Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My Lords, no one would dispute that the purpose of the Bill is praiseworthy. I am sure that any measures that will reduce violent crime, so long as they are necessary and proportionate, will receive the support of the whole House. It is in that spirit of general support that, as my noble friend Lady Anelay said, we on the opposition Benches will approach the Bill. However, when one ventures beyond the title of the Bill, it becomes evident that, in fact, the Bill is relatively modest. I cannot help but feel that although it addresses some of the symptoms of the disease of violent crime, it does not really address the causes of it. Trying to legislate out of the problem of the rise in violent crime across our towns and cities is not necessarily the panacea that the Government might have us believe is needed. The progress of the Bill in another place drew attention to the redundancy of some of the measures proposed. The primary answer to the problem of the wave of alcohol-related disorder that is affecting our towns and cities is enforcement of existing law on the ground, not reduplicating it in different guises in further legislation—a theme which has run through the whole of this debate. The police need the right resources and manpower, not necessarily more schemes and the resultant paperwork. Indeed, the reliance of this Government on creating more legislation rather than using the existing law effectively has been, as I say, a recurrent theme. I need only mention the recent passage of the Terrorism Bill, where the Government expended large amounts of effort in asserting that we needed new offences to catch those who glorify terrorism. I refer to the example of the Danish embassy. I must be careful because that is sub judice, but the problem there was not the existing legislation, which was quite adequate, particularly with regard to incitement to murder; the problem was how the situation was dealt with by the police. My noble friend Lady Anelay highlighted those areas where we will be able to support the Government. Their proposals for drink banning orders will give the courts more varied, if not necessarily greater, powers to ban from pubs and other establishments those individuals who drink irresponsibly and cause trouble. That was well covered by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Brooke, and was summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The alcohol disorder zone proposals have some merit, but the Government must make sure that this House has sufficient regard to the detail. We look forward to seeing the draft regulations and guidelines. As always in such matters, the devil is in the detail. We owe it to the interested parties affected by the legislation, primarily landlords and those in the off-licence trade, to scrutinise the proposals carefully. The Government should not be let off the hook by trying to leave everything to regulations, as they are so fond of doing. However, I welcome the Minister’s assurance that at least some of those regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. The interests of small businesses must be borne in mind when the question of imposition of charges is debated in Committee. The Government will be put to proof over the fairness of any arbitrary or blanket imposition of charges to ensure that they are neither anomalous nor plainly inequitable. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, who is not in his place, was very interesting on that point. I welcome the assurance from the Minister that ADZs will be used only as a measure of last resort. We welcome many of the measures in Part 2. My noble friend Lady Anelay has already indicated our support for the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. The provisions concerning the sale of air weapons must attract greater controversy, as will the provisions concerning realistic imitation weapons. That has been well covered. I do not share the confidence of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that an assailant armed with a real weapon when firing at me will miss. My noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned the sport of airsoft. I reiterate what she said: I hope that the Government will listen to our concerns about the effect that the Bill will have on that perfectly legitimate activity. My noble friend has also mentioned the provisions of the Bill that increase the age at which knives can be legally purchased. That leads me back to the point that I raised earlier about the effectiveness of legislation. The Bill makes a great deal of making it harder to purchase potentially offensive weapons, but the effect that that will have on preventing crime is likely to be minimal. Much of the Bill is targeted towards limiting the ability to buy potentially dangerous weapons, be they air rifles, replicas or knives. As we know, much gun crime is committed with illegally held weapons and weapons smuggled in from abroad. We should be under no illusion that the Bill offers a quick-fix solution to these problems. My noble friend Lady Anelay has set a fine example for all in her assurance that we on these Benches will not try to amend Part 3. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Glentoran and the noble Lords, Lord Pendry and Lord Addington, have raised the issue of stewards at sport events falling under the same statutory regulation as doorkeepers, otherwise known as bouncers. My noble friend’s proposals are sensible, and I hope that the Government will give them due consideration. My noble friend Lady Anelay also drew attention to some new proposals that we intend to introduce when the Bill reaches Committee. They relate to the relatively recent menace of happy slapping and to the issue of Olympic pistol training. I hope that the Government will consider the proposals in the same spirit in which they are proposed: in the first case, a constructive and sincere effort to convict and punish appropriately those who take part in that sickening type of behaviour; in the second case, a sincere effort to help those who have been unnecessarily prevented from training in a perfectly legitimate sport. Those subjects were raised by my noble friends Lord Glentoran and Lord Shrewsbury. The gun legislation following Dunblane understandably contained some elements of knee-jerk reaction. It is therefore all the more important that, in the calmer circumstances in which this Bill is considered, a proper consultation should take place when further regulation, particularly with regard to air guns, is considered. My noble friend also made that point. This has been a most constructive debate throughout, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister.