Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

9 Oct 2006 : Column 88

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, of course I shall withdraw the words “lent on”. The discussions were useful and constructive. ACPO decided that it would like to have intra-ACPO discussions. All I say is, “Well done, Sir Humphrey”.

Of course the police need to consider carefully how they would use a power such as the one that we are discussing. They need to use their judgment. They have to consider carefully the range of issues involved, whether that be removing guns or community relations. But that does not mean that they should not have an instrument that enables them to remove guns. It is for Parliament to give that instrument to the police and it is for the police to use their judgment appropriately and properly to apply the measure as and where they feel that it would be helpful.

I want to send a clear message to the criminal fraternity that it will become extremely risky for anyone to carry an illegal gun. That would also send a clear message to the public that the police now have a clear and simple statement of legislative power to take guns off the streets before they are used. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has always been persistent on this issue. I have often supported him on this during Questions to the Minister, and today will be no exception.

An unacceptable gun culture has obviously developed in this country during recent times. Shootings in the streets or in fast food restaurants are often reflected in newspaper headlines. Gun crime has grown at an alarming rate in this country, with overall gun crime doubling since 1997. Crimes involving imitation firearms have quadrupled. When this matter was brought forward in Committee, I was somewhat concerned about the very wide nature of the amendment. Since then, in our discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, it has been tightened by the use of the word “that” in paragraph (a). We are now happy to support the amendment.

The vast majority of people who own guns legally use them responsibly. The aim of further changes to the law must be to tackle the threat from weapons that are held or used illegally. Gun crime is a complex problem, and tackling it requires a holistic approach. We need to use intelligence-led policing to attack the organised criminal gangs that are responsible for many shootings. In order to achieve a better rate of conviction, we need to encourage more people to come forward by improving the protection offered to vulnerable witnesses. It is also important that the Government support the community groups working with those young people who are at risk of becoming involved in drugs and gun crime. We hope that the amendment will send a signal that more needs to be done to tackle this problem. I support the intention behind the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, and I have added my name to his amendment. He is right to bring this matter before the House again, and I hope that it may be resolved in his favour tonight—I hope by the Minister

9 Oct 2006 : Column 89

being able to agree with my noble friend. It is also right, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, that the majority of firearms are legally held and responsibly used. None of us is trying to target legislation at those who behave responsibly. The fear of gun crime is strong, and the risk of gun crime is real in some parts of the country. The illegal use of guns on some of our streets brings injury to some and misery to many; it is the scourge of a generation in some parts of our society. The considerable merit of my noble friend’s amendment is in the simplicity of the description of the powers that he seeks to confer on the police. I am aware, of course, that powers already exist to enable the police in certain circumstances to search people, but those powers are to be extracted from a myriad legislative instruments.

Since Committee, my noble friend has carefully considered the drafting of his amendment, and he has made one small change which should meet the concerns of those who felt that the power might appear to go more widely than my noble friend intended. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for indicating that the change has helped him to support my noble friend. If the Government wish to give a clear message about their commitment to reducing the level of gun crime, they have the opportunity to do so tonight by accepting my noble friend’s amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straight away that the Government agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, agreed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The recent tragic shootings have highlighted once again that the fight against gun crime is far from over. We have already put in place legislation to support that fight; for example the five year minimum sentence for those adults convicted of unlawful possession of prohibited firearms.

The Government take gun crime extremely seriously. That is why I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue with the noble Lord in our telephone conversation last week. There was nothing on which we disagreed about the nature of the crime and the need to face it with all possible tools. There is legislation in place that provides a range of enforcement powers to the police under Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968. I realise that I am repeating what has been said on this issue, but the facts remain the same. For example, in the circumstances specified in the legislation, a constable can require a firearm or ammunition to be handed over for examination; the person can be searched and detained for the purpose of the search; if a vehicle is involved, the vehicle may be searched and the person driving or in control of it can be required to stop it; and, furthermore, for the purpose of exercising these powers a constable may enter any place.

7.15 pm

The Government have made clear their commitment to tackling gun crime and to ensuring that the police have sufficient and proportionate powers to help make communities safe. The existing

9 Oct 2006 : Column 90

legislation helps meet those objectives, and no purpose would be served by duplicating the powers available under existing legislation. The police agree with that view. The Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on stop and search, Deputy Chief Constable Craig Mackay of Gloucestershire, said that he was not aware from his portfolio of the service asking for this power or identifying a gap in current legislation that requires a new power and that, as drafted, the amendment is a major extension to police powers and raises some real issues of interpretation that could cause community concerns. The ACPO’s lead on the criminal use of firearms, Chief Constable Keith Bristow of Warwickshire, concluded that this might be a step too far, due to the complexities stated by DCC Mackay. He confirmed that while appreciating the support of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for the police, ACPO is unable to support his amendment.

Further, I cannot accept that the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill would serve as a declaratory statement either to the police or to the general public. The police are well aware of the high priority that we place on the fight against gun crime and are already fully trained in the use of their powers under existing legislation. The introduction of powers that duplicate existing provisions could only serve to confuse them, and I know that is not something the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, would wish.

The House will be aware that, lamentably, the general public are not in the habit of reading Bills or Hansard. Indeed, rumour has it that following the deliberations of this House late at night does not cull from the public the interest that it might otherwise deserve, which is much to be lamented. Therefore, I cannot agree that the amendment would raise the profile of gun crime in the public’s consciousness in the way that the noble Lord suggests. We have run a number of public information campaigns about the issue, and we will continue to do so in the future. I respectfully suggest that those are more likely to have the effect that the noble Lord is seeking to achieve than a declaratory amendment to the Bill. The noble Lord does not suggest that the amendment adds anything to the legislation that we already have; it simply adds a new complex arrangement that police officers would be burdened to have to learn in addition to all the others. It adds very little.

Given that we now have a clear view from the Association of Chief Police Officers that the new power is not needed, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. He is to be commended for his persistence on this important issue. He is right to raise it, but may I suggest that the benefit of so doing has already been delivered and we should press the matter no further? It has now had five outings and it is perhaps time to put the amendment to bed. I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment this evening.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the telephone conversation that I had with the noble Baroness was of course immensely agreeable, as is any conversation with her either on the telephone or face to face. Her speech was exactly what I thought it would be; it was

9 Oct 2006 : Column 91

largely what she had said previously. I offer my humble congratulations to Sir Humphrey in these matters. I am aware that the Home Office is opposed to ideas that do not come from itself; I have had the long experience of the requirement for the firearms register being on the statute book for nine years and nothing being done because the Home Office did not like it.

I am not concerned at all as to whether there would be some duplication. This clear statement of the law would quickly get through to the public; not by reading Hansard—of course not—but the media do a good job sometimes and they are taking a great interest in gun crime at present, and rightly so. If I had been given the opportunity of talking to her right honourable friend the Home Secretary, he might well have been pretty much in favour of this amendment. If I were a politician in the Government, I would see this as an opportunity to take action, rather than using words and setting up further consultations for the long term. The long term is too long because, as Keynes notably, or rather, lamentably, said—sadly, in this case, with accuracy—people are dead.

We need to take guns off the streets now. It is possible to do so. My amendment would help that to happen, which is why I would like to test the opinion of the House.

7.21 pm

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 2


Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Arran, E.
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Burnett, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chidgey, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Craigavon, V.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Donoughue, L.
D'Souza, B.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Fearn, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Garden, L.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Laird, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Listowel, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L. [Teller]
Mayhew of Twysden, L.

9 Oct 2006 : Column 92

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Moynihan, L.
Neuberger, B.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Noakes, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Ramsbotham, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Seccombe, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Stewartby, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tonge, B.
Tordoff, L.
Trimble, L.
Tyler, L.
Waddington, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.


Acton, L.
Adonis, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bilston, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Colville of Culross, V.
Crawley, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Grabiner, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Leitch, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Prosser, B.
Puttnam, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9 Oct 2006 : Column 93

7.31 pm

[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]

Clause 13 [Information gathering powers: extension to domestic flights and voyages]:

Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 61:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 is grouped with Amendment No. 62, which was tabled in Committee but not debated. These amendments address the extension of powers granted in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to reveal passenger lists to the law agencies. Those powers will be extended under the Bill to domestic flights—that is, to flights starting from and ending in this country. Our concern, and the reason for the amendment, is the increase in surveillance. We want to support the Government in disrupting terrorism and preventing crime, but, as ever, doing that leads to tensions over people’s civil liberties and their right to a private life.

How effective will the measures be? There will not be equal surveillance on the roads or the railways. A terrorist who is creating a pattern for police officers to observe might well choose different forms of transport, so we are not sure that such powers are an effective tool for disruption. However, they could be, so we should consider them seriously. We need to consider appropriate safeguards to protect the individual’s right to privacy.

There is also the question of whether a circuit judge is at the appropriate level for this measure. In some ways, a magistrate might be more appropriate because the Government propose that a superintendent makes the request for information and a magistrate is at an equivalent level. There is a belief on these Benches that some judicial oversight is needed because there is a principle in common law that a decision that has been made by law should be able to be reviewed later. We understand from the Home Office that the purpose of these measures is to spot developing patterns and to track such things so that crimes can be prevented and terrorism disrupted.

At the heart of this amendment is the right to privacy, and that is its purpose. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I understand the purport of the noble Lord’s amendment. However, requiring a police officer to obtain a warrant from a circuit judge each time he wants to submit a request for data would be a huge

9 Oct 2006 : Column 94

burden on the police and the courts. It would have a significant impact on police operations by adding a delay into the system for making requests. That could potentially have serious consequences if the police receive intelligence that needs to be acted upon immediately. It would also increase police bureaucracy, as requests would have to be submitted twice: once to the circuit judge and, if a warrant were issued, once to the carrier. That would apply equally if the request were made to a magistrate rather than a circuit judge, although applying to a circuit judge would be even more cumbersome.

If the purpose of this amendment is to introduce a safeguard, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that a number of safeguards are already built into the process; I shall outline them. It will be lawful under Section 32(4) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 for a police constable at the rank of superintendent or above to request information only if it is necessary for police purposes. Any request must specify the period during which it has effect, up to a maximum period of six months. The police and all public authorities are under a duty pursuant to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to ensure that they comply with convention rights. The use of personal data will also be compliant with the obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. We do not consider that this amendment is necessary or practicable.

However, I thank the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to outline the safeguards because I know that people have concerns about how this procedure will operate, how we will make sure that personal and private data are properly protected and whether the Data Protection Act applies. I understand that those concerns have been in circulation and therefore I am pleased to have an opportunity to state on the record that the safeguards are there and we do not think that the anxiety that people properly have is founded in fact. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the safeguards. In the light of them, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Clause 15 [Power to apply accreditation provisions]:

Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 63:

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was debated in Committee. We do not object to Clause 14, which gives trading standards inspectors the power to impose fixed penalties on people who sell alcohol to children. Our objection is to Clause 15, which gives the Secretary of State a delegated power to specify unlimited categories of people whom chief police officers would be able to accredit with the power to give fixed penalty notices. There would be no restriction on the groups of people who could be specified. The Government could use this power to give punitive powers to wholly inappropriate groups

9 Oct 2006 : Column 95

of people: for example, dinner ladies could be allowed to fine children for fighting in the playground; bouncers could be allowed to fine pub-goers for being drunk and disorderly or supermarket check-out staff could be allowed to fine shoplifters. I say these things because Liberty has given me examples that are quite amusing. In recent years, we have heard of ridiculous uses of on-the-spot fines: an Oxford student was given a fixed penalty notice for a drunken joke about a policeman’s horse being gay and pro-hunting campaigners were fined for selling T-shirts bearing uncomplimentary remarks about the Prime Minister. Most recently, we have heard a proposal to use fixed penalty notices against people who drop cigarette butts in the street or put their rubbish out on the wrong day of the week. It is to restrict the extent to which further people are given such powers that I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to specify unlimited categories of people to whom chief officers of police could give the power to give fixed penalty notices. That is a clear, straightforward and wide-ranging power and it is right that we should look carefully at the potential it has to change the way in which our courts work.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page