Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

I do not really have a view on the actual level, other than that it should be proportionate and consonant with other licensing regimes. I suspect that in reality £50 looks a bit cheap. Those are my comments on the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this seems to be a matter of straightforward common sense. When there is a history either in which people have been involved in violence or which suggests that they may not always be in full command of their activities, because of alcohol or drug misuse, those are exactly the sort of people who should be denied access to firearms. The cases cited about firearms being used in domestic violence situations are a particularly compelling example of why this is important.

While I accept that chief officers of police must use their judgment, spelling out in legislation in this way that these are the matters they should look at, and that the presumption should be one in which they would refuse a licence application, is exactly the right way round it. That would then place the onus on those seeking the licence to demonstrate why they are suitable, notwithstanding the history of violence they may have shown or the fact that they were known to have substance abuse problems.

It is also extraordinary to hear from my noble friend Lady Smith about the difference in fees for various sorts of licence. This is surely an example where the fees should be set to reflect the fact that the checks which should be done should be thorough and all embracing, and should certainly cover the matters outlined in this amendment. On any common-sense interpretation of what Parliament should be doing about restricting the access to firearms of people who might be a danger to others, this is exactly the sort of amendment that should be put forward and agreed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have had this short debate on what is a very important issue. The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, relates to two firearms licensing issues which were discussed extensively during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the proposed new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness and drug or alcohol abuse. While I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I would also be concerned about including mental illness as a presumption for a refusal. It would be wrong for us to suggest that all forms of mental illness, even a past episode, should prima facie disqualify a person from possessing a firearm.

I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse. In response to these, on 31 July, we published specific guidance on this issue which provided greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. In addition to that the revised full guidance, published as recently as October—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may not have seen that but it is available—specifies that the police must take seriously non-convictions intelligence and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that any incident of domestic violence or abuse which comes to the attention of the police should result in a review of the current suitability of the certificate holder. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but the guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused or, if a certificate has already been issued, that the certificate should be withdrawn. This new guidance is now being applied by police forces.

The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I understand that argument, but I consider that guidance needs to remain just that. It is right that chief officers have the discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local areas, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at a local level. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this. The Government have sought to make decision-making a local responsibility wherever possible. I would not want to undermine this.

However, we are ensuring that, where national action can support local decision- making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will also be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. I believe that this is the way forward. In order to assess standards, HMIC has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up consistency of decision-making across the country.

I turn to the second part of the proposed new clause, which seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. Noble Lords should be reassured that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why a new online licensing system is being introduced, cutting the administrative burden of a paper-based system. Primary legislation is not required to make this happen. Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve a “one giant step” full cost recovery. The current fees and licensing structure has remained the same for a long time and—we all accept—needs to be reviewed. It is extremely important that we achieve a balance between an efficient system and a proper fee level. For this reason, we are considering what level firearms licensing fees should be over the long term, once these efficiencies have been made. I hope that, having demonstrated to the noble Baroness that we have made considerable progress on these issues, she will be persuaded that further legislation is unnecessary and in a position to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I suggest that between Committee and Report I meet my noble friend to address her specific concerns, which I hope will help with clarity and understanding at the next stage.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Does the noble Baroness agree that it might be helpful if the Minister, in writing to her, sets out a precise list of what is required and explains why it would not be possible for that list to be laid in regulations so that it is clear what information is being referred to? The way in which it is written at the moment seems extraordinarily broad.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I agree with that. I was going to press my noble friend a little on whether the Information Commissioner has been consulted. I hoped that there might be time for inspiration to flow across half the length of the Chamber but I do not think that it has.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 56QZG is intended to maintain the drive for independence in the IPCC by improving its reporting requirements. The Police Reform Act 2002 already requires the IPCC to make an annual report to the Home Secretary on the carrying out of its functions during the year. The amendment would require the IPCC to also report to Parliament on moves to strengthen its independence. This would include the volume of independent investigations carried out, the number of investigators employed who have not served in the police, any other work to strengthen the IPCC’s independence and any changes to its responsibilities during the year. The amendment would ensure that greater exposure to the work of the IPCC is achieved through the mechanism of clear, annual reporting requirements. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling this amendment. I have put my name to it because I want to probe the Government on their exact intentions and the timescales for the changes and improvements to the IPCC that the Home Secretary has announced. I note with interest that this debate is now being observed by four former Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. I cannot recall a previous instance when all four have been in the Chamber simultaneously and, as a consequence, I suspect that the Minister ought to be afraid, very afraid, about either this amendment or a subsequent one.

We need to consider this important amendment—and I look forward to the ministerial response—because it goes to the core of how we can have confidence and trust in the police service. The public want to be satisfied that, when things go wrong, their concern has been properly investigated in an independent, thorough, robust and timely manner. If it is a serious matter which may lead to criminal charges, or dismissal of officers or whatever else, that process must be above rebuke and there must be no question of bias or anything else.

I have a lot of confidence in the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Anne Owers, who is working very hard to improve the capacity and capability of the IPCC. The Government, having initially not quite recognised the importance of this body, have now changed their position but we need some clarity on how quickly things are going to move. Having trust in the processes followed by the IPCC is a necessary component of having trust in the police themselves. Whether or not the police have the consent of the public is called into question unless the public can have confidence that their complaints are being investigated adequately and independently.

These amendments would, first, ensure that most investigations—particularly serious ones—are carried out by staff who are not, nor have ever been, police officers themselves. Secondly, they reduce the number of investigations delegated to another police force or to the police force itself under investigation. Thirdly, they ask the IPCC to report regularly on its progress. However, we have heard that the Home Secretary intends to increase the resources available to the IPCC. As I understand it, it is not intended to transfer officers from police forces into the IPCC but to give them new resources. What are the timescales for these changes? What do the Government expect to see happen? Do the Government accept the principle that the proportion of investigations carried out by people who have not previously been police officers should increase?

There is a general belief that, when it is a serious matter, things are swept under the carpet and I am afraid that some recent revelations and crises have not helped this. It is therefore important that clarity is given and that people have confidence that this is not just about the police investigating themselves. Noble Lords in this Committee may be very clear that this is not about a police officer who knows the individual under investigation and who is therefore investigating their mate’s performance. At the moment, the IPCC has all sorts of measures in place to avoid that being the case, but the public perception is that complaints are being investigated by current or former police officers and it is assumed that the police are investigating themselves. This amendment is important because we need clarity that there is genuine independence, and that those concerned are not former police officers who, it may be asserted—probably wrongly—know the individuals or are part of the same culture about which someone has complained.

The Minister will, no doubt, have a whole series of technical points on why this amendment is not quite right or does not work. He does not: that is even better. We can agree it tonight and that will be very good. It is important to understand the direction of travel, how quickly we are moving there and how we will see the sort of independence which will give confidence in the complaints process and, in turn, enable the police to move back to a position of public trust.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, during my time as commissioner, I argued strongly for a fully independent and well resourced police investigation process. I have maintained that position since my retirement and I entirely support the motivation behind these amendments. However, I have concerns that Amendment 56QZF, in particular, is too prescriptive in the timescale available and that the notion of having 75% of investigators with a non-police background by January 2017 might, perversely, have the reverse effect of its intention. If it is a prescriptive requirement to get to that point, it may be tempting to employ people as investigators who are not adequately trained or have the right background to investigate these most serious and complex allegations. While admiring the intentions behind these amendments, I have concerns about the practicality of the timescales. I urge caution about such a prescriptive requirement.