Police and Justice Bill

All I can say is that in the column headed ““Apparent method””—and it has about 10, including ““Sharp instrument””, ““Blunt instrument””, ““Hitting, kicking, etc.”” and ““Strangulation””—there is a category for shootings. The figure for 2003-04 was 69, and for 2004-05 it is 77. I am just reading from Hansard, it is as simple as that. The overall figure of 30 per cent is the difference between the 632 in 1994 and the 820 in 2004-05. These are the Home Office’s own figures. I am not wholly surprised that the Home Office is not always up to date with its own figures. I had not planned to mention this but I will now: only last week the Minister signed a Written Answer to me on whether foreign prisoners who had committed offences could apply for asylum on their release. I put that Question on 26 April, and the reply was given to me last week—nine weeks later. I could not understand it, and am told that it had been written wrongly, which was why to my untutored eye it was gibberish. One of the technical words used was incorrectly written. That is so casual; one does not have great confidence in the Home Office if it can make a silly mistake like that after nine weeks. The other point is on ACPO. Yesterday I spoke to that part of ACPO responsible for firearms. All I can do is quote what it told me: it may not have asked the Home Office for powers. Nobody is asking the Home Office for anything at the moment because of its internal problems. Let us not take too seriously the judgment of the Home Office at this particular period in our history. I am glad the Minister is prepared to join our discussions. I understand that she can give no undertaking to accept an amendment. Equally we on these Benches, and possibly the Liberal Democrat Benches too, cannot give any undertaking not to bring forward on Report a further amendment on which we will seek to test the opinion of the House. As is often the case with amendments that the Home Office does not like, it will probably attempt to reverse it when it goes back into the Commons. All I am saying, fundamentally, is that the people of this country who live in fear of firearms would understand and welcome a simple change to the law that they could see as enabling the police to protect them. They would welcome that more than a lot of shilly-shallying at the Home Office, using its ““not invented here”” approach to anything that anybody suggests from outside. Having said that, I will withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.