Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have been misled by the grouping and has therefore taken the amendments in numerical order rather than in the order of thought. He may have forgotten what was said or perhaps he did not pay sufficient attention to what was said by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and, indeed, behind him. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, supported me in Committee.
The Minister has not satisfied me, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 72.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.3 p.m.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 108:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 109:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to Amendment No. 109 which would insert a provision, where a more thorough search is required, to allow the court security officer to make arrangements for that to take place in private. This debate gives noble Lords the opportunity to review some of the data collection which
I move this amendment to press the Government for reassurance that court security officers will not just conduct a superficial search of those entering court buildings. They should be able to carry out a full search if they believe that it is necessary in the interests of the safety of the court. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been over much of the ground discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in previous exchanges. We are grateful to the noble Lord for returning to the matter as it enables the Government to make plain the thorough approach which we intend to be adopted by court security services.
The noble Lord's amendment would require that arrangements should be made for "more thorough" and apparently intimate searches to take place in private. It is an entirely proper amendment. I understand the sentiment and strength of feeling behind it. The amendment would give the court security officers a more comprehensive power of search without allowing them to carry out more intimate searches.
But if the amendment proposing the removal of all restrictions on a court security officer's powers of search were to be accepted, the proposed amendment requiring more thorough searches to take place in private would be of some benefit, although, as currently drafted, and particularly if subsection (2) were to be removed, it is unclear how much more thorough the search would be. For the reasons I gave when I addressed Amendment No. 107, the Government consider it appropriate and justified to retain that restriction.
In summary, these reasons are centred on the fact that we consider the present powers to be adequate to deal with the threat that they are designed to address. We also acknowledge the need for the Bill to be consistent with the limitations on similar powers of search in other legislation. Consideration is given to Article 8 of the convention which addresses the right to respect for private life.
With that in mind, the amendment proposing more thorough searches by court security officers is in our view unnecessary as the officers will not have the power to carry out such searches. Where a court security officer considers that a more intimate search
The noble Lord referred to statistics, some of which I believe that we discussed in Committee. Recent statistics have introduced a more in-depth analysis of the knives that were discovered. Nearly all were small knives under three inches; that is, penknives or similar, and would have been immediately detected by the metal detection equipment. We are confident that the security arches that we have in place and, no doubt, the wonderful waving wands, will do the job. We are very mindful of the threats that even such small weapons could pose to staff, members of the public and members of the judiciary. We take the issue seriously, and think that we have the balance of measures and the technology right. However, we will review the matter from time to time and monitor it very carefully.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding, and am very pleased to hear that steps are being taken to refine the figures. I understand that it is now a requirement that all the regions collect the information to which we have referred, which is very reassuring. I am also grateful to him for clarifying the way in which the more detailed searches will be carried out. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Powers to exclude, remove or restrain persons]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 110:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, nowhere in the Bill can I find a commitment from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he will provide adequate resources to enable security officers to carry out their duty. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
"(4) Where a court security officer reasonably believes that a more thorough search is required arrangements should be made for this to take place in private."
Page 23, line 17, at end insert
"( ) The Lord Chancellor shall ensure that sufficient resources are allocated in order to discharge the functions in subsections (2) and (3)."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page