| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton: In view of my long experience in criminal courts, I, too, support the amendment. I do so on the broad principle that, where possible, it is better to have prevention rather than cure. The amendment aims at prevention. But we need to be careful about one point. My noble friend used the expression "particular area". It could be a very large or very small particular area. I hope that he has in mind the very small particular area because that is the only way in which the provision would be enforceable. When the
Government consider the matter further and put down their own amendment, I hope that they will define the "particular area".
Lord Elton: I think that I have been studying the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for longer than my noble friend Lord Peyton.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: How do you know?
Lord Elton: I have come to a different and more accurate conclusion. I have observed that he always begins his replies to those who have taken part in the debate with the most courteous compliments on their skill and oratory and the clearness of their thinking. That is always a preparatory to disappointing them. Therefore, I am not hopeful when he utters those terms.
However, on a more serious note, I had thought that his grounds for resistance might be that there was a perfectly simple set of circumstances and powers already in place. We were given a matrix of interlocking and incomplete powers. Secondly, I thought that he might well and with truth say that frisking people for loaded weapons is a dangerous business and one needs to give a little more thought to how it is to be done before one legislates. I should have thought that such consideration could be given between now and the next stage, or in another place. I had thought that there would have been a good deal of enthusiasm for what my noble friend sought.
I was a little worried when the Minister said that at least they had heard nothing from the police to say that they wanted more powers. I was only partially reassured when the Minister said that he understood from the police that they needed nothing more. Have they been presented with the amendment and asked whether it is a provision they could do with? I think that we would be influenced by the answer. If the police have not turned it down and they could do with more powers, let us get those powers to them quickly. My noble friend has suggested a very good way of doing that.
Earl Attlee: The Minister touched on the 1968 Act. He referred to the police attitude to the 1968 Act and other powers. Is the Minister convinced that the 1968 Act meets all our requirements? I believe that the 1968 Act is a complete mess.
Lord Dholakia: The Minister generously explained the existing appropriate provisions. Is he able to write a note to that effect to those who participated in the debate? The situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, exists despite the powers which exist at present. Perhaps the noble Lord could identify whether those existing powers are adequate to deal
with the situation described. If they are not appropriate, it is possible for us to come back to the issue on Report.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord will forgive another intervention, I hope that the Minister will not cite the anti-terrorism Act because my noble friend is talking about criminal rather than terrorist activity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Those further interventions have been helpful. They have given me the opportunity to explain further. During my responses, I rehearsed some of those powers. I am happy to set out a full rehearsal of the various powers. I am sorry I was unable to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I have been trying hard to make him happier during my time at the Dispatch Box. I shall continue perfecting my style. Perhaps at some happy time in the future I shall get there. I am happy to rehearse the powers and make the notes available to those noble Lords who have taken part in what I genuinely consider to be an important and useful debate.
With regard to the police attitude towards the amendment, it is not usually our task to go to the police and ask them specifically what they think about an amendment from an opposition Peer, tabled as late as it was. Perhaps the noble Lord might have thought it useful to consult with them as well. We shall happily take another view on it with the representative bodies of the police service but in the past we have not identified it as a specific problem. It has not been identified as a problem by the police service. We understand that the police believe that they have adequate stop and search powers. The amendment relates to areas as well; that is where the noble Lord is coming from. Although we believe that we have got it about right, we are always happy to have another look. One should always keep these matters under review not least because it is a compelling issue and a profound problem. The timing of Diane Abbott's debate in another place was well meant and effective.
Lord Condon: The spirit of the amendment is well put. The debate has illustrated the concerns about gun crime. If it helps noble Lords, I believe it is the view of the police service that there is an adequate menu of powers in relation to gun crime. Powers are not the real concern. The police are concerned that there may not be strong and sufficient partnerships within communities for condemnation of gun crime to lead to a willingness to give evidence against known carriers of guns within communities. That is linked to perhaps an absence of police confidence at present in their abilities to carry out stop and search in certain circumstances in certain areas. That in itself is linked to concerns about resourcing. Perhaps I may risk repeating what I have said previously, with regard to New York comparisons: London, 26,000 police; New York, 42,000 plus. Resourcing is as vital a concern as powers for stop and search. Finally, I refer to the relationship of sentencing being a force for good in preventing further gun crimes.
This well placed amendment has stimulated a timely debate. The question was asked whether the police are content with their menu of powers. The answer is broadly yes, although they are as concerned as noble Lords about the growth of gun crime.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention. First, with regard to the technique of the Minister in commending everybody's performance and then saying that it was unnecessary, that is a well-known judicial technique in giving judgment. You know immediately that you have been praised that you have lost the case, and it is a nice way of doing it.
Secondly, I commend the Minister on recognising that which his department usually fails to recognise: that the powers that it frequently requests are already provided. That is shown frequently where extra powers of punishment are provided. Articles have been written indicating that the powers which are being sought vigorously have existed for years. I respectfully agree that the Home Office should provide in the Library a full particularised inventory of the sources, the legislation, which provides the powers which are being sought. If it is then apparent that powers exist, the statute book should not be burdened with further unnecessary repetition.
Lord Marlesford: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and to noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber who have taken part in the debate and, in general, supported the thrust of my amendment.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the powers for stopping and searching individuals and vehicles for guns already exist. That was only the second part of my amendment. The Minister interestingly pointed out that the powers to seal off an area in order to do that exist only under the terrorism legislation and therefore where terrorism is suspected.
I suggest that the people of this country, particularly those in the cities, and all ethnic groups—let there be no doubt about that—are deeply concerned. They would welcome powers to deal with gun crime which are as great as those for dealing with terrorism. It is not terribly comforting merely to be aware that a section of this, that or the other Act is available to fight gun crime, when gun crime does not appear to be being fought and when one reads about guns increasingly being used. Very often nowadays people actually have first-hand, or at least second-hand, experience of such incidents.
Of course I am prepared, ready and expect to withdraw the amendment. However, subject to what transpires from what is put in the Library, I believe that I have identified a lacuna in that the powers to seal off an area are confined to terrorism. I think that they should also be available in dealing with crime. Therefore, I hope possibly to bring back a more appropriate amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Independent custody visitors for place of detention]:
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: I use this opportunity to ask the Government how the new independent custody visitors system relates to the old system which was set up under the Scarman report for lay visitors to police stations. Both systems have one principle aim, which is to either bolster or restore public confidence in the way that the police handle those who are charged with crimes. The lay visitors have now become tokens rather than forces for good. I stand to be corrected on that.
Paragraph 256 of the Explanatory Notes published with the Bill states:
- "Custody visiting to police stations provides a means by which volunteers from the community who are independent of the police and the criminal justice system . . .".
In the past the noble Lord and his colleagues must have thought about this matter long and hard. I apologise for not giving prior notice of the matter. Of course I shall understand that any possible defects in the reply will be due to that. I await the noble Lord's reply with interest.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page