Pension Equality for Women

Debate between Grahame Morris and Bill Wiggin

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes a completely reasonable point. I am sure there is common cause across the House—I am looking at the Minister and hoping that common sense can prevail—and there must be an acknowledgement that there was poor communication. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a collective action is being taken by the WASPI women through Bindmans solicitors, and there could be a case of maladministration if the matter is found in their favour.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he seems to know what he is talking about. Can he give an idea of how much this will cost? I suspect that there is a range of amounts, but I am curious to know what he thinks would be the right amount of money that could go some way towards putting this right.

[Grahame Morris]

I think there are things that the Government and the Minister could do immediately, and I will come to those a little later—I have set out my suggestions in a sequential way, and they include immediately extending pensions credit to the group. I do not have the costings for that—[Interruption.] My colleagues on the Front Bench inform me that it is £800 million. We could do things with the winter fuel allowance or bus passes, which would offer immediate help to these women.

I alluded to the fundamental point made by the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, who said:

“The 2011 Act, which I was responsible for, did not add any more than 18 months to people’s pension age, typically 12 months. But when we did write to people—and we did write to them to tell them what changes we have made—this was the first time they had heard about the first changes. So instead of me writing to them to tell them there was an extra year on the pension age, we were effectively telling them they had six extra years added to their pension age, which is of course why they were outraged”.

Hopefully, we are having a sensible, constructive and meaningful debate, but we should make no mistake—there is real hardship and outrage out there.

Firearms Controls

Debate between Grahame Morris and Bill Wiggin

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

It is not automatic. One problem is inconsistency in how various police forces go about their task. I was about to ask the Minister about the training of licensing officers. While I welcome the Government’s and his commitment on new guidance, the basic problem is that it is still guidance, not a change in the law as such. When I have sought advice from people who are legally qualified—I have a deal of service in local government, and we often dealt with guidance on housing benefit and so on—the advice that I have got is that the legal status of the revised guidance is the same as that of the old guidance, which was clearly found wanting. We need a change in the law to mandate chief police officers to act in a particular way. We need to toughen up the laws in that area to deal with domestic violence.

One way to address the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) is formal training for police officers who deal with firearms licences. The issue was noted by the coroner in his report on the Horden shootings. No formal training was available to officers in 2006-07 in Horden, where the perpetrator, Michael Atherton, applied for shotgun and firearms licences. More concerningly, it is evident that even today, after the lessons from Horden and other incidents around the country, little formal training is offered to police officers. The expectation is effectively that police officers learn on the job, presumably from more experienced colleagues. That could be hugely problematic and lead to enormous variations around the country.

Despite recognising in the introduction to the revised guidance published in December 2012 that firearms legislation and the subject of firearms generally are complex and highly specialised, the Home Office and Ministers provide no assurances that officers will be provided with suitable training. The guidance states:

“It is not practicable to provide comprehensive training for every police officer on the administration of the Firearms Acts.”

It should be possible. I hope that the Minister will offer some insight or clarification on what training is being made available to officers processing firearms applications. I do not believe that Home Office guidance alone is a suitable replacement for comprehensive training for officers determining firearms applications.

I have raised concerns about training because, like many people to whom I have spoken, I find it difficult to understand how, even with the old guidance that applied before December 2012, Mr Atherton, the shooter in the Horden case, was able to obtain and then retain his firearms; they were revoked for a period in 2006. The Home Office guidance states that consideration should be given to any of the following factors:

“Evidence of alcohol or drug abuse that may indicate that a person is unfit/unsuitable to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self-control…Evidence of aggressive or anti-social behaviour, which may include domestic disputes…Evidence of disturbing and unusual behaviour of a kind which gives rise to well-founded fears about the future misuse of firearms. A pattern of abuse should generally be regarded more seriously than a single incident, although isolated incidents should not be disregarded in the assessment of the person concerned and their fitness to possess a firearm.”

From looking at the case, from talking to the family and the people involved and from looking at the coroner’s and Independent Police Complaints Commission reports, there was clear evidence to suggest that Mr Atherton was unsuitable to possess a firearm. I can detail the reasons.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I agree that we should do all we can to prevent any sort of death by firearm, but, clearly, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, at some stage a judgment needed to be made, and the judgment was wrong. No amount of change in the law can alter a subjective judgment, which the police officer who gave back those weapons got wrong. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Grahame M. Morris]

It is an interesting intellectual argument about risk assessment and judgment. We need to ensure that the processes in place are robust enough, that the responsible officers in Durham or the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are suitably trained and that the guidance is fit for purpose to protect public safety. My concern from the evidence, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, is that the guidance is not fit for purpose and could, relatively straightforwardly, be tightened up. There is an opportunity to do that shortly, because of the legislation going through the House.

In the Michael Atherton case, there were concerns and there were opportunities to revoke his licence. However, the police were concerned about not having sufficient backing from the courts. The case file includes a note from the firearms licensing supervisor, the officer in charge of the two officers who actually did the licensing: “4 domestics”—four incidents of domestic violence—the most recent being on 24 April 2004, which was two years before the licence was issued. According to the note, Michael Atherton

“was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner”,

whom he subsequently murdered. The supervisor continued:

“Would like to refuse—have we sufficient info—refuse re public safety”.

That concern seems to have been passed up the chain of command, but it was not acted on, because of legal advice to Durham constabulary indicating that there were no grounds to refuse.

At the inquest, Chief Superintendent Carole Thompson-Young cited a similar case, not in Durham but in a different force area, in which a gun owner won an appeal after having his licence revoked, because,

“the judge deemed that the person was entitled to have a gun because there had been no gun used in relation to domestic violence”.

The police, therefore, are mindful of that when doing risk assessments; they are defensive about being counter-sued, and we must examine that issue.

Even when police forces have correctly followed the guidance, therefore, they have not always received the support that they should from the courts. I have received no indication that stronger guidance would resolve the matter, but a change in the law mandating comprehensive checks, with a presumption to refuse an application when there is evidence or a pattern of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or substance abuse, would provide the required safeguards. My contention is that we need to change the law.

Mr Atherton had his firearms removed following an incident in September 2008 in which he threatened to self-harm, and that highlights a number of questions that were overlooked, ignored or not given the attention that they deserved at the time. The case involves multiple failures, which unfortunately led to the loss of life. I would like to be standing here today saying that it could never happen again—we have learned the lessons, the Minister has tightened up the guidance and everything is in place to prevent a similar tragedy—but I do not believe that to be the case. At the very least, I would like to say that we have done all we can to mitigate the risk and to make another such incident less likely.

On GPs, I hope that the Minister will support my efforts and those of the Turnbull family, who are calling for a check with GPs, domestic partners and the appropriate authorities as a matter of routine, with a presumption—if not a requirement—to refuse an application when there is a pattern or evidence of behaviour indicating violent conduct. The British Medical Association, according to the brief that was circulated this morning, clearly has some concerns about being involved in risk assessment, and some GPs feel that they do not have the necessary qualifications to express a professional opinion. Some GPs—and some MPs—are asked to countersign firearm certificates, but they say that they are certifying applicants as a fit person to hold a certificate on a personal rather than a professional basis.

[Bill Wiggin]

I think it is true that someone must have an assessment as well.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is the case under the guidance on checking with GPs, including the revised guidance, but a complete package would include the police being mandated through a change in the law, with a presumption not to issue a certificate in such circumstances.

The costs are contentious, in particular for the shooting lobby, which has a large fraternity in my constituency. In the current economic climate and given the coalition’s policies, although I am not seeking to make a party political point—[Interruption.] No, I am not, I am trying to be helpful. The public deserve the proper levels of protection and want to have confidence that the system is robust, but additional checks would be more time-consuming and involve a cost, so that cost should not fall on the individual police authorities, as would be the case at the moment. The Government have made a particular allocation to the Home Office for the police service, so additional costs should not have to be balanced by cuts elsewhere. It is only fair and reasonable that the cost of the licence, including any more onerous regulatory regime, should be reflected at least in part, if not completely, in the fee. That would be right and proper.

Those seeking to possess a firearm should meet the true cost incurred by the police in processing the application. I do not want the police in my area or any other to say, “Well, we were hampered from carrying out the necessary checks, because we didn’t have the requisite resources.” I urge the Government to allow the police to increase the cost of firearm licences to somewhere near the true cost of processing. That would go some way towards meeting the stated aim of the Home Office guidance: that the protection of the public is paramount.

We cannot legislate to mitigate every risk. I am not suggesting that we can, but my proposals for sensible and considered changes to the Firearms Act would significantly enhance public safety in a way that revising the guidance does not. I like to think that these proposals are a calm and measured response and evidence based. I call on the Minister to act on them and to use the opportunity of the legislation currently going through Parliament, which completed its Committee stage just before the recess, to introduce the requisite amendments.