Clause
78
Power
to search for
firearms
Mr.
Hogg:
I beg to move amendment No. 160, in
clause 78, page 43, line 10, after
first ‘may’, insert
‘, without lawful authority or
reasonable
excuse,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 161, in clause 78, page 43, line 10, after
‘firearms’, insert ‘, explosives or any noxious
substance’.
Mr.
Hogg:
I am conscious, Mr. Benton, that if we
were to debate the amendments in some detail it might preclude a stand
part debate. For myself, I am content that we should debate the
substance of the clause on the amendments, but it is, of course, a
matter for you. I intend to deal briefly with the question of firearms
through the amendments.
The
Chairman:
It is perfectly in
order.
Mr.
Hogg:
I am grateful, Mr. Benton.
Having looked at the
legislation that touches on firearms, I doubt whether the amendments
are necessary—and I rather doubt whether clause 78 is necessary.
However, the amendments at least enable us to explore that conclusion,
and perhaps the Minister will give some reassurance.
Amendment No. 160 would ensure
that the officer could not exercise the powers conferred on him by
clause 78 unless he had reasonable grounds to suspect that firearms
were present. That is intended to provide some additional safeguards
for the citizen. At the same time, I would extend the power to search
and seal to include noxious substances and explosives. The object is to
cover the current situation with terrorism.
One needs to ask—I made
my opening observation for this reason—what clause 78 brings to
the party. What new powers does it confer on the constabulary? It is
possible that it confers one—the power to seal off—but I
am not sure that it extends the powers of the constabulary beyond
that.
I am troubled
by the fact that their lordships spent a lot of time on this in the
other place. I know Lord Marlesford well, and have a great deal of
respect for his judgment. I notice that he tabled this amendment, or
something like it, on some three occasions and rallied to his cause a
lot of noble Lords, who supported it and incorporated it in the Bill.
Therefore, I approach the matter with some diffidence. However, I do
have difficulty in understanding why they did that. Section 47 of the
Firearms Act 1968 enables a constable, as now is, to stop a person whom
he has reasonable grounds for believing to have a firearm, search him,
detain him and, if necessary, search his vehicle as well. If I ask what
section 78 of the Bill brings to the party, the answer is the
sealing-off power, but I am not sure what is meant by sealing off that
is not already provided by section 47.
Lord Marlesford attached
considerable importance to the use of metal detectors, sensibly making
the point that one can use metal detectors without carrying out a
physical search, by running them up and down somebody’s clothing.
I should have thought that the use of metal detectors already came
within the power of search. I do not think that search necessarily
means putting one’s hands in people’s pockets, but it
could involve a metal detector if one wanted to use one. Although it is not offensive in
any way, I rather doubt that we need section 78. I should be grateful
if the Minister would reassure the Committee on that point. Would he
also be good enough to address my amendments? I have not checked this,
but I suspect that there is already—in terrorism legislation and
perhaps also in firearms legislation—a power to search where the
officer has reasonable grounds to suppose that noxious substances or
explosives are present. If that power does not exist, it should do, and
in the absence of that power I would strongly recommend my amendments.
However, I might have to support clause 78 in order to incorporate them
into law.
James
Brokenshire:
The clause touches on the apparent need to
strengthen the powers of the police to seal off areas in which they
suspect that a person or persons may be carrying firearms, and to
undertake certain searches.
I know that the Minister takes
a close personal interest in the matter. He and I have attended various
events at which the families of those affected by gun crime have been
present. I am sure that he would agree that we cannot overstate the
tragedy of such incidents for the people involved. He was moved, as I
was, by an event that we attended recently at City Hall. The testimony
of some of the mothers and other close relatives showed the devastating
impact of that terrible crime on many families in this country. Last
year, 50 people lost their lives through gun crime. I am sure
that the Committee will agree that that is 50 people too
many.
I am on record
as having said that we need to be careful in examining the issue and
considering whether further stop-and-search powers are required. I
stand by that. However, we are prepared to support measures if there is
an identified gap in the law, or if it can be demonstrated that the
measures are appropriate and necessary and would make a significant
impact in terms of dealing with this appalling crime.
Clearly the
culture of carrying weapons needs to be changed. It can be either for
the protection, or perceived protection, of the person involved, or as
part of asserting some sort of status within a criminal gang culture.
Getting guns off the streets must be an essential part of the strategy
to deal with serious violent crime. We must also do all that we can to
prevent weapons getting into this country in the first place, which is
why we support the establishment of a border police force to strengthen
our borders. We would also support measures to examine more closely
items coming into this country using the postal or courier services to
ensure that weapons are not being smuggled
in.
There is also the
cultural issue that I have talked about. We have to challenge the guns
and gangs culture, strengthen communities and the family unit and
undermine the criminal gangs. These gangs seek to recruit more
vulnerable members of the community into a pattern of crime, which,
once they are engaged
within it, is extremely hard although not impossible to break. They also
seek to disrupt the traditional bonds of kinship and family and other
linkages within society that might prevent that type of
activity. My right
hon. and learned Friend’s amendment is about effective law
enforcement and ensuring that the police have appropriate powers to
address this problem. Lord Marlesford, in moving his amendment which is
now incorporated into the Bill as clause 78,
said:
“The
purpose of the amendment is very simple: it is to help to get guns off
Britain’s streets, and thus to reduce gun crime, which is
causing misery not just to those who tragically get caught up in it but
to the far greater number whose anxiety has been growing over recent
years. Whether they are right or wrong, they perceive themselves as
vulnerable. The amendment would give the police a simple and
over-riding power which would enable them to make it far more risky for
anyone to carry an illegal firearm.”—[Official Report,
House of Lords, 30 April 2007; Vol. 691, c.
917.]
The Minister
will no doubt say in response to that point that the police have not
asked for these powers, that the Association of Chief Police Officers
says it is not necessary and that there is no gap in the law. However,
their lordships felt that there was a shortcoming. My right hon. and
learned Friend has identified a number of potential issues that need to
be examined closely to see whether there is a gap in the law. As
currently drafted the clause appears to have a very wide ambit. For
example, it can designate an area within which a search for firearms
can be conducted. The meaning and scope of that need to be examined
carefully. This provision would therefore need to be amended and
refined in some way and it is certainly something that must be looked
at actively if the clause is included in the Bill.
I note that my right hon. and
learned Friend seeks to extend the ambit of the clause by including
explosives and noxious substances. I would prefer to consider those
aspects as part of the Privy Council review of terrorism, given that it
touches on those sorts of issues. It might be more appropriate to
consider the way forward in the light of how the Privy Council
committee reports back on the serious issue of terrorism more
generally. We hope it will come forward with constructive solutions and
proposals that can gain cross-party
support.
11
am
We
understand that concerns have been raised in relation to the clause and
its scope. However, the noble Lord makes the more general point that we
need to consider carefully whether we need enhanced powers. We are
prepared to work with the Minister to discuss any measures that might
be appropriate, and if he is minded to table an amendment on Report or
to consider other proposals, then, subject to that discussion, he would
have our support if appropriate measures are deemed to be necessary and
are brought forward.
In that context, therefore,
although I note that the Minister will no doubt seek the wholesale
deletion of this clause, I would ask him to reflect carefully on the
points that my right hon. and learned Friend made about the issues that
might arise from this clause, which is why he tabled his amendments.
Before discounting this clause out of hand, the Minister should also
examine whether a clause of some form should be
retained in the Bill that might address certain issues that have
obviously been of concern to their lordships and which may be required
to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the power and
authority to intervene appropriately to combat this appalling crime,
which claims too many lives in this country each
year.
Mr.
Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): Thank you very much,
Mr. Benton, for giving me the opportunity to speak to clause
78 and amendments Nos. 160 and 161.
I
start with an understanding of what their lordships were trying to
achieve, because if one looks at the backdrop to this clause there is a
great deal of cause for concern. Last year, for example, there were 46
homicides involving firearms in the UK. In 2005-06, there were 4,036
robberies involving firearms, a 10 per cent. increase on the previous
year. Handguns were used in 4,652 offences during 2005-06, an increase
of 7 per cent. on the previous year. Finally, shotguns were used
in 639 offences during 2005-06, a 7 per cent. increase on the
previous year.
We now have
in this country a serious and escalating gun crime problem; it is not
necessarily escalating in every category, but the overall trend is
clearly upwards. The police have responded to that problem. Fifty-five
per cent. of firearms offences occur in the areas covered by just three
metropolitan forces: the Metropolitan police here in London, the force
in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands police. They have all put
in place specific programmes and initiatives to try to deal with gun
crime. Of course, the temptation for us as legislators is always to
think that the solution to problems of this sort is additional
legislation. It may be, in part, the solution on some occasions, but
the solution is also, of course, partly about the operational
initiatives undertaken by the
police.
So we have
this problem and that was no doubt the reason for the new clause being
introduced in the first place, and also for the House of Lords deciding
to support it. However, having said all of that, when one reads the
clause there are many reasons for concern. I note that the right hon.
and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, during his
contribution a few moments ago, that he did not regard the clause as
being “offensive in any way”. Well, I was quite surprised
that he said that, because there are reasons why people who are
concerned about civil liberties—I know that he is one of
them—would have reservations about the drafting of this
clause.
For example,
it gives any officer, even the lowest ranked officer, the power to seal
off an area—that area is not defined—by any means
necessary, which is an extremely wide remit, if he has “reason
to believe”, which again is an extremely wide remit, that
something is being done that is untoward involving a
firearm.
Mr.
Hogg:
Of course, the hon. Gentleman will also remember
that one of my amendments would require the officer to have reasonable
grounds to believe.
Mr.
Browne:
I take the point. The right hon. and learned
Gentleman’s amendments would improve the clause, but he said
that he might not wish to move them because he might see merit in
removing the clause altogether. My view is that, although the
motivation
behind the clause is honourable, the provisions of the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994 give the police the powers that they require
to deal with the problem. What is more, they are more tightly drafted
than the clause and more likely to ensure a balance between giving the
police the rightful ability to exercise their power to protect the
public and reassuring the public that their liberties are
safeguarded.
The
existing legislation is more practical in its application than this
widely drafted clause. For those reasons, subject to what the Minister
says, I suspect that there will be a consensus that, although
politicians must repeatedly turn to this issue to try to deal with the
problems, the clause is not the best way to do
so.
Mr.
Coaker:
I thank the Opposition Members who have
contributed to this important debate, which is of concern to everybody
throughout the country. Everybody wants to see gun crime and
firearms-related offences fall. Notwithstanding the points that the
hon. Member for Taunton made about the number of homicides, the overall
number of firearms offences in the year to December 2006 fell by 16 per
cent. Although there are issues to be resolved, there are also some
good points worth
mentioning.
To the
right hon. and learned Member
for—
Mr.
Hogg:
Sleaford and North
Hykeham.
Mr.
Coaker:
Yes, we will get there in the end. Sleaford at
five to
one.
James
Brokenshire:
The hon. Member for
Gelding.
Mr.
Coaker:
We all have problems with what our constituencies
are called.
I agree with
much of what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North
Hykeham said and I agree with the purpose of his amendments. The
Government will vote against the inclusion in the Bill of clause 78,
which will account for one of his amendments. With respect to his other
point, I understand that the power to search for explosives and so on
is contained in other terrorism-related legislation. Such points might
be subject to the review to which his hon. Friend the Member for
Hornchurch alluded. From those comments, I hope that it will be clear
that the amendments are unnecessary. The Government will vote against
the clause; the other amendment is covered in other
legislation.
The hon.
Member for Hornchurch mentioned the various events that we have been to
together. He made a point about the force of argument that the families
of victims bring to the debate. I know such families in Nottingham and
I have become friends with some of them. In one case, I was friends
with a family before their son became a victim of gun crime. I find it
remarkable that those families often turn their grief to the pursuit of
a way to reduce gun crime in the future. Those people, whose lives have
been devastated by an appalling murder, have the power and strength to
turn their grief towards something positive. One cannot fail to be
moved by those families, as were the hon. Gentleman and I and many
hundreds of other people at City Hall.
With all due humility, I say
that I am not often accused of saying that it is important to protect
the subject’s civil liberties. It am often accused of quite the
opposite—of riding roughshod over centuries of tradition and the
civil liberties of individuals. In this case, although no one can doubt
that the intention of those who tabled the clause is to reduce gun
crime, we have to be proportionate and sensible about it, and the power
proposed in the clause is draconian. Do we really want a police
constable who suspects that there might be a gun in an area to be able
to seal off that area, with no specification as to its size, with no
limit or safeguard in respect of the length of time that should be
allowed for, and without any reference to a senior officer? That leaves
aside the practicality of such an operation, which would involve
hundreds of police, blue tape and goodness knows what else.
We have
debated in this and many other Bills the need to limit arbitrary
powers, and I, and many other hon. Members, find it strange that
notwithstanding their good intent their lordships have introduced a
proposal that does something that they most often rail against us for
doing. In many respects, it is a role-reversal; we are saying that the
clause pushes too far and that we cannot just ride roughshod over
subjects’ civil liberties.
The public want as much as
possible to be done to combat crime, and especially gun crime, but if
people understood the powers that would be given to an individual
police officer in these circumstances the vast majority would not find
it acceptable. I therefore ask the Committee to vote against clause
stand part.
Clause 78
introduces additional powers for the police to seal off areas to search
for firearms, but there is already sufficient legislation, as the right
hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Section 47
of the Firearms Act 1968 gives the police powers to detain and search,
and a constable may enter any place to exercise those powers. Powers to
stop and search without reasonable suspicion within a specified area
are provided by section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994, but under strict and appropriate safeguards. ACPO has strongly
confirmed that it is fully satisfied with its powers in that respect,
and that it is concerned about the wide and unnecessary extension of
powers provided by the clause. Liberty has also expressed its concerns,
and agrees with our position on the complete lack of safeguards in the
provision, which shows that we do listen to
Liberty.
Under
the proposed power, any constable can decide to seal off an area with
no requirement to inform a senior officer, no indication of the extent
of the area and with no specified time limit. It is a disproportionate
provision, which could affect certain
communities.
Margaret
Moran (Luton, South) (Lab): I commend the
Minister’s remarks. Will he join me in commending the family of
Police Constable John Henry who was shot in Luton in my constituency a
few weeks ago, and the work they are doing to bring communities
together? I am aware from the Minister’s remarks that the
provisions could damage community relations in Luton, because they
would be wide open to complaints about abuse by the police should they
be enacted. That is a strong reason why the clause should be
removed.
11.15
am
Mr.
Coaker:
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I support
what she said about PC John Henry and the work that his family are
doing to try to reduce gun crime, and to get something out of that
tragedy by ensuring that such awful events do not take place. My hon.
Friend makes the important point that if we are not careful with
legislation, we damage community relations and contribute to disorder.
We must be careful. Although we want to tackle gun crime, we must
ensure that the legislation that we pass is proportionate.
Appropriate,
proportionate, intelligence-led policing such as that conducted by the
Metropolitan police through Operation Trident has proved to be
successful in tackling gun crime. Stigmatising certain communities by
cordoning off areas, which could happen under this clause, as my hon.
Friend pointed out, would not achieve that goal or help to develop
community cohesion. Our view is that the clause is both unnecessary and
potentially harmful. I ask the right hon. and learned Member for
Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw his amendments, and I ask hon.
Members to oppose the clause.
Mr.
Hogg:
I shall not put my amendments to a vote. I am
satisfied that the provisions of section 47 of the 1968 Act cover the
situation adequately. I am also persuaded by what the Minister has said
on the ambit of the powers contained in clause 78. They go too far. I
shall not vote to retain the clause in the Bill. I also take the
opportunity to say to you, Mr. Benton, and through you to
their noble lordships in the other place, that I hope they will not try
to reinsert the clause in the Bill. If they send it back to this House,
I will not support it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
78 disagreed
to.
| 
