Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 43A, which is grouped with this series of amendments. Your Lordships will remember that the main objective of my original amendment, which was passed in this House earlier this year by a handsome majority, was very simple: to make it as risky as possible for anyone to carry an illegal firearm on the streets, primarily of our cities, but anywhere else for that matter. It was a simple amendment simply put forward. It was discussed a great deal in this House and I was delighted when it was passed. I am sorry that the amendment was rejected by another place, although I understand why it was. However, I am glad that the Government have introduced their own amendment. Although it does not move much towards my amendment, it means that the Government have turned around and are at least facing in the same direction as I am. At a later stage, we shall have to try to make them take some steps forward, as further legislation is coming up. What were the objections to my amendment? The first was that it was disproportionate. It focused entirely on giving the police the necessary powers to check for weapons in places and circumstances where they thought weapons might be. Checking for weapons meant, in this case, checking for a firearm. My amendment did not cover knives; it focused entirely on guns. There were two reasons for that. The first was that someone carrying an illegal gun is per se committing a serious offence, whereas someone carrying a knife may not necessarily be. Secondly, to search for guns is an easy technical process using metal detectors. Nobody in Britain would ever dream, if they had any sense at all, of trying to get on an aeroplane at Heathrow carrying an illegal gun. I want to make it as dangerous to carry an illegal gun on the streets of our cities as it would be at Heathrow. I will never get as far as that, but that is the clear objective. The reason for my amendment is the amount of gun crime. In the summer months, when we were on holiday, there was a fresh outburst of gun crime, which everybody has been able to read about. There have been deplorable cases of young people shooting and killing one another. This morning, I came back from the United States, where there has been a great debate on who should be the candidates in the presidential election. Of course on one side it is pretty much a done deal; Mrs Clinton will be the Democrat candidate. However, all the eight or nine Republican candidates had a mammoth session this weekend arguing why they should be chosen. Interestingly, the one who seems to be ahead at the moment is Mayor Giuliani. Talking to Americans about his performance on this television marathon, I learnt that the main reason for his lead was that, in their view, he ran New York so well and turned it round from being a city of ““look behind”” to being a safe city. As your Lordships know, when you get into a cab in New York, you no longer have the armour plating between you and the cab driver. That shows that good political advantage is to be gained from dealing with a serious problem such as gun crime. Returning today, my attention was drawn by a Member in the other place to a call by Mr Keith Jarrett, the president of the National Black Police Association. He will make a speech either today or in the next few days asking for more powers for random searching, particularly of black people, in order to get guns off the streets. He realises that people will say that that is provocative, but he says that the issue is too important not to follow that route. The other argument used against the power to search for firearms is civil liberties. We are all sensitive to civil liberties but we have to be careful. By ““we””, I mean those of us who sit on the leather Benches, whether they be red or green, in relative safety and comfort compared with the people whom we are trying to protect from the great dangers of gun crime. There is a risk that we will be, or will be perceived as being, somewhat self-indulgent if we say, ““We know better, because the issue of civil liberties is the card which takes all with it. Perhaps more young people will be shot by each other in the streets but it is worth paying that price in order to say that the police cannot possibly infringe civil liberties””. I do not accept that argument. I believe that this is a case where we should give the police extra powers, and I honestly do not believe that they would be used disproportionately. Perhaps I may quote Mr Jarrett. He said that, as long as officers used the powers courteously and responsibly, many within the black community would accept it as a necessary evil. He added that the toll of shootings and knife crime meant that deep-seated misgivings over the policing strategy were being increasingly outweighed by fears over mounting violence. That is a powerful argument. In Committee in the other place, interestingly my right honourable friend Mr Douglas Hogg spoke against my amendment on civil liberties grounds. I was rather amused by that because many years ago, when I was very young, I worked in the Conservative Party research department for the then Minister of Transport, Mr Ernest Marples, who was a great figure. He told me that he tried to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts but, when the idea came before the Cabinet, Mr Quintin Hogg, my right honourable friend’s father, argued vehemently on the grounds of civil liberties that such a measure should not be introduced. The Conservative Party then lost the 1964 election and it was left to Barbara Castle, the Labour Minister of Transport, to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I doubt whether anyone today would regard the wearing of seat belts as so great an infringement of civil liberties that it should not be made compulsory. We know that many people’s lives have been saved by wearing them. I would argue that, even if only one life were saved by the discovery of a gun, which could then be taken away without being used, that would justify my amendment. It would quickly become a deterrent. Rather like New York, if you catch people carrying illegal guns and deal with them severely then far fewer people will seek to carry them. The new clause inserted by the Government’s amendment does at least face in the same direction as I am facing but it does not move very far. There appear to be three conditions before these additional powers of search can be used. The amendment says: "““(i) an incident involving serious violence has taken place in England and Wales in his police area;""(ii) a dangerous instrument or offensive weapon used in the incident is being carried in any locality in his police area by a person; and""(iii) it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to find the instrument or weapon””." First, do all three of those conditions have to be satisfied before the power to search can be used, or only one of them? If it is all three, it would be extremely difficult to justify using it. Secondly, what is the meaning of the phrase ““in his police area””? How big an area are we talking about? Does it have to be a very small area, or quite a large area? If the weapon is thought to have moved to a different borough, can it be pursued? Although this new clause is not a strong power, at least it makes the Government face the same direction as I and this House faced earlier this year. We shall almost certainly have another Home Office Bill next Session when I am sure that the House will want me to give us all—police forces and very senior police officers, who previously supported me—the opportunity to reinforce this amendment. The assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mr Tarique Ghaffur, supported me in the summer. If we cannot make progress now, I hope that in the mean time there are not too many more murders because if there are people should have them on their consciences. Even I, who has advocated these powers of search so strongly, will feel that I have not done enough to prevent those murders.