| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment and to express the hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously. The Bill offers us an opportunity to do something about this problem. Bills of this nature that create such an opportunity do not often come along.
My noble friend said it all—that this is a problem that causes fear, anger and frustration in the community. It is no satisfaction to anyone that hardly a day goes by without one reading of a gun crime being committed somewhere—all too often in London, but London does not have a monopoly on such offences.
This is a serious matter and the amendment would require some additions. For example, one would definitely need to be able to search property in addition to "people or vehicles". The Home Secretary has, in a sense, already moved in that direction when he re-opened the question of stop-and-search powers. It is possible that the administrative burden that he has imposed on it will mean that, in practice, the police are reluctant to use it because of the time that they have to spend filling out the forms that result from using the power.
However, that is a separate matter. We are considering the ends. We certainly support the ends for which everyone is calling. I hope that the Minister will find it practical to consider this issue helpfully before we reach a later stage of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: From these Benches we lend support for the amendment. It relates to a matter of serious concern to anyone who has opened the newspapers, particularly the Evening Standard, and has read the series of articles written about crime in London. The extent of gun crimes, which create so much insecurity among various communities, causes great concern to a large number of people. I believe that the noble Lord was right to draw attention to what Diane Abbott, the Member of Parliament for Hackney, said. Anyone who sees the photographs of the dead people will
understand the extent of black-on-black crime in London, which is also a matter of serious concern and, to a great extent, is limited to young people.I ask the Minister whether we require an amendment to the Bill in order to put in place what the amendment seeks to achieve or whether it is possible, under the regulatory powers of the Home Secretary in relation to stop and search, to extend the provision in a way that would incorporate the noble Lord's suggestion. If that is not possible, then I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter seriously so that a more suitable amendment can be tabled for the Report stage, which we shall reach soon after Easter.
Lord Elton: I support the proposal with some hesitation because I find it difficult to believe that such powers do not already exist. If they do not, they certainly should.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. I have a great fear that the police are losing control on this issue. My noble friend mentioned metal detectors. Can the Minister say what part back-scatter X-ray technology might have to play? I believe that Customs and Excise is using it at ports. Could it be used on the streets, perhaps as a random search facility for vehicles and pedestrians?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I believe that my noble friend has done the Committee a service in bringing this concept before us. He frankly acknowledges that the wording is not definitive. But I hope that the Minister will tell us to what extent, if any, these powers exist under present legislation. I should have thought that perhaps the first limb is already open to a police officer, but I am sure that it would be of great assistance to us all if the noble Lord could deal with that point.
The problem in relation to the power to search is, as we all know, that people do not like being searched, even if they are not carrying anything that would get them into trouble. Therefore, a balance must be struck between powers to search and respect for people's freedom in that regard.
My noble friend vividly drew attention to anxiety in London, in particular at the rising incidence of gun crime. I believe—it would be interesting to know whether the Minister supports this—that the public are now prepared to accept a proportionate diminution of their freedom in the light of this extremely worrying and dangerous development. To that extent, I support what is behind my noble friend's thinking, particularly in the second part.
It would be very helpful to know whether New York, whose example is cited so frequently nowadays, has a similar power in its range of legislation. Perhaps the Minister or my noble friend will be able to help us on that point.
In conclusion, as someone who had the privilege of serving in the Home Office, albeit something like 20 years ago, perhaps I may stand up for that department. I disagree with my noble friend in the
uncharacteristically harsh observations that he made about the Home Office being against any kind of innovation, particularly if it comes from outside or from a member of the public. I never found that in my time. Although I have cudgelled my brains in the past couple of minutes, I cannot think of an example.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said. As a member of the trade union of ex-Ministers in the Home Office, I believe that one must question the views of my noble friend Lord Marlesford on this matter. I do not believe that the officials are quite so obstructive as he said. That apart, I considered that the rest of his speech was admirable in every way. It was unfortunate that he added that remark.
Surely we all accept that crime involving the use of arms is not only the most serious and terrifying offence but, at present, it appears to be the most worrying to people who live in suburban areas. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is a matter in which it is right that the Government look at existing powers. Perhaps, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, we already have those powers. But I hope that the Minister will say that, if we do not have them at present, he will find out whether the existing powers are adequate to stop people carrying guns and threatening and terrifying the lives of others.
Baroness Sharples: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I wonder whether the noble Lord will now consider the introduction of a smart identity card. Surely that would be of great assistance to the police in any search that they may have to make.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I, too, support my noble friend Lord Marlesford in his modest and sensible amendment. It allows me to reflect for a moment on the habit of modern governments of stopping law-abiding people doing what they want to do and which they could well go on doing without harming anyone. At the same time, governments turn away from the phenomenon whereby criminals are open in their possession of guns but whereby the police, according to what the amendment seeks to achieve, are at present powerless to do anything about it.
Unless the Minister says that the police already possess those powers, I can see no possible reason why the Government should not accept the amendment or something very similar to it; otherwise, it would seem to be another indication of the dotty way in which we continue to raise our hands in horror and alarm at what is happening but do nothing about it and put elaborate fetters on the one set of people—namely, the police force—who might be able to do something if they were given the powers.
Viscount Slim: Sadly, the Minister was not present when we debated in your Lordships' House the taking away of firearms from those who were licensed to hold them. I shall not weary the noble Lord, but I spoke at considerable length in debate on that subject.
I believe that we have now reached such a state that no one knows how many illegal weapons are in this country. Is it half a million, or is it a million or more? Today, it is very easy to obtain a weapon if one is so inclined. As I see and hear it, the public perception is that the Government, as, indeed, did the previous government, take only a half-hearted view of this matter and that they are not really grappling with the problem. I urge the Minister to accept that the time has come when we must be strong and bold. We must take note and pass laws that make the use of weapons by criminals a matter that they will regret when they are caught or when the weapon is taken. Let us have proper legislation and not the ongoing half-hearted approach.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has sparked an encouraging debate on this issue for which I pay tribute to him. As ever, his prescient approach has anticipated some of my lines of defence. I also congratulate him on that. At one point we were in danger of developing a Home Office fan club. Ex-Ministers of the Home Office may have a vested interested in developing that and those who currently occupy Home Office ministerial posts will be pleased to hear about it too.
The debate has been balanced and proportionate—one of my favourite words. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right that firearms are one of the scourges of our generation. It is understandable that we should consider ways in which to tackle the problem. Of necessity, it is right that your Lordships' House should consider what extra powers may be required. A battery of measures are available to the police, for which I pay tribute to previous governments, in particular the government who were in place in the 1980s and the 1990s. They put in place powers that deal with the problems by which we are currently confronted.
No representations have been made that our current legislation is wanting or failing in regard to the necessary powers for the police. That is a key point to take into consideration. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, is right that we need to look at gun control and firearms legislation to view the categories of dangerous weapons and to address the problems of firearms in the streets at source.
Noble Lords were keen that I advise on powers that are currently in place and available to the police. I shall go through some of them. The police already have powers to search people and vehicles for offensive weapons under Section 1(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Sections 1(2) and (3) of PACE provide constables with the power to search any person or vehicle or anything which is in a vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that stolen or
prohibited articles are to be found. A prohibited article includes an offensive weapon and an offensive weapon is clearly defined in Section 1(9) of PACE as,
- "any article—
- (a) made or adapted"—
- "for use for causing injury to persons; or
- (b) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person".
Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 there are powers available to the police to stop and search pedestrians and vehicles within a specified area for the purposes of countering terrorism. A person in those circumstances can be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion. The powers are time-limited, but usually they are authorised by an officer of ACPO rank. Under Section 33 of the Terrorism Act an officer of at least superintendent rank can designate an area as a cordoned area where he considers it expedient for the purposes of terrorist investigation.
Under Section 47(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 a constable can require the handing over of a firearm and any ammunition for examination so that he may ascertain whether a firearm is real or imitation, what type of firearm it is, whether—if it is not apparent—it is loaded, or whether the ammunition is suitable for use in the firearm.
Our particular concern about this amendment is that it would provide far-reaching powers and it would enable the police constable to arrange for an area to be sealed off simply on the basis that he reasonably believed that a person was carrying a firearm, irrespective of whether there was any imminent danger. In that sense it goes too far. I return to the use of the word "proportionate". We need proportionate powers and we believe that previous governments have legislated for that. From our contact with the police we understand that they are happy with the current range of powers that are in place. They do not see any need to extend them further. They believe that they are about right. Like the Government, they appreciate the widespread public concern over such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right that we need to send out a powerful, united message about the creeping nature of the gun culture. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the important debate raised by Diane Abbott in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the issue of metal detectors. We are aware that powers are in place to ensure that guns are detected, particularly at ports, by the use of metal detectors. I am uncertain how useful those powers may be if extended to the police service in the way that the noble Earl suggested. Logistically I believe that that would be rather difficult. The noble Earl raises a point that is worthy of consideration.
Another issue raised was ID cards. The Government intend to issue a consultation paper on this matter later in the year. No doubt careful consideration will be given to that and to the nature of any form of identification card, smart card or whatever. That may well have a bearing on this issue and assist the police. Of course, we want to ensure that the consultation is carefully managed and that we take on board a broad range of views.
On a comparator being sought between stop-and-search powers here and those available to New York police officers, in the time available I have not been able to undertake the serious research that the matter demands. I am happy to look at that point because it is an important one. In New York there have been considerable successes in countering the gun culture. We can always learn from others.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for tabling the amendment. It is an important point. We constantly keep such matters under review and he was right to raise it now. However, we believe that adequate powers are in place. Over the years they have been added to and we consider that they are effective for the purpose. To date there is no additional pressure from the police service to widen those powers. They believe that what they have to work with is fit for the purpose.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that when he rises to his feet he does not always give rise to strong feelings of hope within me. On this occasion, adjectives like "encouraging", "balanced" and "proportionate" applied to the debate start a burgeoning seed of hope in me. However, in rather a hurry he resorted to his brief, as one might have expected, and it was quite—if I can use a polite word—calming.
His perfectly courteous dismissal of the points made by my noble friend is rather a pity. I am not satisfied with his assertion that the police are not interested. I hope that he will take the matter back to the police and tell them of some of the points raised in this debate, which were designed to be helpful. As the noble Lord said, they are balanced, encouraging and proportionate—a wonderful mixture. Having crowned my noble friend's amendment with those wonderful words, he should move a little way towards accepting something along these lines.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page