Lords Hansard text for 4 Jul 200604 July 2006 (pt 0828)

Police and Justice Bill

House again in Committee.

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Clause 10 agreed to.

Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 91:

4 July 2006 : Column 203

(a) for the area to be sealed off; and (b) for the searching for firearms of any people or vehicles in that area, by whatever means he considers appropriate.”

The noble Lord said: This is the third occasion on which I have tabled an amendment to give greater and clearer powers to the police to fight gun crime, and it may not be the last. Fortunately, the Home Office brings forward so many new Bills that there is no problem finding an appropriate legislative slot. This Bill is particularly appropriate for my amendment for a new clause, to be inserted after Clause 10, to empower the police to seal off an area and search people for illegal guns.

I make no apology for my persistence because, as the situation develops, the case for deterring and preventing gun crime becomes more urgent. Not only is the murder rate in England and Wales increasing dramatically, by over 30 per cent in the past 10 years—that compares with an increase in the total population over the same period of only 2 per cent—but in 2004-05, the latest year for which figures are available, 77 murders were committed with guns, which is 12 per cent more than in the previous year. Nearly one in 10 murders is classified as killing by shooting.

I also remind the Committee, and the Government, that during the same 10 years the number of offences involving firearms rose from 13,000 to 23,000, an increase of 77 per cent. Of course, much worse than the number of shootings actually committed—many of which are the result of gang warfare that is often linked to drugs—is the fear that the spreading gun culture engenders among the general population. In certain areas of Britain, there is a widespread belief, whether justified or not, that guns are routinely carried on our streets. In my view, the Government have an obligation to which they should attach the highest priority to reduce, indeed to minimise, such fear.

There can be no more corrosive influence on the quality of life, for rich or poor, young or old, male or female, black or white, than fear for personal safety. Many years ago, in quite another context, President Roosevelt tried to encourage the American people with his famous exhortation,

8.30 pm

The risk of carrying a gun must be made unacceptably high. Fortunately, the remedy is simple and cheap. I refer of course to metal detectors. Most of the population are fully familiar with metal detectors from their everyday lives, particularly at the entrances to many buildings and before boarding all flights. Who of us, however foolish, would presume to attempt to pass through security at an airport carrying a gun? Not only is the hand-held metal detector rapid to use, but it does not involve touching the persons of those subject to the check—that is

4 July 2006 : Column 204

important. It is a great deal easier to search people for guns than it is for drugs. The police are already familiar with the use of such detectors.

My amendment would allow the police to seal off any area and check for those who are illegally carrying guns. They could use the power as and when they thought proper. I am well aware that there are concerns, fuelled by recent events—particularly perhaps at Forest Gate on 2 June—about the judgment of the police in using their existing anti-terrorist powers and the adverse consequences that there can be for race relations if these powers are not used sensibly and sensitively. I recognise that the power that I propose could, if used inappropriately, result in problems of that sort. I believe that the police understand these dangers and learn from every unfortunate accident. If, however, the drafting of my amendment could be improved to reduce further that risk, without affecting the purpose of the powers that I want the police to have, I would be delighted to consider changes.

I wish to deal with two other points. First, would the police like to have these powers? Secondly, do we need them? When we last discussed the issue, on22 May, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who is sitting in his place, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Condon, as having said in March 2002 that the view of the police service was that there was an adequate menu of powers in relation to gun crime.

I fear that, as so often, the Home Office is unaware that things have moved on in the past four years. Earlier this week, I discussed my amendment with ACPO. It confirmed that it does indeed have powers under a number of Acts of Parliament, but that those powers vary and have to be used in specific circumstances. ACPO told me that it always welcomes simpler powers and that my amendment seemed to be, and I quote their words, “ideal from our perspective”.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, a most experienced and respected lawyer, got it exactly right when, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on 22 May, he said:

Official Report

My amendment seeks to reassure those of our citizens who live in fear of gun crime that the police have the clear means to make it far more risky than it is today for anyone to carry an illegal firearm anywhere. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has been very consistent in his concern about this matter. I well recall supporting some of his moves in respect of registered firearms. He is quite right to point out that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford supported one of his amendments and that we voted for that amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has tried a number of avenues to bring attention to this very serious problem, including during discussions on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. I say to him and the Minister that we support the principle behind this amendment. As the noble Lord

4 July 2006 : Column 205

rightly points out, gun crime has grown at an alarming rate in this country, doubling since 1997. The number of crimes involving imitation firearms has quadrupled.

The vast majority of gun owners use them legally and responsibly. The aim of further changes to the law must be to tackle the threat from weapons held or used illegally. Gun crime is obviously a complex matter; tackling it requires a holistic approach. We need intelligence-led policing to attack the organised criminal gangs responsible for many shootings. In order to achieve a better conviction rate, we need to improve the protection offered to vulnerable witnesses to encourage more people to come forward.

I have studied this amendment carefully. While its aim is to be commended, I have some reservations about its wording, although, as I said, not its principle. We worry that the amendment, as currently phrased, may be too broad. The police, quite rightly, already have the power to stop and search people of whom they are reasonably suspicious. However, the amendment appears to give them the ability to stop and search anyone living near or standing beside the person of whom they are suspicious. Given that the area that the police may seal off for this purpose is completely undefined, this stop and search could be extremely extensive.

Setting all these issues aside, I believe that we need to take forward and discuss this matter. Bearing in mind our concerns, I ask the Minister whether she would consider it appropriate—in order to tease out some of the issues reflected in this amendment—for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and a number of us who share his concerns to discuss this matter further and to see whether the existing provisions are appropriate. If not, is there anything else that we can do to draw attention to the serious problem that we face in this country and together to reach a solution on Report? To do anything at this stage could be counterproductive. We are aware that there are laws, but I think that we need meetings in which the situation is explained so that we can take this issue forward. So, the support is there, but we need far more information from the Minister. This may not be the appropriate time to talk about these issues. I press the Minister to say how she will respond on this matter.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name. My noble friend Lord Marlesford has indeed shown admirable persistence in bringing this matter forward for debate and he is absolutely right to do so. He has raised the matter on three previous occasions: in March 2002; in October 2003, during discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill, which was the first occasion on which I had the opportunity to take part in these important debates; and, most recently, during our debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, just before the Whit Recess.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right to stress that the majority of firearms are legally held and responsibly used. None of us is trying to target legislation at those groups. My noble friend Lord

4 July 2006 : Column 206

Marlesford was also right to point out how real the fear of gun crime and the illegal use of guns is for people in some areas. It makes life unpredictable and, sometimes, unbearable. Firearms used for illegal purposes are the scourge of a generation in some areas. They are perceived to be a great threat. Even if that is not true in all areas, it is certainly perceived as such. Often it seems that guns are used on our streets by criminal gangs, often those trading in drugs or people-trafficking. They have no regard for their trading enemies’ lives and little if any regard for the safety of the public on the street. It is that by-product of their violence that we also seek to contain.

The considerable merit of the amendment is the simplicity of the statement of the powers that my noble friend seeks to confer on the police. I know that there is always a tension in legislation and that one wants to achieve a clearly defined result by giving a simple body of powers—it gets more and more difficult to define such powers effectively so that one does not give rise to unintended consequences. I am aware that powers already exist that enable the police in certain circumstances to search people, but those powers are to be extracted from a number of legislative instruments. If the Government wish to give a clear message about crime—perhaps I should say “continue to give”, because I know that they, especially the Minister, have been trying to give that message—my noble friend’s amendment would assist them to do precisely that.

I am interested to hear that my noble friend has been in contact with ACPO and that he has had a positive indication from its members that they would welcome a clarified and simpler power. I appreciate the difficulties that police officers face in trying adequately to protect the public while at the same time responding rapidly to violent circumstances. It is the prevention of crime that is so important and that my noble friend is trying to achieve by his amendment. I know that the Government in other measures are seeking to prevent the carrying of weapons. We can see that in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, in which they are giving teachers greater and welcome opportunities to search pupils for bladed weapons. I was interested to read in the press this weekend that Mr McNulty, the Minister in another place, is minded to see whether he can widen the provisions in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill that have already gone through Committee stage in this House. We await his proposals with interest.

The Government will not find us churlish in responding to measures that they put forward that will properly give powers of search, whether to the police or to other responsible and appropriate bodies. It is right that we should focus our attention on my noble friend’s amendment for its positive attributes, but I also fully respect the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I am grateful to hear from him that he supports the principle behind the amendment and that he is keen to work with my noble friend to see what can be achieved by way of better drafting. I understand what he says with regard to his concerns about the power appearing to be too broad. I say “appearing”, because I know that my noble friend’s intention is that the power would not be too broad

4 July 2006 : Column 207

and that there would not be leakage across the border of a defined area—I know that he is trying to get a carefully targeted area in which the police can operate. I am sure that my noble friend will be at one with the noble Lord on that point.

Of course it is absolutely vital that in giving any new power to the police in sensitive times—and, indeed, on any occasion—we should ensure that we do nothing to inflame sensitivities in various communities about how they may be treated differently or disadvantageously as opposed to other communities. There is no way that one wants to upset community relations. On the other hand, the best communities are well regulated, secured and protected from people who carry weapons.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, even if she is not able to accept the amendment tonight. Given her past responses, I think that we are going to be disappointed, but I hope that instead of full disappointment we will receive some encouragement. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that she wants to engage in discussions over the summer so that we can by agreement come up with an amendment that can go in the Bill in the autumn to achieve on Report what my noble friend justifiably wants: the greater protection of the public.

8.45 pm

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I immediately add my voice to those of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in commending the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on his perseverance in bringing forward this amendment, which, as others have mentioned, he most recently tabled in the passage of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. This is the fourth time that we have had the enjoyment of considering this issue. I am afraid that I am unlikely at this stage to be able to give him very much comfort, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Bassam outlined when debating that Bill.

I absolutely accept that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, accepts that there are provisions in the various legislative frameworks that we have created which would enable what he seeks to be done. Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 already provides a police officer with a range of enforcement powers to tackle the issue that the noble Lord has highlighted. For example, the following wide-ranging powers are available to the police: they can require a firearm or ammunition to be handed over for examination; they can search a person and detain them for the purposes of doing so; when a vehicle is involved, they can search the vehicle and require the person driving to control and stop; and for the purpose of exercising these powers, a constable can enter any premises. Those powers are generally available.

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s confirmation that we are as one in our abhorrence of gun crime and the strenuous efforts that we have made all round this Chamber and the other place to bring forward provisions that will effectively bite on the scourge of gun crime.

I do not know whether the noble Lord may have miscalculated, but I shall correct one statement that

4 July 2006 : Column 208

he made. He suggested that fatal deaths through gun crime had risen by 30 per cent; in fact, they have fallen by 30 per cent. In the 12 months to December 2005, fatal shootings fell from 73 to 51, a reduction of30 per cent. There has also been a reduction by about 3 per cent in firearms offences, a decrease of 313. But even saying that, I quickly assure him that we cannot be satisfied with any such decrease, because all of us would like the figure to be nil, and so long as it is not nil there is a great deal for us to do.

This Government have made that strong commitment to tackle gun crime clear by virtue of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, strengthening the existing legislation—as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly highlighted. I am very grateful to her for the indication that noble Lords opposite will be supportive of and look in a sympathetic light at provisions that we propose. I can reassure her that I understand the form in which the sympathy normally takes place—followed by a series of Divisions on amendments in all Bills!

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Well, I never like to disappoint the Minister. I carefully couched the general welcome of protection of individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who has been handling the Bill so ably from the government Benches—from their point of view and ours too—knows that I asked about searches by teachers, as one subsection appeared to give a general power of search. I did not receive an answer. It sounds as though the power that Mr McNulty may outline will be a reaffirmation of that. If the Government are going to introduce a much wider power of search, everybody will have to look at the implications. So the Minister is right: I welcome the objective but I look at the means to get there very carefully, with no hostage to fortune quite yet, I hope.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I rather feared that that might be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to pinpoint the issue with this power as one of scope. I understand what the noble Baroness says about not wanting it to bleed into other issues. I very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said about being content to look at the provisions again and seek to narrow them. I cannot give any hope in that regard, but I was very interested to hear the results of the noble Lord’s meeting with ACPO.

We appreciate the benefit of making legislation simpler and clearer, and we welcome ACPO’s views in that respect. However, we have not received any request or indication from ACPO that it wishes an extension of the existing powers in this area. I should be frank in saying that, to date, we have received the opposite impression. However, bearing in mind this new expression of its views through the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—and we are very conscious of recent events, and therefore the sensitivities with which we should view this—it might benefit us to have a meeting with the noble Lord, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, if that was felt appropriate, to explore what avenue, if any, there is in this matter. That could not be predicated

4 July 2006 : Column 209

on the basis that we would be likely to come forward with an agreed amendment, because of the difficulties we have experienced to date in trying to narrow this field.

One of the difficulties we have had on all provisions—and the noble Baroness has been one of the main architects of ensuring this—is that we have a whole series of specific restraints on each exercise of each power in each Bill, which would have to be consolidated in some way that I cannot envisage. A discussion about those issues, however, may be very helpful, as we may all be content thereafter that we have done our best with our existing legislation, and if not, we can see how we could do a little better.

Lord Marlesford: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall deal first with the figures. I did not say that murder by guns had gone up by 30 per cent. I said that the murder rate in England and Wales has increased by 30 per cent in the past 10 years, and that the number of people killed in the most recent year for which figures are available is up by 12 per cent compared to the previous year. My source for that is a Written Answer given in the House of Commons to Mr Iain Wright on 29 June 2006, so it is pretty recent. It is in Hansard at col. 660W.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand now the basis on which the noble Lord makes his assessment. In dealing with firearms we are looking at murder or deaths created by the use of a firearm, and that part has fallen.

Noble Lords will know that a very large percentage of unlawful killings, be they murder or manslaughter, are committed by people known to the victim. This year, for instance, we have had 100 deaths occasioned by domestic violence, the killing by one partner of another, while the year before there were 120. That issue is unrelated to the use of firearms. Deaths occurring from firearms have, by the grace of God, gone down by 30 per cent.

Lord Marlesford: All I can say is that in the column headed “Apparent method”—and it has about 10, including “Sharp instrument”, “Blunt instrument”, “Hitting, kicking, etc.” and “Strangulation”—there is a category for shootings. The figure for 2003-04 was 69, and for 2004-05 it is 77. I am just reading from Hansard, it is as simple as that. The overall figure of 30 per cent is the difference between the 632 in 1994 and the 820 in 2004-05. These are the Home Office’s own figures.

I am not wholly surprised that the Home Office is not always up to date with its own figures. I had not planned to mention this but I will now: only last week the Minister signed a Written Answer to me on whether foreign prisoners who had committed offences could apply for asylum on their release. I put that Question on 26 April, and the reply was given to me last week—nine weeks later. I could not understand it, and am told that it had been written wrongly, which was why to my untutored eye it was gibberish. One of the technical words used was incorrectly written. That is so casual; one does not have great confidence in the Home Office if it can make a silly mistake like that after nine weeks.

4 July 2006 : Column 210

The other point is on ACPO. Yesterday I spoke to that part of ACPO responsible for firearms. All I can do is quote what it told me: it may not have asked the Home Office for powers. Nobody is asking the Home Office for anything at the moment because of its internal problems. Let us not take too seriously the judgment of the Home Office at this particular period in our history.

I am glad the Minister is prepared to join our discussions. I understand that she can give no undertaking to accept an amendment. Equally we on these Benches, and possibly the Liberal Democrat Benches too, cannot give any undertaking not to bring forward on Report a further amendment on which we will seek to test the opinion of the House. As is often the case with amendments that the Home Office does not like, it will probably attempt to reverse it when it goes back into the Commons. All I am saying, fundamentally, is that the people of this country who live in fear of firearms would understand and welcome a simple change to the law that they could see as enabling the police to protect them. They would welcome that more than a lot of shilly-shallying at the Home Office, using its “not invented here” approach to anything that anybody suggests from outside. Having said that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness D'Souza moved Amendment No. 91A:

(a) enter the aircraft; or (b) arrange for a police constable to enter the aircraft.

(a) whether the aircraft is being, has been or may be used for an act of unlawful rendition; (b) whether a criminal offence has been committed; (c) whether allowing the aircraft to continue could place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights; and for these purposes the person may search the aircraft.

“an act of unlawful rendition” is an act involving the transportation of a person to a territory where international human rights standards, in particular protections against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, are not observed, such transportation not being in accordance with formal lawful extradition or deportation procedures;

4 July 2006 : Column 211

“a responsible person” means- (a) the chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales; (b) the chief constable of a police force maintained under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77); (c) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”

The noble Baroness said: This amendment has also had a previous incarnation earlier this year in the context of the Civil Aviation Bill. Some people thought that this was possibly not the most appropriate vehicle for it. There can be no doubt that the Police and Justice Bill is an entirely appropriate vehicle, or that this amendment will fit well within it.

It is a simple amendment, seeking to give appropriate powers to the police to search any aircraft at any airfield if there is suspicion that the aircraft may be, or had been, involved in the odious practice of extraordinary rendition. It seeks to ensure that the UK could not in the future be in any way implicated in the practice of extraordinary or unlawful rendition, and would reassure the public that the UK will not condone any aspect of unlawful rendition. Given the volume of news comments and the resulting unease about suspected UK involvement, by adopting this amendment the Government could provide immediate public confidence.

Clause 10 addresses the perceived gaps in existing legislation, in particular the existing restrictions on police powers to stop and search staff, visitors and members of the public at airports to deter theft and smuggling. The Bill also seeks to extend the power to question anyone in or near restricted zones of an airport. The emphasis in the Police and Justice Bill seems to be on confronting criminal activity. It does not enable the police to investigate any suspected breaches of international law governing human rights. This is a serious gap, and one which would be addressed by the amendment we are discussing.

Since the amendment was first moved in December last year—it was moved again in March this year—there has been much more evidence of the practice of rendition and strong circumstantial evidence that the UK has, wittingly or unwittingly, been complicit in the use of its airfield facilities and airspace. I refer to the recent report of an exhaustive inquiry by the Swiss senator, Dick Marty, the report by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, and the most recent Amnesty International reports on extraordinary rendition.

9 pm

To summarise this new evidence, I cite the case of Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, in which the UK’s involvement in their detention in the Gambia and subsequent rendition to Guantanamo Bay was confirmed by a series of revelations in the course of a judicial review by the High Court of England and Wales. It appears that the UK security services provided detailed information to the Gambian Government and thence to the CIA, enabling the detention, torture and rendition of those two British citizens. Amnesty International, in its report Partners in Crime, Europe’s role in US rendition, concluded that the UK was not only

4 July 2006 : Column 212

instrumental in the detention of those men, but complicit in their rendition and resulting torture.

Another case concerns Binyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian, who was given leave to remain in the UK, and was seized by the Pakistan authorities and interrogated in Pakistan by both American and British officials—and then transferred to Morocco by the Americans, where he was detained and tortured over an 18-month period. From Morocco, he was rendered by the Americans to Afghanistan for five months, where he was again tortured, and finally transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The only disclosed evidence against Mr Mohammed is statements extracted under torture. Mr Mohammed states that at every stage of his incarceration the British were implicit in interrogation, collusion with the Moroccan authorities and in providing detailed information.

Those cases stand apart from the large amount of evidence of CIA or CIA-leased aeroplanes using UK airfield facilities over a prolonged period. Over 200 identified CIA flights have passed through the UK over the past five years, giving rise to reasonable suspicion that at least some of those flights were involved in extraordinary rendition. Indeed, on 17 March this year, the Transport Secretary of that time revealed that six US planes alleged to be involved in extraordinary rendition had used UK airports 73 times since 2001. Mr Terry Davis remarked in his report that:

Given the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture and other international instruments that bind human rights provisions, it would appear that the Government are obliged to look into those allegations and to refute them with evidence. However, this amendment does not ask for investigations of the past or for recriminations on any cases, but simply seeks to set up proper arrangements to ensure that there is no further complicity and, therefore, to provide public confidence that we should be seen to be conforming with our international obligations and international law. I beg to move.

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page