Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

56MD: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
“28B Assessing public safety
(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the chief police officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the chief police officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the chief police officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) there is inserted—
“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we support the Government’s clauses on firearms but feel that more needs to be done, which is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD. Our proposed new clause calls for a broader range of better background checks to be included as part of the licensing process. It amends the Firearms Act 1968 so that a history of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or mental illness provides a presumption against the acquisition of a firearms licence, unless exceptional evidence can be provided to the contrary. It also introduces full cost recovery, to ensure that the cost of a licence reflects the cost to the police of processing it. In this amendment, firearms and shotgun applications are treated the same and the range of background checks is improved. Both the IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place called for this.

The Minister will recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading and gave a specific example, about which I know he will share my concerns. Susan McGoldrick was murdered, along with her niece and her sister, by her partner, who legally held a firearm. As many as one in three women killed by their partner in England and Wales is shot with a legally owned weapon; 64% of these murders involve shotguns. The Government have introduced new guidance, which is welcome, and I know that we cannot stop every crime by legislation alone, but we can do better.

In the past 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents; in 2009 the figure was 100%. The IPCC and the Home Affairs Select Committee have both proposed tougher rules to prevent people with a history of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness or violence—particularly domestic violence—from acquiring firearms licences. The IPCC called for:

“Explicit guidance around domestic violence and seeking the views of partners/family members where domestic violence is a previous factor”.

We agree with the need for explicit and clear guidance on legislation but the issue of seeking the views of partners or ex-partners is somewhat difficult, and we would not support seeking the consent of a partner or former partner because that could lead to intimidation and place people at even greater risk. Perhaps there should be wider consultation on this with a range of people.

The present position is that just one home visit is required by law for an initial application. Good practice means that there can be additional visits or checks, but that is not in the legislation. I understand why there are concerns about the impact of part of this amendment on those who have a history of mental illness. I stress that mental illness at some point in a person’s life does not disqualify them for ever but they would have to provide evidence that would allow an exceptional case to be made for their suitability to possess a weapon. Of course, we are not saying that they cannot take part in shooting—there are registered clubs—they just cannot have weapons at home.

The Government have stated that the Home Office will issue guidance and that should alleviate the issue. But we are pretty sure that guidance alone is not enough to tackle tragic domestic violence-related deaths, which have been on the rise. It is not good enough, and that is why we have tabled Amendment 56MD.

The other part of the amendment concerns full cost recovery. In so many areas, the Government are seeking full cost recovery, but not in firearms. I am curious about the reasons for this anomaly. Our amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult with police officers before setting a fee level that would enable police forces to recoup all the costs they incur when conducting proper background checks.

Currently a firearms licence costs just £50 for five years and only £40 for renewal, but if an application is processed properly it takes up a considerable amount of time, including home checks and background checks, which is not reflected in the cost of the licence. The cost of administering a firearms licence is much higher. Therefore, at present the taxpayer is subsidising the firearms licensing system by an estimated £18 million a year. Given the level of police cuts across the country, that level of subsidy seems unfair. It is difficult to understand why, at £50 for five years, the annual cost of a firearms licence is barely a third of the cost of a fishing licence, which costs £27.50 a year, and roughly equivalent to the cost of a CRB check, which costs £44 and only requires a name to be checked against a database, which is much less onerous.

The Government’s current position is that they will aim to introduce a fee regime in 2015 under which just 50% of the cost—not the full cost—is recovered by the police. I ask the Minister: why only 50% and why not until 2015? Why are fishing licences so much more expensive? Why are the Government not going for full cost recovery when they are committed to that general principle across the public sector, for example, with passports and driving licences? Why is that not extended to gun licences? At Second Reading we discussed full cost recovery on tribunal fees; that will come up again. The Government claim that they want to improve the system of background checks associated with firearms licences but will not commit to putting that in legislation. On full cost recovery, they say that they will introduce a fee regime in 2015.That is too late; it can be done sooner than that.

These issues need to be addressed now. We want to save lives and reduce the number of gun-related domestic violence deaths as soon as possible. Amendment 56MD seeks to do this and is a much more direct and effective solution than the Government’s alternative of vague guidance and promises for 2015. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I have interests in shooting and I am a firearms and shotgun licence holder. I have also been a referee for others who are such licence holders.

After the tragedy of Dunblane, it was one of my party tricks to ask chief officers of police whom I ran into how we were getting on with the police national firearms computer, which was promised in the wake of that tragedy. It took a very long time for anything that even approached that to become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I would love to have been persuaded by the Minister, because the only reason we brought this amendment forward is that the current system is not working. If it were, there would be no need for such an amendment, so it is clear that we are extremely concerned. I was interested in the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the case of Michael Atherton; he said that existing legislation was adequate. I tell him that there are a number of reasons why Mr Atherton should not have had a firearms licence, perhaps most crucially his history of domestic violence. The police wanted to refuse his application, but they were given legal advice that they did not have the grounds to refuse. That is part of the problem: it indicates the change in the law that is needed. Discretion can be very difficult for police officers when they are getting legal advice that, if they use that discretion, they will be challenged in courts. That is one of the reasons we have brought this forward. I understand the concerns on mental illness, and I would never suggest for a moment that anybody who has had a mental illness should not be able to hold a licence. I think, however, that there should be a check on people who have had a mental illness who could be a danger to themselves or others; where it is coupled with domestic violence, for example, then there is a case.

I am also rather surprised by the Minister’s issue on full cost recovery, because I do not think that that principle is applied to other areas of full cost recovery. It does not really explain to me why a fisherman pays so much more to have a licence or why that licence is so much more expensive than a firearms licence.

In the light of the debate today I will take away the Minister’s comments and look at them in Hansard, and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56MD withdrawn.