Firearms Control

Debate between Diana Johnson and Tobias Ellwood

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

Clearly, the decision about whether a certificate should be issued rests finally with the police. The information that GPs can provide should be factual and based on what they know.

Some 93% of shooters are male, the majority being over the age of 40. That group does not go to their GP as often as they perhaps should, so the opportunity to identify problems may be limited; it has been made clear that Derrick Bird had little contact with his GP. In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has identified only six individuals a year where involvement with a medical practitioner might have had an effect in notifying the authorities that there was a problem. So this issue has to be kept under review in the weeks and months to come.

The law relating to young people and firearms control is complicated and, at times, confusing. Members of the public who read the report will raise an eyebrow when they see that 26 10-year-olds currently hold shotgun licences. The report by ACPO did not examine the age at which a certificate can be issued to a young person, as that was not relevant to the events in Cumbria; nor did this give ACPO any particular concern when considering the wider issues. However, the report referred to inconsistencies that could be addressed on some issues—for example, the definition of an “occupier” in relation to the supervision of a young person. The Committee commented on the need for a review of the minimum age limits on the use of firearms and the eligibility for firearms certificates, with the aim of reducing the inconsistency and complexity associated with the use of firearms by children.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the age at which people should be exposed or given access to weapons. I have had the opportunity to work with some youngsters who, in a different world, would not get to see these weapons. They would see them on telly and in video games, and they would consider them as trophies—the bits of kit that youngsters need to have. By allowing such youngsters to use these weapons in a safe environment and exposing them to how they work, they gain respect for these weapons and their air of mystery is removed. Does she agree that more such education is required, so that the youth of today are allowed to understand the importance and danger of these weapons and the respect that they must give them?

[Diana Johnson]

I hope that the Government will consider that very point when they consider the Committee’s recommendations. We need to wait to see how they will respond to the issue. Interestingly, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice talked about the need for a proportionate response and recognised that young people are involved in many positive activities involving shooting, for example, through the Scout Association, which holds an annual rifle competition. In addition, the use of target shooting activities is increasing in the schools sector, Sport England provides funding for shooting and the activity is also recognised by the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme.

Let me now deal with the recommendation relating to criminal activity. Concerns have been raised that people with criminal convictions have been able to obtain certificates. It appears that people with suspended sentences are not prevented from obtaining a certificate, and the Committee agreed that that needs to be examined. The Committee also recommended that those who receive shorter custodial sentences should not be allowed to possess firearms, and we agree that that should be considered seriously by the Government. The Committee also noted that police licensing officers are now encouraged to take into account intelligence about criminal behaviour that has not resulted in convictions, as well as convictions resulting in non-custodial sentences, when considering whether to grant a licence. The Committee felt that it must be made explicit in police guidance that officers are expected to take such behaviour extremely seriously, particularly in cases of bind-overs, arrests and police call-outs for domestic violence, and that accumulation of convictions should also be carefully examined.

That leads me to the recommendation about the further consultation that should be undertaken when an application is made for a shotgun or firearm licence. The Committee suggested a requirement to consult the domestic partners of applicants on whether to grant a licence in order to try to identify whether there are domestic issues of which a firearms licensing officer should be aware. I noted when I read the report that the Committee was particularly concerned about the use of firearms in domestic violence incidents. Evidence was given to the Committee about a system introduced in Canada, whereby the current spouse or recent ex-spouse is required to sign the application form of any individual applying for a firearms licence. Any failure to do so prompts an additional level of investigation by the registering authorities. Since the system was introduced the gun murder rate of women has reduced by 40%. The ACPO lead has also said that adults in a domestic relationship should be inquired of when an application is made for a firearm or shotgun. The Opposition believe that this recommendation merits serious consideration by the Government, and I was particularly pleased that the Minister talked about examining the matter and making careful adjustments, where appropriate.

The Committee recommended that fees should be raised to cover the costs of licensing to ensure that funding cuts do not jeopardise the rigour of the licensing process. We know that police forces are facing 20% cuts to their budgets over the coming years. Clearly this type of work is one of those areas that the report by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was referring to when it said that although only 11% of police officers were available to the public, 89% were performing important work on behalf of the public, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that dealing with firearms licensing falls into that category.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Tobias Ellwood

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Diana R. Johnson]

That is absolutely right. We have seen a political blind date, but we should not worry because it is clear that Dave agrees with Nick, and that Nick agrees with Dave, so perhaps it will be okay in the end.

There are a few measures in the Budget that I can support, such as the change to capital gains tax and the bankers levy, although I am surprised that the levy will raise only about £2 billion because I think we could raise much more. However, the broad thrust of the Budget is very bad news for my constituents. Hull North will see more individuals out of work, with people’s opportunities wrecked and a decline in their quality of life. The programme of fighting child poverty and inequality will go backwards, not forwards, and there will be big problems in health and housing. Most importantly, wealth creation and enterprise will suffer in Yorkshire.

I want to talk about four things in particular: the rewriting of the history of the economic situation by the Conservatives and Lib Dems; the dogma that drives the Budget; my constituency, and Yorkshire and the Humber; and Labour’s approach to dealing with the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

I am worried by the rewriting of the economic history of the recession and the falsification of the cause of the deficit. We know that the Prime Minister is familiar with airbrushing, and his deputy routinely airbrushes away more than 100 years of his party’s history when it suits him. The deficit was caused not by big government, but by big greed. Bankers and international speculators are at its root.

In 2006 and 2007, I was fortunate to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), whom I was pleased to see back in the Chamber today. During that time, early work was being carried out on the current 2008 to 2011 public spending period. We had enjoyed a decade of low inflation, steady growth and falling unemployment, and there was no serious deficit problem. At that time, the present Prime Minister and Chancellor used a soundbite about sharing the proceeds of growth. They also said that they wanted to match the Labour Government’s spending plans up to 2011, as they kept saying until the end of 2008.

We all realised at that time that the spending round would need to be tighter than the one immediately after the millennium, but the adjustment was not remotely on the scale of the deficit in the public finances that opened up from 2008. The events of the two years that followed came about because of the greed-fuelled banking crisis that tipped the world into the worst recession since the 1930s. It is wrong to airbrush out what happened, to blame the problem on big government, and to be oblivious to the fact that public services are important not just for fighting poverty and inequality, and for providing opportunity, but for an efficient, growing, modern economy. Since the middle of 2007, taxpayers have had to pay to rescue the banking system—and not just in Britain—but now hard-working families and public service workers are being asked to pay again because of the greed of the bankers and the speculators.

The Budget is driven by dogma, not good housekeeping. It cuts too early and too deep, and it will hold back growth, which my party saw as the main engine for cutting the deficit. We know that further cuts will follow, including departmental cuts of up to 25%, but I think that the coalition Government will make further cuts again and again, meaning that we have a spiral of cuts and debt.

When Labour was in office, the Chancellor berated our Government for not mending the roof while the sun was shining, but it now seems that he is up the ladder removing the slates as the storm clouds of a double-dip recession gather on the horizon. In Hull, we need public services and investment. They are important to the local economy. The coalition cuts, however, will harm our quality of life. The Tories said in the past—I think that they still say this—that mass unemployment is a price worth paying. The market zealots on the Government Benches who said for years that they wanted less regulation of the markets and smaller government are now getting their way.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am sad to hear the hon. Lady advocate a double-dip recession so early in a new Parliament. The public do not want to hear those sorts of words. We need to get behind the Government and allow the coalition to do its job. I would like to ask her who was responsible for allowing Bradford & Bingley to give away 125% mortgages? Who was responsible for removing regulations in the banking industry in the late 1990s and thus allowing banks to lend people money in ways that they did not understand and when the payments could not be afforded?

[Diana R. Johnson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members vociferously argued in the House year after year that there should be less regulation of the financial markets. They criticised the Labour Chancellor and Government for the regulations that they introduced. The hon. Gentleman has a rather selective memory of his party’s position in the late 1990s.

I fear that Yorkshire and the Humber will bear the brunt of the majority of cuts that come out of the Budget. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is in the Chamber. She has been a powerful advocate for her city of Sheffield and wanted to ensure that the sensible arrangements that the Labour Government put in place for Sheffield Forgemasters went ahead. It is shocking that the coalition Government have refused to continue the process. Sheffield Members are making a strong case for the assistance, so it is a shame that the Deputy Prime Minister is out of step with his city colleagues.