Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he moved his amendment back in 2002. I dealt with it at some length and with care and consideration. I think I congratulated him at the time on sparking what I said was an encouraging debate on this issue, to which I pay tribute to him. With his trademark consistency and persistence, he has done exactly the same again. It is of value to have a debate on these matters at reasonable intervals. I know that the noble Baroness has been involved in similar debates, too. I should say to the noble Lord that Ministers are often criticised for proposing measures designed to suggest that we are on the case with a particular problem rather than to have any real effect. If we were introducing this package in the way in which the noble Lord suggests, that would probably be one of the allegations made against us. I suspect that the other allegation that would be made against us would be that we need to have more proportionate and sensitive approaches to dealing with what I think we all recognise is a very real problem indeed. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said that the Government reach for yet another measure with which to attack legal holders of firearms whenever there is an outrage involving a gun. That is not our approach. I suppose what Governments have historically tried to do in this field is increasingly to narrow down the scope for the migration of firearms from people who hold them for entirely legitimate purposes to those who hold them for criminal purposes that can be highly dangerous and even fatal. We are part of a general trend in government for being determined to deal with the issue as precisely as we can. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, started his comments by saying in essence that full powers are not available to us. We think that they are. When we debated this last, I think I gave a fairly comprehensive list of statutory references that set out how fully we thought we were already covered for the sorts of situations to which the noble Lord referred. Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 already provides police constables with a wide range of enforcement powers that tackle precisely the issue which the noble Lord raised again this evening. Police constables can require ammunition for a firearm to be handed over for examination, and can search a person and detain them for that purpose. Where a vehicle is involved, it may be searched and the person driving or in control of it can be required to stop. Furthermore, a constable may enter any place for the purpose of exercising these powers. All these things relate to firearms and firearms legislation. We have a very strong commitment to tackling gun crime, and we have introduced a number of measures, and not only in this Bill—we have been debating some of those measures this afternoon and this evening—which are designed to strengthen existing legislation. We are also committed to ensuring that the police have sufficient and proportionate powers to help make communities safe, and we believe that the existing legislative framework meets exactly those objectives in the most appropriate way. If that full range of powers were not available to us, this is the precisely the point at which the law enforcement agencies would be banging on our door and telling us that we had to have a certain additional measure and to put in place wide-ranging and, some might say, draconian powers for sealing off whole areas and conducting the sorts of searches which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, envisages in his proposed additions following Clause 42. We reject the amendment only because we think the powers are in place. This issue has been aired before in your Lordships’ House. If those powers were not there and freely available to the police and other law enforcement agencies, we would fairly know about it, and I think the Association of Chief Police Officers would be campaigning volubly for the sorts of powers which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is concerned to introduce. On the success or otherwise of the Government’s strategy, one should never be complacent about these things, but we believe that our approach, our policy and the activities of law enforcement agencies have contributed to a 3 per cent reduction in firearms offences overall in the 12 months to December 2005 compared with the previous 12 months. Happily, there has also been a 30 per cent reduction in fatalities caused by firearms. We think it more appropriate to deal with illegal firearms through intelligence-led operations, which are perhaps rather more successful than putting in place rather wide-sweeping and draconian measures such as sealing off an area, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred. Last year’s Operation Bembridge, for example, resulted in the arrest of more than 200 people who had purchased firearms via the internet. Of course we will continue to use stop and search where it is right, proper, sensible and proportionate on the street and elsewhere to tackle problems associated with firearms. I certainly understand and support the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved his amendment, but I cannot support the amendment itself. Let us face it; the noble Lord, Lord Condon, is one of this country’s most experienced former police officers. In the last debate on this issue, he said that although he understood the spirit of the amendment and accepted that it was well put, and although the debate had quite rightly illustrated concerns about gun crime, he believed that,"““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””.—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 699.]" Giving the police extra powers will not tackle that problem. We have to establish an anti-gun, anti-weapon culture in those communities. In part, that is what this Bill is about; in part, it is what the various campaigns, such as Operation Trident, are about; and, in part, it is an aspect of the targeted approach that we have seen the police adopt over the past few years in order to tackle this problem head on. We need clearly to deal with the problem at source in terms of the original supply of firearms. I understand the noble Lord’s concern. I congratulate him on his persistence. However, it is misplaced because we have the powers that we require. As I have explained to the Committee, what the noble Lord, Lord Condon—who, one can fairly say, is close to being an expert on these matters, given the length of his service in the police and his extensive knowledge of the issue—said is probably of far greater benefit in this debate than anything that I can add.