search a person only if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find articles made or adapted for use in the course of, or in connection with, a relevant offence, or intended by the person having them for such use. The test is whether the item is made, adapted or intended for such use. That list currently applies to burglary, theft, offences under section 12 of the 1968 Act, and offences under section 15 of the 1968 Act. A new section 1(8)(e)—on criminal damage—will be added to PACE. Therefore, the point made in amendment No. 27 is already catered for. The amendment would also stop a constable from searching for articles specifically made or adapted for use in destroying or damaging property.

I can see the force of what the Minister says. It seems that if the failure lies anywhere, it is with the way that PACE was originally drafted. The provisions were extremely opaque, and only as the debate proceeded did it become apparent to me what the Minister was trying to say. I cannot blame the Minister for that. However, it is rather unlikely that many items will be made or adapted. It is always likely that an intention will have to be shown, because of the very nature of the items under discussion.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He rightly detected the thought processes that have gone on in the course of the debate. If the concern that he raised was correct, the existing parts of section 1(8) of PACE—burglary, theft and other offences—would not apply to the question of intention. That was clearly not intended. For opaque reasons that I do not pretend to understand fully, the advice is that such provisions apply. We can therefore safely add a new section 1(8)(e), which will deal with the problem of intent.

As I am sure hon. Members acknowledge, everything will depend on the circumstances. A police officer who, for the sake of argument, entered railway premises at night where trains had been spray-painted—as happens regularly—and encountered two young people would have reasonable grounds both for suspicion and to stop and search, to see whether those people were carrying a can of spray paint. We shall of course have to rely on the discretion and common sense of police officers to apply the new law in that way. That is why the power would be welcome.

Finally, on Amendment No 71, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North that no discourtesy was intended in relation to the previous debate. I must be more fleet of foot. He made many good points. He appears to have tried to draft an alternative approach to dealing with the problem about which he spoke with such passion. It is unfortunate that his amendment would only cover articles that had been used in the commission of such offences. Our proposed clause would cover items made, adapted or intended for such purposes, and would therefore be more useful to the police, enabling them to deal with the types of problem that, I am sure hon. Members recognise, cause our constituents distress. That is why I believe that the clause as currently drafted achieves the objective.

I hope that I have satisfied the Committee on the points that have been raised, and I would resist the amendments that have been debated.

I thank the Minister for his careful and considerate reply. I also press him to write to me regarding the arguments that I advanced in the debate on the programme motion. It would be extremely helpful to put those points to rest.

I will.

I am grateful for that reassurance. The Minister has been well probed and has responded to our promptings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on

the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.