Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Williamson Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those cases and I will certainly look at the incidents she mentions. She is right to highlight the importance of addressing mental health issues within prisons. A very large proportion of prisoners have mental health issues and, in answer to an earlier question, I addressed the need to work closely with the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we address such points.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Today the terms of reference for the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme have been announced. Compensation has long been an important part of the Government’s support for victims of violent crime, and we are determined to ensure that every victim gets the compensation to which they are entitled. The review will look at the scope of the scheme, its eligibility rules, the value and composition of awards and how to provide easier access to compensation. The review will give particular consideration to victims of child sexual abuse and terrorism and look to ensure continued financial sustainability. We have separately announced our intention to remove the pre-1979 same roof rule from the scheme and we will table an amended scheme before Parliament as soon as possible.
Chris Williamson
We know the Government see public services as a cash cow for the private sector, but the privatisation of the probation service has been an abject failure. The contract had to be terminated two years early, despite a £0.5 billion bailout. The privatised service failed to reduce reoffending, so why is the Secretary of State proposing to privatise the service again in 2020? Is this not an example of ideology over plain common sense?
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is best placed to lecture on common sense versus ideology.
The reoffending rate has fallen in the time since “Transforming Rehabilitation” and we would like it to fall further. There are issues with how the system is working, which is why we took the entirely pragmatic approach of bringing the contracts to an end and making some important and necessary changes to ensure that we can do more to reduce reoffending.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Williamson Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
2. What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
12. What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
We are making good progress with our transforming rehabilitation reforms, which will realign current probation structures to address the gap that sees 50,000 short-sentenced prisoners released on to the streets each year with little support. The new structures will come into effect on 1 June. The process of reallocating staff to those new structures is now complete.
Chris Williamson
The Secretary of State has a reputation for making policy based on ideology rather than evidence, as we saw with the shambolic Work programme that he bequeathed to the Department for Work and Pensions. Now his own officials have warned him that
“an unacceptable drop in operational performance”
is causing
“delivery failures and reputational damage”.
Why is he continuing with the reforms when all the informed opinion is shouting at him to stop?
Chris Grayling
The Opposition continue to refer to the planning document at the start of the project, and they cannot explain what they would do instead. Their policy is to leave 50,000 people walking the streets and likely to commit serious offences again with no support post-prison. Until the Opposition tell us what they would do to address the problem, which they identified when in government and did nothing about, they will have no credibility.
Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)
Chris Williamson Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this vital debate. I regret that he is not in his place at the moment. I was reminded of Aneurin Bevan’s description of the Tory party when I listened to the shameful contribution from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). The way in which this dispute was handled by the Government of the day and subsequent Governments represents a disgraceful and shameful chapter in the long history of hostility towards working people on the part of the Conservative party.
My dad was involved in that building workers strike, and he could well have been one of the victims of the Tory party who were sent to prison for their principles. The following year I started as an apprentice bricklayer in the building trade. Hon. Friends have already pointed to the 571 fatalities between 1970 and 1973 and the 224,000 industrial injuries that took place in the construction trade. I was one of those statistics, because health and safety on the building sites that I worked on in 1973 was disgraceful. That was what the strike was all about. It was about decent pay—£30 a week. It is not much to ask for, for crying out loud. It was about health and safety on building sites to protect young apprentices such as me. I could have been killed because there was no handrail on the scaffolding.
The strike was also about the lump—the disgraceful lump that was endemic in the building trade at that time. We had a vindictive Tory Government. I will not repeat the comments that have been eloquently made by my hon. Friends about the disgraceful treatment of those pickets, but they were charged with intimidation. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. The people who were responsible for intimidation were the vindictive Tory Government, who sent ordinary working people to prison for standing up for their rights, for their comrades, for decent working conditions.
So of course the papers should be released. That is the very minimum that should happen. The convictions that were imposed on those brave trade unionists—one of whom, Ricky Tomlinson, I am proud to say, is in the public gallery now, although I know I should not mention it—should be overturned. I hope that we hear the Minister support that when he gets to his feet.
Simon Hughes
No, I want to try to be helpful, and out of respect for the hon. Member for Blaydon, let me, please, unusually for me, be uninterrupted; I want to respond to as much as I can.
May I tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and other colleagues that, not just as the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, I completely understand the issue to do with health and safety and decent wages generally and in the building industry in particular? I have campaigned on this issue. I understand the dreadful health and safety record in the past. Strong trade unions, particularly in the building industry over the past 40 years, were hugely important in ensuring that wages and conditions were better, which, thank God, they are now. I pay tribute to those who were part of that effort.
At the end of this episode, there were convictions for affray, unlawful assembly and conspiracy to intimidate. They are serious offences. They have led to people going to prison. I will return in a second to how the justice issues may be addressed. I know about the intensity of people’s views. I know about the efforts made to get the petition to the current number of signatures. I am clear what people hope I can say.
The Government are, of course, committed to transparency. We are agreed that as much information as possible should be in the public domain. The public would expect that, and the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, enacted by the Labour Government and now fully in force, are ones that we are expected to implement.
Most of the papers that relate to the Shrewsbury 24 are already available in the National Archives for public inspection. Of the records that date back to 1972, over 90% are available. Only 625 documents, I am told, are not yet publicly available—[Hon. Members: “Only.”]—across the Government, in relation to that year. The only material held by the Cabinet Office that is not available and that is the information at the heart of this debate is one report and three paragraphs—one in each of three separate documents—which I shall return to later.
Simon Hughes
No. If I have time a bit later, I will, but I am trying to make sure that all the information is on the record.
There has already been a decision, taken in principle by the Labour Government and implemented by this Government, to reduce the age at which historical records are made available. The period is coming down now from 30 to 20 years. [Interruption.] No “buts”. In parallel with that, we are reducing the maximum duration of the exemptions from disclosure from 30 to 20 years. That has started this year, and the period will also reduce, so that people in future will not have to wait as long to see records. So those are good changes, but let us be specific about the matters that relate to the request for these papers today.
The current law is, and the consistent practice has been, that under section 34 of the Public Records Act 1958, public bodies are allowed but not required to retain records after they would usually be required to be transferred to the National Archives—so, after the old 30-year period, which is reducing. Retention is allowed where it is necessary for administrative purposes or for “any other special reason”.
Since 1967, when Lord Gardiner was Lord Chancellor in the Labour Government, all Lord Chancellors—five Labour, five Conservative—have been satisfied that where the transfer of security and intelligence records would prejudice national security, they can be retained on the “other special reason” basis. That approval is recorded in an instrument, signed by the Lord Chancellor, which is more commonly referred to as the security instrument.
The current approval that governs security and intelligence records was, as colleagues have said—the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to it—given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he was Lord Chancellor on 19 December 2011. That does indeed last until 2021. That is public; it has been on the website. However, these papers are due to be reviewed by the Cabinet Office for their security and sensitivity every 10 years, as all other papers are, and they will fall to be reviewed next year, in 2015. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Blaydon respectfully that I suggest that he and his colleagues, who have a rightful interest in their being revealed, address that office and that deadline, and I will personally take an interest in this issue in the time up to next year, when they fall to be reviewed for their security.
What are the specific documents? One is a Security Service report, and the other three are single paragraphs, each of which has been redacted from letters and memorandums. The first was in a letter from the director general of the Security Service to the Cabinet Secretary dated 10 January 1975, which is public apart from one redacted paragraph. It refers—it is not a secret—to the fact that the assessment was that there was Communist party activity in relation to the campaign. The second was in a minute dated 13 January 1975 from the Cabinet Office to No. 10, which has been released apart from a single paragraph. The third was in a minute from No. 10 to the Cabinet Office dated 15 January 1975.
Simon Hughes
Of course it is not. I am just saying what the revealed documents have said, and they are in the public domain. The Ministry of Justice has no relevant information retained. I do not know whether any other Departments have retained any. I am not privy to that information, but I am clear that four pieces of information are retained by the Cabinet Office and are open to review next year.
As hon. Members know, under the Freedom of Information Act people can request that information. They then, in particular, have to confront the question as to whether it is covered by the exemption in section 23 of the Act. The application was refused in this case. It went to the Information Commissioner and he decided on 2 July 2008 that the four documents do relate to the intelligence agencies and therefore fall within the scope of the exemption. The exemption is designed to protect
“Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters”.
The view of the Government has always been—all Governments have said—that to provide details of the national security risks that might be posed by the release of information of this sort would be detrimental to the purposes of the exemption set out in the Act. So that is the view of the Cabinet Office, but these things will be reviewed next year. The Lord Chancellor has asked me to say that he has personally looked at these documents and come to the same view. I know that that will be disappointing and frustrating to people, but the position is that those documents cannot therefore be revealed now.
However, one other matter is very important. There is currently a legal challenge to the convictions, and the case went to the Court of Appeal. Miscarriages of justice are not matters for the Government to consider; they are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission—ultimately, for the courts. The hon. Member for Blaydon set out the arguments for a miscarriage of justice review, and I understand them. The cases of at least some of the Shrewsbury 24 have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and it is currently assessing that set of applications. It has the power to require, when it is reasonable, that any information held by any public body in relation to any case under review can be retained for, and produced to, it, irrespective of confidentiality. The Commission therefore has, potentially, the access to information of the highest sensitivity, including material withheld by the Cabinet Office—the Commission has the power to see that. My understanding is that the Commission has asked for this information. It is currently considering the application for a review, with this information before it. If the Commission sends a case to the courts, the courts have the power to see the information, and I would entirely expect them to be able to do so.
There are two routes ahead, and they include the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). One is the review that is coming up next year by the Cabinet Office. The second is the miscarriage of justice review, which is currently actively being pursued. I hope that colleagues understand that I am, at the moment, unable to change the position that Governments have adopted over the years, but there are ways in which this matter can be reviewed again. I accept that. That is proper and appropriate, and therefore the efforts of the hon. Member for Blaydon, and those of the petitioners and colleagues, are not in vain.
Policing of Violence at Hunts
Chris Williamson Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I secured this debate to highlight the antisocial and criminal behaviour of a tiny minority of individuals who cause havoc in the countryside. These rural ruffians are blood sports enthusiasts who have been getting away with this lawless behaviour for far too long. To my mind, they are no different from the mindless yobs that blight some of our urban housing estates, but the police, regrettably, are turning a blind eye to their lawless behaviour.
I have been a trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports since 1979, and I was the press officer and then the chair of the Hunt Saboteurs Association 35 years ago, so I know from first-hand experience what these characters are capable of. I was regularly assaulted and threatened by hunt supporters, and I would like to give the House just one example of an incident that happened to me. Following a lengthy car chase, my vehicle was rammed by a supporter of the Quorn Hunt who was driving a Land Rover. Just a few minutes later, several other Quorn Hunt supporters used powerful catapults to fire steel ball-bearings at me. I was therefore delighted when Parliament struck a blow for decency by passing the Hunting Act 2004.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me—I am trying not to be facetious in asking the question, but would he at least declare to the House any criminal record or record of a similar nature that he obtained while being a hunt saboteur, because I think that is relevant to the debate?
Chris Williamson
I am pleased to confirm to the House that I had no criminal convictions when I was a hunt saboteur.
Simon Hart
Would it be fair to say that the hon. Gentleman was bound over to keep the peace for an incident involving inciting people, in the eyes of the law, to break the law when he was secretary of Derbyshire hunt saboteurs back in the 1970s, as reported in the Derby Telegraph?
Chris Williamson
For the record, I was bound over to keep the peace after taking part in a Radio Derby broadcast to outline a protest against grouse shooting. That is very different from what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply.
The Bill that became the Hunting Act was long overdue. Public opinion overwhelmingly supported the ban and still does. Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat voters support the ban; young and old citizens support the ban; male and female citizens support the ban; urban, suburban and rural dwellers all support the ban.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Has not support for the ban increased since the Hunting Act was passed during the 2001 to 2005 Parliament?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. People cannot understand why some Government Members want to bring back this barbaric activity. The overwhelming majority of the British people want blood sports to remain consigned to the dustbin of history. As my hon. Friend points out, the vast majority of the British public want the Hunting Act to be retained.
The Act should have consigned hunting to the dustbin of history, yet such is the arrogance of some members of the hunting fraternity that they think they are above the law. However, they need to understand that nobody in this country is above the law—not even them. Organisations including the League Against Cruel Sports, Hunt Watch, Protect Our Wild Animals, the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, along with many other conscientious individuals, have continued to monitor hunt activity. They all tell a consistent story: hunt violence and hunt havoc continue to blight the lives of ordinary people living in and visiting our beautiful countryside.
I have been genuinely shocked by the evidence that has been passed to me about the behaviour of these common criminals. Antisocial behaviour, intimidation, harassment and even violence directed towards those monitoring their activities are all too commonplace. I could not believe that the violence and intimidation, which I witnessed in the 1970s, is even worse today. The disregard for the wider rural community is another feature of their selfish, arrogant behaviour, which includes road blocking; invading and damaging private property; rampaging hunting dogs killing livestock and beloved pets; causing road traffic accidents; and recklessly trespassing on railway lines.
I am not suggesting that everyone who participates in hunting is an arrogant, violent thug. Indeed, I am sure that most hunt followers obey the law. However, worryingly, a significant minority are arrogant, violent thugs, which is why urgent action is needed to tackle this flagrant disregard for the law. Of course I understand that the police numbers have been reduced, but where the law is being routinely abused, the public must have confidence that the authorities will take action. That is why the Government must act to give the police the tools they need to do the job.
Since I secured this debate, I have been inundated with examples of the lawless behaviour of sections of the hunting fraternity. The incidents are too numerous to list them all tonight, but I wish to give just a few examples to illustrate the kind of people and the sort of incidents I am talking about. In December, a hunt monitor reported to Okehampton police an assault that was captured on film. She was told to attend the police station with evidence of the assault, but, after reviewing the DVD, police officers told her that no offences had been committed. They said that there were just some driving issues that the offenders would be advised about, that any assault was part of a hunting issue and that she should not have been on the public footpath in the first place.
Last summer, a south Pembrokeshire hunt supporter was jailed for three and a half years for firearms offences while at a hunt, after a hunt monitor was shot in the head by what transpired to be a modified single-shot handgun. The man also had a sawn-off shotgun and ammunition inside his van, and a further 16 guns were found in his home. In Devon, two separate home owners sold their houses and moved away from the area after being victimised by the local hunt. The hunt master of the Crawley and Horsham hunt, Kim Richardson, was recently filmed telling hunt monitors,
“You’re all fair game now”.
On 4 January 2012, a female hunt monitor was violently assaulted by a supporter from the Cottesmore fox hunt. The woman was on her own when she saw the hunt’s hounds illegally chasing a fox. When she intervened, she was thrown to the ground by a man who smashed her over the head with an aluminium bottle before pinning her down and pouring the bottle’s contents over her face.
On 18 March 2012, supporters of the Ross Harriers hunt broke the window of a vehicle belonging to a monitor and attacked the monitors with an iron bar. One of the victims of the attack suffered injuries to the leg and head.
Chris Williamson
On 25 March 2012, three hunt monitors were set upon by a group of 15 Coniston fox hunt supporters armed with sticks.
Chris Williamson
I have a lot to say and I want to make some more progress. If I have time, I will let the hon. Gentleman in towards the end.
One of the monitors was left with welts on his back and a serious eye injury after the attackers tried to throw him down a ravine. An ambulance was called to treat him, but could not reach him after it was deliberately held up by vehicles belonging to hunt supporters, who hurled abuse at the paramedics.
On 3 November, the Crawley and Horsham huntsman Nick Bycroft was filmed breaking the wing mirror of a moving vehicle and then trying to smash the window with his whip. However, the West Sussex police, who were on the scene, refused to take action. On Boxing day, five armed men from the Southdown and Eridge fox hunt attacked a solitary hunt monitor, beating him around the head and injuring his hands. Keys and equipment were stolen from the vehicle, yet the East Sussex police refused to visit the hunt meet to identify the culprits.
Earlier this afternoon, I watched a short DVD produced by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which illustrates the intimidation, theft and assault to which its monitors have been subjected. I have to say that I found the footage shocking.
I also have evidence—a letter from Thames Valley police—of one particular hunt incident dating back to January 2011. It involved a Thames Valley police detective inspector who told a complainant that the case was
“fundamentally flawed (principally due to the delay in time since the offences)”.
Is an offence not an offence whenever it takes place? Is the passage of time a valid reason not to pursue?
It is not just hunt monitors who are the victims of these militant blood sports fanatics. I also have recent examples of other types of antisocial behaviour where these rural ruffians have run amok. In Kent, a farm manager’s wife was pushed off a public footpath by horse riders who were galloping across a narrow area. She was pushed into a hedge after grabbing her pet dog to save him from being attacked. The Goathland and Staintondale hunts killed a pet cat. In Devon, a Staffordshire terrier was attacked by hunt hounds. In Yorkshire, recovering horses at a sanctuary were distressed by rioting hounds. The owner of the sanctuary subsequently received threats—incredibly—from a member of the hunt. A Surrey cattle farmer had his herd disturbed on a number of occasions, causing severe distress to many of the cattle. In Somerset, a sheep farmer complained of sheep being distressed by hunting hounds. In Gloucester, horses were distressed by trespassing hounds that killed a fox on private property. In north Cornwall, animals from a small holding were disturbed by rioting hounds.
Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg. In what other part of society would that be acceptable? The simple answer is that it would not be. The irony is, of course, that none of this is necessary. If those recalcitrant hunt supporters and their unacceptable practices were not tolerated by the hunting fraternity’s hierarchy, those incidents would stop. By complying with the terms of the Hunting Act, all the transgressions I have outlined could be avoided.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government rhetoric about the Hunting Act being flawed and not enforceable and the signals that they would like the hunting ban to be repealed sends the message to the police not to take such offences seriously when they ought to be doing exactly that?
Chris Williamson
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I shall come to that point towards the end of my speech.
Simon Hart
I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way. We could both stand here all evening making such comments. I have spent 20 years compiling a list of incidents of violence against legitimate country people and hunt supporters, particularly by members of the hunt saboteurs in balaclavas and all that. Will he accept two things? First, could he not at least seize this opportunity to apologise to all those people—women and children included—who have been on the receiving end of violence from the hunt saboteurs? Secondly, could he not recognise that in every instance that he has mentioned there is existing law to deal with the matters that he has brought to the attention of the House?
Chris Williamson
If anybody is owed an apology, it is the victims of the hunt violence that I have referred to. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity, as a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, to offer that apology tonight.
If the hunting fraternity complied with the terms of the Hunting Act, the hunt monitors, whom they seem so frightened of, would be welcomed because the hunts would not be doing anything unlawful. However, the Masters of Foxhounds Association and the Countryside Alliance have singularly failed to deal with the lawless behaviour in their midst.
Will the Minister reassure me that he will issue an instruction to chief constables stating that the Hunting Act must be upheld? Will he also ensure that chief constables take steps to prevent hunt supporters from intimidating anyone who is lawfully monitoring hunting activities? Will he state for the record that, as far as this Government are concerned, no one is above the law? Does he agree that the mixed messages from senior Ministers could be misinterpreted by some people as tacit approval for breaking the law? Will he urge his senior colleagues, including the Prime Minister, to stop criticising the Hunting Act?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing this evening’s debate. It is not often in an Adjournment debate that the full emotions behind it are apparent, but they already have been this evening. The House will be aware of the strong emotions and feelings held on both sides of the debate.
In the last few minutes of his speech the hon. Gentleman set me some challenges, so let me address them directly. Violence at hunts is unacceptable, whether that is violence towards those who are hunting or towards those who are protesting against hunts. As with any violent crime, I would expect the police to take appropriate action should violence occur at a hunt.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted me to direct chief constables to do certain things. I should point out to him as gently as I can that it is not for Ministers to tell chief constables how to do their job. One of the things that we most cherish about British policing is that the police are operationally independent, and when politicians try to direct police in detail as to how they should do their job, they enter very murky—
Chris Williamson
Does the Minister not feel it is appropriate, however, to issue guidance to the chief constables to make it clear that the Hunting Act 2004 is the law of the land and that police have an obligation to uphold the law—all laws?
Damian Green
I am not aware of a single police officer in this country who does not know that the Hunting Act is the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to interfere in the operational decisions of the police. That I refuse to do, and any sensible Policing Minister—indeed, any Minister—would refuse to do that because that is not the way we do policing—
Chris Williamson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not want to keep interrupting his flow, but surely he is not satisfied at the fact that hunts are regularly and flagrantly breaking the terms of the Hunting Act. That cannot be right, can it? It is the law of the land and surely the Government have an obligation to make sure that the law of the land is upheld.
Damian Green
Let me get to the facts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said, on both sides of the hunting debate it is possible for people to compile a list of grievances. That is what has happened.
Let me turn to the question of policing at hunts very directly. There are over 325 registered hunts in England and Wales. Together they have carried out over 70,000 days’ hunting since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005. From 2005 to 2011, the latest year for which official figures are available, a total of 332 individuals were prosecuted under the Hunting Act. Of these, 239 were found guilty.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance to forces on the enforcement of the Hunting Act. This guidance reinforces the general position that the deployment of police officers, including for enforcement of the Hunting Act, is an operational matter for the police force concerned. The police, of course, have an important duty to enforce the law, but this general duty to enforce the law is subject to the normal discretion of chief constables, who are required to balance resources and priorities. The Hunting Act is no exception to this principle. It is up to the police to decide what resources they use to enforce and prioritise the Act.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that he thought the police were perhaps neglecting this because of the absence of sufficient resources. The Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit and that means that all public services must constrain their spending. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made it clear that there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of the police in the community, or between numbers and the quality of service provided.
I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House and on both sides of this passionate debate would welcome the fact that in the first two years of this Government, crime fell by 10%. On both measures of crime it is clearly falling and it is perfectly clear that the police, even with the constraints on resources, are able to do their job better than ever before. There is no argument to be made at all that resources are restricting the police from doing their basic job of cutting crime. That applies across the board.
Let me turn to the right of protest, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. I agree with him that peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society.
Chris Williamson
The right to protest is not what I was talking about in relation to hunt monitors, who are engaged in a perfectly legal and lawful activity in monitoring the activities of the hunting fraternity, partly to make sure that they do not transgress the law. Indeed, evidence garnered by hunt monitors has led to numerous successful prosecutions. It is not about protest: it is about monitors being allowed to go about their lawful business.
Damian Green
Indeed. I have already, I hope, enlightened the House with the number of prosecutions. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that hunts are not being properly policed, I simply point out that there have been 332 prosecutions and in 239 of those people were found guilty. Whether he regards monitors as protestors or as something else, it is clear that the police are doing their job, as is the rest of the criminal justice system, and people are being prosecuted successfully.
The rights of monitors, protestors, or whatever we wish to call them need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or of serious disruption to the community. The police have a responsibility to assess and manage this balance to ensure public protection and safety, and to engage with protestors, monitors and event organisers to enable peaceful activities to take place. It is clear that on either side of this debate none of these rights extends to violent or threatening behaviour. It is not acceptable for peaceful and law-abiding people to be attacked by others for expressing their views, and the police will and do act if that happens.
The police have a range of powers available to deal with violent crime, whether at a hunt or elsewhere. Where a violent crime has been committed or alleged, or a complaint has been made to the police, it is the responsibility of the police to investigate and determine whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation. The hon. Gentleman gave a number of examples, in some of which the police had clearly looked at evidence and decided that a prosecution would not be successful. That is normal police activity; it is what the police do every day. They detect more crimes than end up in court because they may well, on looking at the evidence in any type of crime, decide that perhaps a crime has not been committed or that there is not enough evidence to—
Damian Green
Violent or intimidatory behaviour will draw the attention of the police, from wherever it comes. As I have said several times, this is a passionate debate with very strongly held views on both sides. I am anxious that those views can continue to be expressed but that people stay within the law, and that intimidation and violence is kept out of this debate, as it should be kept out of all debates in a democracy.
Chris Williamson
For the sake of clarity and setting the record straight, I have seen evidence—I have it here on this DVD and I have seen other footage—of hunt supporters wearing the paramilitary uniforms and balaclavas that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned, being extremely intimidatory and, indeed, physically assaulting hunt monitors. I hope that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman would admonish those individuals as well.
Damian Green
I say to the hon. Gentleman what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire: I will condemn violence and intimidation wherever it comes from. We are all aware of how strongly felt the views are on this matter, but they should not lead to violence or intimidation.
If the police have evidence of violence, intimidation or any other criminal activity, they will consult the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide whether an offence reaches the threshold required for prosecution under the relevant legislation. The code for Crown prosecutors prohibits a prosecution from continuing if there is not a realistic prospect of conviction.
Once criminal proceedings are brought in an individual case, it is for the courts alone to determine whether the police have acted correctly in enforcing the law and whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the charges brought. Where a defendant is convicted, it is for the court to decide, within limits laid down in legislation, what sentence should be imposed, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating features of the case. That is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system and no Government Minister has the power to influence the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion—and a very good thing, too.
On hunting more generally, this has been a highly contentious issue for many years, both in this House and among the general public. It has been brought home to me this evening, as it has on other occasions, that that remains the case. I know that the hon. Gentleman in particular is passionate about the issue, as is my hon. Friend. It is right and proper that Government and Parliament should reflect on this matter from time to time.
I should make it clear that, while I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue that needs to be discussed from time to time, the Government are not proposing any immediate reform at this stage. We recognise the strong views held on both sides of the debate and—this point is important to the House—that it is an issue of personal conscience. Members of all parties in the House hold different views on the subject of hunting and it has traditionally, and rightly, been subject to a free vote in Parliament. I was a Member at the time of the Hunting Act and voted against it. My personal views are on the record. I should say as a declaration of non-interest that I have never been hunting in my life. Nevertheless, I voted against the Bill.
The Conservative election manifesto promised that Parliament would be given the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote. There are many greater priorities facing the Government at the moment, but we plan to honour that commitment by tabling a motion on hunting at an appropriate time.
Chris Williamson
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that that commitment and the rhetoric of senior Ministers are, as I said in my speech, tantamount to tacit approval for those who are transgressing the Hunting Act to continue to do so? They may be misinterpreting them—I am sure that Ministers would not encourage people to break the law—but does the Minister not understand how the hunting fraternity might take that as tacit approval to break the Hunting Act?
Damian Green
No, absolutely not. Every party at every election makes promises to change the law. Nobody takes that as tacit approval to break the law. If they did, no party would, responsibly, ever promise to change the law at any election and, therefore, there would be no point in having elections or election manifestos. As I hope the House will have observed, I am trying to steer a course, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I absolutely reject his interpretation of my party’s policy at the election.
As I have said, the time is not appropriate and we are not prioritising reform of the Hunting Act at the moment, but the right to protest peacefully and within the law is one that this Government hold dearly. Violence against those who do or do not support hunting is unacceptable. I know that the police will take appropriate action to identify and prosecute the perpetrators of violent crime, using the range of powers at their disposal to deal with any violence or unlawful activity. That is what the police should be doing, that is what the police are doing and that is what they will continue to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Transforming Rehabilitation
Chris Williamson Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
One of the things I intend to write into the tender documents when the time comes is a requirement for the bidder to demonstrate that they are capable of maintaining and developing these local partnerships, which are crucial. In an area such as integrated offender management, for example, it is essential to maintain those close links. The point made in the document is that it is not practical to commission a contract of this kind on a fragmented basis. Trying to have 15, 20 or 30 small payment-by-results contracts around the country, locally commissioned, would be unbelievably complex and take an inordinate amount of time to administer, and the expertise is not really there to deliver that. We will commission nationally but the delivery will be as local as possible.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
This statement seems to be driven more by extremist right-wing ideology than by any empirical evidence, because the Secretary of State acknowledged that the public sector is best placed to deliver public safety. Is he planning to allow the police to share intelligence with G4S and other private providers?
Chris Grayling
I know that the Labour party is going through an identity crisis at the moment, and the hon. Gentleman may be in the wrong party, but if I am not mistaken the Peterborough pilot was started by Labour and the legislation that allows me to do this was passed by Labour, so does he support what his party did, or not?
Firearms Controls
Chris Williamson Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are only a few weeks away from the elections for police and crime commissioners. I have discussed the issue with Ron Hogg, who is a PCC candidate in County Durham, and who has some expertise in the matter. It is important that this is a local priority, but I also suggest that we should have a national framework laying down guidelines—something stricter than guidelines, in fact—to be applied evenly. Part of the problem is that we have a patchwork of arrangements.
We cannot do firearms licensing on the cheap at the risk of compromising public safety. There is also a strong case for strengthening the link between the licensing authority and medical professionals when considering an application for or a renewal of a firearms certificate. We need early and proactive intervention when a firearms holder’s mental and physical health deteriorates.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that public safety would be improved if a prohibition was placed on the private storage of firearms in people’s homes, if people with a firearms certificate were subject to an annual medical test to assess continually whether they were a fit and proper person to hold one, and if a public register was available so that the general public knew who had access to a firearm? The atrocities that we see are often committed by people who have been deemed a fit and proper person when originally given a firearms certificate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Williamson Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The good news is that in April this year the Department of Health assumed responsibility for funding all drug treatments in prison and in the community. That joint commissioning of services by the health and criminal justice agencies will facilitate a more co-ordinated approach. We must move to programmes that ensure that we are dealing with the problem properly and getting people off drugs, not simply maintaining them, as has too often been the case in the past.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
18. Which organisations his Department has consulted on reforms to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the scheme for compensating victims of overseas terrorism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
In the coming weeks we intend to launch a public consultation on victims services, which will include the criminal injuries consultation scheme. We will not make up our minds about any changes until we have carefully considered responses from the public and other interested parties. We will make an announcement about compensation for victims of terrorism overseas at the same time as we launch our consultation.
Chris Williamson
The Justice Secretary’s party signed up to the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010 that granted compensation to victims of overseas terrorism. He will know that victims fought hard for those provisions, including the backdating of compensation for those severely injured in atrocities such as the Bali and Mumbai attacks. I do not understand why he has snubbed those victims, who were led to believe that the compensation scheme would come on stream last September. How much longer will victims of overseas terrorism be expected to wait while he and his Ministers dither over this important and just scheme?
Mr Blunt
I am afraid that there was a certain amount of confusion under the previous Administration, when for some reason the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had responsibility for overseas terrorism issues. These issues have now been brought together, and we will bring forward our proposals on victims of overseas terrorism in tandem with our proposals on criminal injuries compensation.
Mr Clarke
I would love to announce just such a policy. My hon. Friend probably shares my comparative amazement that drugs are so readily available in our prisons. The fact is that that is so endemic in the system that we have to start from where we are. We have a definite programme to introduce drug-free wings. As soon as we establish those successfully, a prime objective of the Government is to eliminate the presence of drugs and to establish proper rehabilitation of offenders that does not depend simply on maintenance and methadone.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
T5. To return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the Prime Minister said that there would be provisions on self-defence included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, but the Bill as it stands is silent on the issue. Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin, says that allowing householders to use any force that is not grossly disproportionate would amount to “state-sponsored revenge”. Can the Justice Secretary clarify how his legislation will differ from what is currently in place?
Mr Clarke
The Prime Minister was not advocating state-sponsored revenge, nor is anybody else. What we are doing is clarifying in statute the basis upon which people can use reasonable force to defend themselves in their property. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what aspect of that Labour Members seek to oppose, but I think they will be reassured when they see the amendments that we propose to introduce.
Firearms Control
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Every year, deaths from gunshot wounds are an all-too-common occurrence in our country, as a result of homicide and suicide. Before this debate, I read a report prepared by the Gun Control Network, which monitors the firearms incidents that take place in our country. That report makes for shocking reading.
In one month alone—November—the Gun Control Network has highlighted huge numbers of firearms incidents. They include seven fatal shootings, five of which were apparent homicides—three in north London and two in the west midlands. In London, two men died after a double shooting in Islington and another victim died when he was shot in a car in Finchley. In the west midlands, a man was shot dead in a house in Bilston and a man whose body was found in Smethwick had died from a gunshot wound to the head.
Two apparent suicides were also reported for that month. A man is thought to have taken his own life after he was seen in a street in Ashington, Northumberland with a gun, and a man was found dead at his stables near Rosewell, Midlothian in a suspected shotgun suicide. Thirteen other victims were shot—five with airguns and imitation weapons. A teenager was shot in Croydon and two men suffered leg injuries when they were shot in Clapham. In Merseyside, a man was shot in the legs in a street in Huyton. A victim was shot in the stomach with a shotgun in Croxteth and a man was shot in the leg in Stockbridge village. In south Yorkshire, a man sustained a minor injury when a shotgun was fired through the window of a house in Totley, Sheffield.
Five other people were hit by pellets from ball-bearing guns or air guns. In Shropshire, a boy was struck by a pellet from a ball-bearing gun in Oswestry and a cyclist was shot in the head with an airgun in Arleston. In south Yorkshire, a jeweller in Rotherham was shot in the face by an armed robber with a ball-bearing gun, and in Suffolk a woman and a teenager were struck in the head by airgun pellets on the same street but in separate attacks in Lowestoft. A man was shot in the hand by police in Copthorne, West Sussex. He was later charged with possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
I make this point because the pro-gun lobby likes to imply that people who take part in so-called legitimate shooting activities are extremely responsible. We have heard a lot of talk about knee-jerk reactions, but whenever there is an appalling incident such as the one in Cumbria, there is always a knee-jerk reaction from the pro-gun lobby. The House should consider the sobering thought that back in 1987, when Michael Ryan was indulging in a massacre in Hungerford, killing 17 people and injuring 15 others, Thomas Hamilton was seen to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate. Yet we know the tragic consequences in 1996 in Dunblane, where Thomas Hamilton killed 18 people and injured 15 others. When Thomas Hamilton was indulging in that killing spree, Derrick Bird in Cumbria was deemed a fit and proper person to hold a firearms certificate, and we know what happened earlier this year when 12 people were killed and 11 were seriously injured.
In my view, the country would be a far better place if guns were completely banned and nobody was allowed to own them. I recognise that that might be a step too far at this stage, but it is essential that this Parliament takes action to address the gun culture in our country. It is a frightening statistic that almost 5,000 young people—5,000 children—hold a firearms certificate. What kind of message is that sending out to the country at large? I am a councillor in Derby as well as a Member of Parliament. In a park in Normanton in Derby, there was a tragic and fatal incident in which a young man of 15 years of age was shot dead with a gun. I accept that that gun was obtained illegally. However, when the law of the land allows 5,000 children legitimately to hold a firearms certificate, it sends a very bad signal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has pointed out, there are 34 separate pieces of firearms legislation. The time is long overdue for a new, simpler, unified piece of legislation covering the ownership of firearms. As I have said, I would like to see a complete ban on guns, although I accept that that will not happen in the foreseeable future. However, it is appropriate to ban the private storage of firearms in people’s own homes. I cannot see how anybody in this House can legitimately argue that somebody should be able to store firearms in their own home. Why is that necessary? There is no foolproof method of dealing with this other than a complete ban on firearms, but taking them out of people’s homes would be a huge step in the right direction towards preventing the sorts of appalling massacres that we have seen in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria.
That is one of the measures that I would like to see, but we could go further. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has referred to the notion that a person who has a firearms certificate might be deterred from seeing their GP, if they felt that that GP could report them to the police as not being a fit and proper person to continue to hold a firearms certificate. However, there is a way round that: a mandatory, annual medical test to check on individuals who hold firearms certificates would ensure that they are mentally capable and fit and proper people to continue to do so. That measure would get over the problem that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister’s comments in the wake of the Cumbrian shooting, when he said that nobody can
“stop a switch flicking in someone’s head”.
Adopting the approach that I am suggesting would not be foolproof but it would be a considerable step forward in preventing the sorts of terrible incidents that we have seen. I urge the Minister to take it on board and respond to it appropriately.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has considered this issue and has made a number of recommendations, including the involvement of the medical profession through allowing police to see the medical details of applicants and permitting a formal approach to applicants’ families to ensure that they are happy for their family member to obtain a firearms certificate. That would be a huge step forward. We need, as a Parliament, to take appropriate steps. In the past, we have taken measures that clearly have not gone far enough, and we need to go considerably further. I accept that these measures need to be proportionate, but how do we judge what is proportionate when we see the number of innocent lives that have been lost as a result of people who have held firearms legitimately and then, through the inadequacy of our legislation, been able to go on a killing spree? I hope that the Minister will deal with those points.
We need to take more robust measures in relation to the illegal ownership of firearms. I would not allow children to have firearms certificates at all, but addressing the age at which young people are able to do so would be a good step in the right direction in terms of the signal it sends. We also need to look at other measures that we can take by working with young people and supporting youth organisations, which do some excellent work in bringing home to young people the consequences of gun crime. That would prevent more tragic incidents such as the one that occurred in the ward that I represent in Derby, where Kadeem Blackwood, a young man of 15 years of age, had his life tragically cut short. We have to empower youth organisations to enable the sort of educative work that would help to turn young people away from firearms.
Keith Vaz
I, too, was concerned about this when I began the inquiry. My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about these matters. Does he not accept, however, that it would be very odd if we did not allow people the chance to enjoy their sport in a shooting range, in properly controlled circumstances with a proper licence?
Chris Williamson
My own view is that I would ban guns, and there would not be shooting ranges because people would not have guns. However, at the end of the day, politics is the art of the possible. If we could have the properly controlled circumstances that my right hon. Friend has mentioned but, within that context, prevent people from having private storage of firearms in their own homes, that would deal with his point and also prevent the potential for the sorts of terrible massacres we have seen in some parts of the country.
Mr Offord
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wants images of weapons to be banned, for example in rap music, which we heard about earlier, and in American TV and big screen movies? That is where young people—particularly those in the urban environment that he is focusing on—see the images and glamorisation of such crimes and tragic deaths.
Chris Williamson
I agree that the violent images that we see on our screens and the references to weapons in rap music do not help. However, I do not think that that sufficiently explains why young people use guns to the extent that they do these days. That is why it is so important that we give the necessary resources not just to the police, but to youth organisations that turn young people away from firearms and make them realise the consequences of using firearms. There are consequences not only for the victims of firearms incidents, but for the lives of those who use them. The life of the young man who killed the teenager in my constituency, and that of his family, has been destroyed as a result of that incident.
Simon Hart
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the absence of a total ban, there is evidence to suggest that when people are given responsible access to firearms at an early age, under proper supervision, it reduces the chance that they will end up in the terrible circumstances that he has described? Instead of it being a negative, it is a positive. The Home Affairs Committee and others have pointed to plenty of examples that suggest that it is a good thing.
Chris Williamson
I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly do not accept the point with regard to young people, or any people, using firearms to shoot live quarry. Perhaps using firearms in a shooting range is a different matter, but I am not sure that I agree.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful, brave and challenging speech, which is important in this debate. However, I do not agree with many of his conclusions. My constituency was the scene of a gun rampage less than 20 years ago. A number of residents who were affected by it were appalled recently when a sports shop decided to sell guns. I must say that it does so in a safe and controlled environment, with regular checks by the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents should have a greater say, perhaps through the planning process, over whether such shops should be allowed to set up in the high street?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I hope that the Localism Bill, which was published last week and which will give local residents greater power over planning matters, will enable what he has described. We need to take account of local people’s views on such matters. Many opinion polls find that many people find the gun culture in our country utterly repugnant and unacceptable. Frankly, I think that people find it an affront to decency when such shops crop up on our high streets.
I hope that the Government will take on board the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and that they will take my comments seriously. I accept that I take an absolutist position on this issue, but I recognise that short of taking an absolutist stance, the Government can go further. In my view, the Government have a moral obligation to go further to prevent incidents such as those in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria from ever happening again in our country.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure and an honour to participate in this important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) who, if nothing else, has reminded us why it is important to have a proper, thorough debate on this issue, rather than to jump to conclusions before we know all the details and understand the ramifications of any legislation that we wish to make.
I will begin with a declaration of interest. In the armed forces, I shot a number of weapons avidly. I am involved with the training of the Olympic pistol team and am vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is an umbrella organisation that deals with a number of associations from across the board in the shooting fraternity.
This debate was always going to focus on the three huge tragedies that have affected British society and, indeed, Parliament—the Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria shootings. I hope that I speak for all hon. Members in saying that our thoughts go out to the families whose lives remain shattered by those unprecedented events. Those events are as shocking as they are unprecedented. The responsibility of dissecting what went wrong is enormous. It involves not only helping the victims’ families to come to terms with the events and to seek justice, but recommending changes to the law that might prevent similar incidents.
I am pleased that there was a delay after the Cumbria shootings in which to take stock and regroup before debating or deciding on firm legislation. The legislation will therefore be based not on passion, but on logic. There is a desire to act swiftly, but we must also act soberly. Given that we can see such tragic images unfolding in real time, thanks to 24-hour television, it is understandable that the majority of people, and indeed journalists, were horrified by the events that we saw and called immediately for tougher action.
I gently remind the House that it is not only such massacres that we must consider. Gun crime, in one form or another, is committed in every hour of every day, sometimes with tragic results. Those events do not take place in the media limelight or on our television sets, but they do shatter the lives of the individuals who are affected in exactly the same way. When we debate the major issue of firearms control, we must not let the issues become polarised by looking simply at the major tragic events.
The world of legal gun ownership and use, and the laws that govern it are extremely complex. On the whole, it operates with the high level of responsibility that society expects. As has been said, 34 Acts of Parliament relate to firearms. I was pleased that in the report, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) called for some kind of consolidation of that legislation. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not possible to legislate to stop a switch being turned in somebody’s head, but we can make it easier for those who have to use the legislation to operate in this environment.
We cannot un-invent the weapon. It has legitimate uses in the rural community, in sports, including Olympic sports, and in law and order. However, weapons can and do fall into the wrong hands. The bullet may be the cause of death, but it is the owner’s finger that is guilty of causing harm. Our job here in Parliament is to ensure that the public are properly protected. There must be a balance in law between our being a fair society and allowing legal gun ownership, and ensuring that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.
The hon. Member for Derby North spoke at some length about wanting to ban guns entirely. I hope he did not wish to mislead the House by saying that he was calling for children not to have access to guns and that it was ridiculous that children could have a licence at the age of 10. He knows that a child cannot be in possession of any weapon unsupervised while under 14, or under 15 in the case of a shotgun. We have to keep the full context of the law in perspective, and that is why the debate is important.
Chris Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that at the age of 14, an individual is a child and not fully aware of the consequences of the use of a firearm? Does he agree that if we are still to have guns in society, some consideration should be given to increasing the age at which an individual can have a firearms certificate, perhaps to 18, when they are an adult?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman puts his point on the record, but what is the consequence of making weapons illegal? It makes them a trophy, a gang culture accessory and an object of desire for certain people. Introducing people to a wide variety of guns at a very young age takes the mystery out of the weapon and teaches them respect. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, the Scouts and the cadets operate guns. I would like to see statistics on the respect or otherwise that people gain by being exposed to guns at an early age. If we had that, the hon. Gentleman would then be in a commanding position to say whether the current situation worked, and we could move forward from there.
Chris Williamson
I think the hon. Gentleman is conflating two issues. Young people involved in gang culture already see the illegal ownership of firearms as a badge of honour, and regrettably they are all too willing to use them. That is a separate matter from my point, which is that allowing young people to have a firearms certificate sends the inappropriate signal that it is legitimate for them to have firearms at their disposal. That is why it is important that we empower youth organisations to deal with the illegal ownership and use of firearms by young people in gangs.
Mr Ellwood
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would encourage him to go out and speak to the clubs and so on that participate in shooting. I have been involved in initiatives that take people from the gang culture, but who have yet to be exposed to guns and the world of crime, to a range so that they can understand what happens there. That teaches them some respect for the weapons that they have previously seen in video games or on television and thought they wanted. If he sees such initiatives, he might come back to the House with a very different view.
Chris Williamson
If the hon. Gentleman believes it appropriate to store handguns in a secure armoury, does he agree that it would be appropriate to store all firearms in a secure armoury in a similar way?
Mr Ellwood
That is exactly how this debate should proceed. I am saying that on this issue, about which I have endeavoured to learn a lot, it makes sense to allow handguns to be used in the UK, if they are kept under lock and key and if appropriate measures are put in place, such as a requirement that the safe be opened by three key owners. That would make sense. If the hon. Gentleman would like to roll that out further, he could put forward that proposal. The point that I am making, however, is that because of the legislation handguns were made illegal, yet there is now more handgun crime and it is the one area that is growing.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Let me start by associating myself with the comments of many right hon. and hon. Members about the dreadful incidents in Cumbria and other places. I was present at the June Westminster Hall debate introduced by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). As a proud representative of a rural area, I can only think in horror of the effect that such an incident would have on my community. Everything that I say should be understood in that context.
Since that time there have been some encouraging signs of an emerging consensus, among organisations and authorities, on what would be a proper, responsible, measured and proportionate way forward. Like other speakers, I would like to dwell on just three aspects of that, which are the availability of firearms to young people, the use of medical records in the application process, and the thorny issue of what constitutes a proper form of certification.
I shall start by establishing some context. One passage in the Home Affairs Committee report states:
“Certainly licensed firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases.”
That, I would suggest, is something of an understatement. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Committee, clarified that point earlier this evening. However, he did not go as far as the Committee did in April 2000, in its second report of that Session, which said:
“A common theme to many submissions is that illegally held weapons pose a far greater danger to public safety than those which are held in conformity with the present controls…it is clear that those determined to live outside the law are unlikely to respect the law’s requirements when they wish to acquire or use a weapon.”
Other Members have mentioned the way in which the law has performed in certain areas. It will come as no surprise to them that 52% of firearms offences in 2008-09 were committed with handguns, which were of course prohibited in 1997. That illustrates the point that both the Select Committee reports have made, albeit with a different emphasis.
The Committee went on to say:
“The proportion of licence holders who use their guns in crime is tiny”,
and added:
“Many representations were made to us…about the legitimate enjoyment of shooting…and the wider benefits that shooting brings to the UK economy.”
Other speakers have touched on that point today, but it is fair to re-emphasise that there are different approaches to firearms in urban and rural areas. In rural areas they are seen more as an essential tool of the trade than they might be in other parts of the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is not in her place, spoke of the Opposition’s recognition that 70,000 jobs were associated with the shooting industry—if I can call it that—and the fact that the industry injects £1.6 billion into the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) also said that £250 million is devoted to wildlife and habitat management. That is a significant industry; to put it in context, it is not dissimilar in size to the UK film industry.
I want to dwell first on the issue of young people. Paragraph 7.7 of the Home Office’s “Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police 2002” is no doubt familiar to many. It states:
“It is in the interests of safety that a young person who is to handle firearms should be properly taught at a relatively early age.”
Others have expanded on that, including Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, as the Minister said in his opening remarks. I can see no evidence—emerging or otherwise—to suggest that young people who have access to firearms pose any danger whatever to society; in fact, quite the opposite. It is well within the capability of parents to make sensible and responsible decisions about the activities of their children. They do so pretty effectively every day of the week, and this is no different. There is simply no evidence to suggest that we should conjure up theories that would have a long-term downstream impact on shooting in the UK.
In case that is not sufficient evidence, I will quote a comment made at the weekend by Anita North, the Commonwealth games 2010 gold medallist and record holder, who said:
“People choose their sport at a young age. We have some extremely talented shooters in the GB team who started in their early teens. If they hadn’t been able to get involved so young, they might now be taking part in some other sport rather than winning medals for shooting.”
I shall turn now to the contentious issue of medical records, and start by taking careful note of the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the security of data on the names and addresses of certificate holders. Large numbers of individuals within medical practices could have access to this sensitive material, the leaking of which could pose a significant risk. There is therefore legitimate concern about the proportionality of this measure. The Independent Police Complaints Commission could identify only six cases in which medical involvement at the granting or renewal stage of a licence might have made a contribution to the prevention of crime.
As we have heard, some medical practitioners—not many, but some—are unfavourably disposed to firearms ownership, meaning that licence holders might not visit their GP when they need to. A GP wrote to me only this weekend to say:
“our overriding duty is to our patients, to give them the best advice and guard the confidences they give us. A patient is not going to tell me things if I am going to pass information on to the authorities. We are the guardians of the patient’s confidence, not agents of the state”.
That position is reflected not only by the GP who bothered to get in touch with me but by many others across the country who have been in touch with other hon. Members.
Chris Williamson
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the tragic massacres that took place in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria could have been avoided if Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird been subject to a medical examination resulting in their firearms certificates being removed and their guns taken away from them?
Simon Hart
Let repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman in an earlier intervention. The fact is that there are individuals who may be perfectly healthy and competent when they apply for and are granted certificates, but in subsequent years may feel that their health is changing in a way that poses a potential threat to the ownership of their certificates, and as a result may feel fearful about approaching their GP in case their circumstances are changed forcibly. That is not good either for their health or for public safety. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has made his point, but sadly, I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different if different measures had been in place at that time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. Is the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) giving way?
Chris Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for giving way.
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument reinforces my own point. Does he agree that rather than a voluntary arrangement—which I acknowledge could deter people from going to their GP for fear of losing their firearms certificate in the circumstances that he has outlined—there should be a mandatory test, perhaps annually? If he does not agree, will he explain why?
Simon Hart
I apologise for the earlier exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. I will give my reasons for that answer in due course. I think that it is quite difficult to come up with a concept that would appeal to those who, like the hon. Gentleman, start from the absolutist position—which he is perfectly entitled to take—that nothing short of a total ban on all forms of firearms, whatever their purpose, is acceptable. However, I shall do my best in the few moments that I have left.
Let me try to nail the theory that consulting the spouse, or ex-spouse, of a certificate applicant or holder is somehow in the interests of safety. I cannot think of a more divisive and potentially litigious proposition. Some of the healthiest marriages and family arrangements are based on strong disagreement about almost every important issue, and arrangements of that kind often survive rather longer than others. On a flippant level, I think that such consultation would be a ridiculous intrusion into the way in which people conduct their lives. On a more serious level, I think that in acrimonious circumstances in which a marriage fell apart, the idea that an offended ex-spouse, male or female, should have a say in the future enjoyment of his or her partner is ludicrous. I have read, seen and heard no evidence suggesting for one minute that that would have contributed greatly to a lessening of the chance of serious crime involving shotguns or firearms. The idea that we can expect spouses to become moral adjudicators on applications is clearly nonsense.
Finally, let me deal with the difficult question of certification. Here, the devil really is in the detail. I may have got this wrong—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) will put me right if I have—but it seems to me that there is an implication that it would improve the position if the baseline criterion for applications for shotgun certificates were aligned with that applying to section 1 firearms. I cannot imagine that it is being suggested that the opposite should be the case, so I assume that the criterion for all shotgun certificate applications would rise to the section 1 level. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I can see why that might be attractive on the face of it, but I feel that it could be devastating to the shooting and gun trade in the United Kingdom. Let me cite the following at this point: “It would be one thing for a person to require good reason to hold a certificate for a shotgun—a reversal of the current burden of proof whereby the Chief Officer shall not grant a shot gun certificate if he is satisfied that there is no good reason—but quite another to require good reason to possess each and every shotgun, as is currently the case with rifles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) picked up on that, and put it rather more succinctly than I have managed. With this change in circumstances would come all sorts of requirements at variation stage, some of which are practically deliverable but some of which would impose an extraordinary burden, both financial and otherwise, on the already hard-pressed police force. If we consider the sheer number of shotguns in legitimate hands—they outnumber section 1 firearms by about 5:1, I think—we see that the burden that we would be putting on firearms officers and the police force in general is huge. The Select Committee is not as clear as it might be about precisely what the implications are, but perhaps that could be clarified.
All reasonable people will have looked on with horror as the various disasters we are discussing unfolded, most recently those in June and July, and they would accept that some consolidation of the existing legislation is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, it does not necessarily follow that that consolidation should result in wholesale changes, as there is no evidence to suggest that such changes, had they been made earlier, would have altered the tragic events that took place.
I agree with many other Members that evidence and principle must be the two foundations of any changes made by this or any other Government. Of course the efforts of the enforcement agencies and the Government should principally be directed at the eradication of gun crime, rather than unnecessarily penalising legitimate firearms owners. Sadly, so far as I can see, none of the proposals in the Select Committee report would have altered the outcome of the events that we have discussed this evening.
Apart, perhaps—although I doubt it—from the unlikely and absolutist solution suggested by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), no system is going to be 100% watertight. I suggest that the consolidation approach is the best way of establishing a proper balance between the legitimate interests of users—whether recreational users or those who use weapons as part of the nuts and bolts of their daily job—and the legitimate safety concerns. A consolidation would achieve that without compromising the coalition’s unequivocal commitment not to introduce legislation that unnecessarily impacts on people’s daily existence so that they are unable to conduct their businesses or live their lives free from state interference. If the coalition can get us to that stage, and not be too distracted by some of the eye-catching but—I venture to say—dangerous suggestions we have heard this evening, that would be a not unreasonable place to reach.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to sit through the entire debate, and I look forward to hearing the closing speeches from the respective Front Benches. I come to this debate as a holder of a shotgun licence and the owner of a shotgun. I am also very proud that we in South Derbyshire have one of the finest rifle clubs, at Swadlincote, and excellent cadet forces and shooting clubs at Newton Solney, a parish for which I am still a councillor.
We have fantastic shoots in South Derbyshire that are very important to the local economy, and it is interesting to note the juxtaposition between people who handle guns and those such as my good friend the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). There could not be a more obvious distinction between a city dweller and somebody who is proud to live in the countryside.
Chris Williamson
Just for the record, I grew up in the countryside and am very familiar with it, and I regularly walk in the beautiful Derbyshire countryside, so it is not legitimate, worthy or in any way relevant to suggest that I do not understand the firearms issue because I happen to live in the city at the moment.
Heather Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record. Interestingly, I recall that we went through great angst last time around with a report produced when Sir Ivan Lawrence was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That report created huge ructions in the shooting community because of the resulting legislation, which is why tonight’s debate is important. I commend the current Chairman of the Select Committee, because the 22 recommendations are very fair. They contain nuances, which I am sure the Government will examine for the next two months, and the consultation will go on from there. My abiding feeling is that I do not believe that there will be a knee-jerk reaction to anything.
One of the dreadful phrases I use is, “We mustn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”, but shooting is an extremely important part of our economy and our sporting heritage, and I believe that we will do extremely well in the Olympics: all that must not be sucked into the great concern we have when a few people involve themselves in tragic incidents. It is absolutely frightening that the pressure and power groups almost seem to be trying to put down great history, important parts of the economy and the sporting tradition of this country. None of that must change because of tragic incidents that take place in this country.
I, too, agree that it would be very worrying if the different types of licences were put together—even if there were to be a part A licence and a part B licence—because confusion would arise, even for the police, who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. May I put on the record how excellently the Derbyshire police force handles licensing arrangements? I can tell the Minister that the force gets it; Derbyshire’s police absolutely understand the difference between the types of certificates. We ought to leave it with the professionals, and we ought not to dabble any further.