| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: A large number of neighbourhood watch schemes exist across the country. From time to time many of them liaise closely with police forces. If the amendment is not accepted, I believe that they will be ruled out as regards effectively lodging a complaint of anti-social behaviour.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Circumstances arise, especially late at night but not only then, in which anti-social behaviour takes place within view of a constable. However, no member of the public may be about at the time to make a complaint. It would be totally unacceptable for the police to have in a sense both hands tied behind their back in those circumstances and to be unable to take the action expected of them to nip that anti-social behaviour in the bud.
Lord Borrie: It is a great pity that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, did not expand on his remarks. I was struggling to get into the Chamber and was not in my place. Therefore, I ask the Committee's indulgence for intervening at this somewhat late stage. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would explain the amendment as the comments of my
noble friend Lord Corbett, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the Minister surely make clear that a victim, although being the most appropriate person to complain, often does not feel up to it or is too nervous. However, a police constable may have seen everything that happened. Why should not the matter be left at that instead of being confined in the way the amendment suggests?
Lord Renton: So far as I remember, the offence of behaving in an anti-social manner was introduced for the first time in our law by Section 1 of the 1998 Act. The question whether Clause 44 will operate as the Government hope must depend upon any interpretation that the courts have already given to Section 1 of the 1998 Act. Can the Minister give any indication of what has happened under that head?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that in later amendments—their numbers escape me at the moment—the Government propose to extend anti-social behaviour orders across boundaries and make them travel with the person concerned. At that point I shall make a much more extensive speech about anti-social behaviour per se. So far, fewer than 500 such orders have been issued. They are becoming extremely successful, but I am aware from experience in my former constituency that they got off to a slow start.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Does the Minister agree with me that the whole purpose of the anti-social behaviour order was to remove the difficulty of witnesses giving evidence in cases of anti-social behaviour? Anything that neuters that objective—as the amendment does—should not be proceeded with. Clearly, the police are independent witnesses, as it were. My understanding of the purpose of the anti-social behaviour order was that it should become easier to prosecute offenders without necessarily relying totally on the evidence of the people involved, for example, witnesses and the people living next door. The amendment seems to me to require those people to get involved again. In a sense it negates the whole purpose of the original anti-social behaviour order.
Lord Bradshaw: That intervention is unhelpful. The greatest danger the police face is that witnesses will not be willing to come forward to support an anti-social behaviour order because they fear intimidation. If people were willing to give such information to a police officer, they would constitute valuable witnesses. They should be encouraged to come forward.
Viscount Bridgeman: I have been interested to hear the contributions. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak of our intention to oppose Clause 44 standing part of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that. I understand that the measure we are discussing is a new departure and that hitherto decisions on behaviour of this kind have been taken by the courts rather than by constables. The measure puts a large onus on constables. I was
interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about the necessity of, and the desirability for, witnesses to come forward wherever possible.
Lord Elton: I am slightly confused as to what we are doing. Amendment No. 270 and the Question that Clause 44 stand part of the Bill are not grouped. I imagine that we shall have a separate debate on the Question that Clause 44 stand part of the Bill. If we are rather surprisingly to roll the two matters together, some Members of the Committee may want to repeat or embellish what they have already said. However, I imagine that when the Minister has replied again, my noble friend will withdraw Amendment No. 270 and we shall then discuss the Question that Clause 44 stand part of the Bill. Am I right?
Viscount Bridgeman: That is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Bridgeman: I have already spoken briefly on this matter. It is our contention that this should be a matter for the courts rather than constables. I note that later the Minister will speak at length on anti-social behaviour. I shall be interested to hear his comments.
Lord Rooker: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I mention some points on Clause 44, but they are not the more substantive points I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. which will be discussed on Amendments Nos. 298A, B, C, D, E and F.
Clause 44 is included in the Bill as we know that anti-social behaviour blights lives and communities. We have already extended the range of tools to tackle such behaviour. There are new powers to curtail the activities of people who indulge in persistent anti-social behaviour. The courts have a wide range of sentences available.
Clause 44 is one of a number of provisions in the Bill for extending the armoury of powers to combat anti-social behaviour more effectively. The new power for a police officer to require a person acting in an anti-social manner to give his name and address will mirror the similar power to be afforded community support officers and accredited community safety officers. This will enable joint operations to be mounted by a mix of police officers, Specials and a designated or accredited person. The ability to ask for the name and address of a person believed to be acting in an anti-social manner—that is, in a manner that causes distress, harassment or alarm to one or more people—will enable them to identify the persons involved rather than relying on a visual identification. The fear of crime, which has been a thread throughout our debates in Committee, and the effects of anti-social behaviour can prevent witnesses coming forward, particularly if they have to live next door to the "yobs" who
intimidate them with their aggressive behaviour. The ability to identify those youths has obvious benefits in addressing anti-social behaviour. The mere fact of a police constable requesting that information may be enough to disperse the group and snuff out the anti-social behaviour in the bud. That has not been done before and we are determined to reduce the incidence. The proposal involves a modest extension of our powers in respect of anti-social behaviour orders. I reiterate that the power will be available to constables and to community support officers, which we have already discussed.
Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 270A:
- After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: My amendment has a very simple purpose. It is to assist the police to detect and remove guns before they are used. By "used" I do not mean before someone is shot; that, thank goodness, is still a very small part of gun crime, although the figures are rising in a most alarming manner. By "used" I mean before someone is threatened with a gun in a criminal act.
It is, of course, a probing amendment. I do not expect the Minister to leap up and say, "The amendment is exactly what we want and we shall include it in the Bill right away". Equally, I do not expect the Minister to say that there are already quite sufficient powers to stop and search and that the amendment is unnecessary. It is likely that the Home Office briefing, initially at least, will have been along those lines because the Home Office does not welcome outsiders' ideas on how to deal with crime. To Home Office officials, Members of Parliament are just as much outsiders as any other interfering member of the public. But I hope that the Minister is made of sterner stuff than that. There are of course powers to stop and search if a police officer thinks that someone may be carrying a firearm, but that is not what my amendment is about.
My amendment would do two things. First, it would send a message that the Government are deadly serious about the criminal use of firearms and that they are determined to take any action that will reduce it by making the possession of a gun—real or replica—on the streets a very risky undertaking for the person carrying the gun. Secondly, when and where there is reason to think that someone in a particular area may be carrying a firearm, the amendment would give the police the power to seal off the area and make a rapid scan. The area might be a street, part of a street, a club, a cinema or a platform or some other part of a station; in other words, any public place to which the public are admitted. I recognise that the amendment's wording in
In the case of pedestrians, the use of hand-held metal detectors would be an obvious, largely foolproof and uninvasive method of detection. The searching of cars would obviously be harder and might be less effective. I also recognise that when those carrying guns become aware of a police operation, they may seek to dump the guns. That, in many cases, should enable the police to recover the guns, which, after all, is the primary object of the exercise.
The use of the powers would take time to develop. Although my amendment refers to "a police constable", the decision to seal and search would in practice almost certainly be taken at a much more senior level. All of that would be for chief officers to develop in their own areas. In due course, the techniques would be honed towards perfection for particular areas and problems. I am confident that police authorities would use their imagination, initiative and intelligence to develop the effective use of the power that my amendment would give them.
We also have to take into account the recent announcement by the Home Secretary about new police procedures to record stop and search. The only way in which that could be effective in practical terms would be for some people to have some form of machine-readable identity documents. The serious and growing threat to our inner cities from gun crime now requires dramatic action to get the guns and to reassure a very worried public.
There can be no greater testimony to the seriousness of the problem than that given by the Labour Member of Parliament for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, Ms Diane Abbott. Less than two weeks ago—on 28th February—she secured an Adjournment debate on gun crime. If I may, I should like to quote a little of her speech. She said,
It is to deal with that chilling description, from someone who knows what she is talking about and who represents a part of an inner city in which this is a real problem, that my amendment seeks to make a contribution.
We also have to learn from the United States, a country in which, sadly—due to a misplaced comma in the original constitution—gun law still rules in many areas. In New York, however, the tough regime of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has meant that since 1994, 90,000 guns have been seized from the streets and shootings have plummeted by more than 74 per cent. Those of us who visit the Big Apple know that New York has gone from being the murder capital of the world to being the safest large city in America. Those noble Lords who have visited New York will have noticed that cabs no longer routinely have bullet-proof glass between passenger and driver.
Thank God we are not starting from anything like the level of gun crime that Mayor Giuliani inherited. But in New York gun crime is declining; in Britain, we are moving in the wrong direction. It is to changing that trend that my amendment is directed. I beg to move.
"POWER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS
If a police constable has reason to believe that a person or persons in a particular area may be carrying firearms, he may arrange—
(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."
"gun crime is casting a terrible shadow over my constituents. Hackney residents . . . are genuinely frightened . . . One stretch of road in Clapton in my constituency is known as murder mile.
My constituents are frightened of waking up to find a corpse outside their house . . . People pull guns in Hackney because of a dispute over a girl or merely to demonstrate how hard they are . . . Walking the streets of Hackney and elsewhere in London, we have the young man who is steeped in a gun culture. He is routinely armed and will use his gun not just to pursue a specific criminal activity but in domestic disputes, to show how tough he is and because he has lost his temper with someone in a nightclub".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/02; cols. 939-940.]
She went on to say:
"The police believe strongly that we need to raise the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm . . . We are talking about young men who swagger about all day long with firearms . . . If people knew that they would do a minimum of five years if they were found with a gun, they would be deterred from holding guns for others".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/02; col. 942.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page